No Text Is Sacred

by Megan Schliesman

Part I: Context Matters

Let me be perfectly clear from the outset: I think the principles of intellectual freedom we hold as rightfully essential in our work as librarians and teachers are sacred, but no individual book can be considered in light of those principles abstractly. Context matters.

I say all this as someone who spends a fair amount of her job thinking about intellectual freedom and censorship, speaking about them, and considering what it means when books are challenged.

And when books are challenged (and before that, when chosen for inclusion in a library or classroom), context is everything.

In a perfect world, every book challenge and potential censorship situation would have an outcome that sees the title in question remain on the shelf or in the classroom. But that would not only require every individual with decision-making authority to fully understand and embrace the principles of intellectual freedom, it would require that we, librarians and teachers, never make a mistake.

And sometimes we do.

We are human, and fallible, and regretful things happen for many and varied reasons. The solidly middle or high school novel ends up in an understaffed K-5 library with no library media specialist and a part-time aide. The outdated novel considered racist by many is still being taught in a fourth grade classroom by a teacher who is unaware of, or doesn’t care about, the criticism.

Are these typical of most book challenges? No. But let’s not ignore the fact that these kinds of situations happen.  And let’s not forget the fact that every book challenge, every attempt at censorship in a  school or public library or classroom, is about a specific book or books in a specific context. That is how they occur, and that is how they are, or should be, handled.

No book belongs in a library collection or classroom on principle, it belongs because of what it specifically has to offer, something hopefully guided by selection criteria and guidelines in policies and procedures that affirm intellectual freedom and the need to build collections responsive to the needs (not just assumptions about the needs) of the specific communities they serve.

Part II: In Defense of What?

I found the news that Scholastic has pulled the picture book A Birthday Cake for George Washington,  having reconsidered the book in light of criticism and recent discussions about the depiction of African American enslavement in general, and the story it tells in particular, shocking. But not, perhaps, for the reasons one might think.  

I found it shocking because it was so unexpected. Not because I thought it was wrong.  I don’t know that I can label this decision right or wrong.   

But I do know this: Publishing is a business, and in that, it is, like it or not, different from the world of libraries and public education. The same rules do not apply when it comes to the principles of intellectual freedom.

I’ve read concern and dismay at the censorship implications of Scholastic pulling the book.

Do I think this sets a dangerous precedent? Will the next book to be recalled by a publisher be a picture book about a transgender child or a girl with two dads or a Muslim family coming to America?

I honestly don’t think so.  

This has happened to a specific book for a specific reason. Again, context matters. The specifics matter. Sure, there might be hue and cry about another book. And it might be hue and cry that is from cultural insiders who are critical of its portrayal of their experience. That’s important to listen to (and important to get insight into before a book is ever published). But I don’t think Scholastic or any publisher is going to pull a book based on general disagreement or disregard for its content.

And then there is this: There is and always has been censorship in publishing. It is part of the gatekeeping role, like it or not. Decisions about what does and does not get published are made every single day. And yes, I’m saying this with some judgment, because part of the reason RWW exists as an ally for diversity is that for far too long too many of those decisions have  minimized the need for greater and more authentic diversity in children’s and young adult literature.

Truthfully, I am far more concerned about the voices I’m not seeing at all than Scholastic’s decision to pull this specific book for the specific reasons cited.

But I also say that there is censorship in publishing with some understanding: they cannot publish everything (nor would we want them to).

So really, what is shocking to me about the decision to pull A Birthday Cake for George Washington, a book that I have no doubt was created with good intentions on the part of everyone involved, is that it seems so counter to the typical corporate, business-based decision in publishing. The book had already been printed. It was available for purchase. Being reviewed in journals and online, for better and for worse.  Why pull it? Because let’s face it, the book probably would continue to sell. Check out the screen shot below 1/18/2016--Martin Luther King , Jr. Day:

Instead, the decision felt like a human one. One that acknowledged the capacity we all have to be fallible. To say we have listened and learned.

I hope that is the case, but I'm aware that could be my wishful White thinking. It might have been a business decision, pure and simple, that calculated the financial cost and deemed it acceptable to avoid more negative publicity. It might have been a decision that wouldn't have been made were the creators well-established White people rather than people of color. 

In the meantime, we can ask questions about this and about other books and what went into creating them. I think we should. But let’s also acknowledge that change is a process, a journey. There is no perfect end, just the work of moving forward, which can be messy and murky and painful even as we try to keep hope for the direction we're heading high.