Times Editorial : Back to the books II
Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005
related stories
Fayetteville School Library Book debate
Fayetteville resident Laurie Taylor has made a proposal to place certain Fayetteville Public School library books she considers to be inappropriate for students on a restricted access shelf. Fayetteville School District patrons received a chance to voice their opinions on whether to restrict student access to certain school library books at a special town hall meeting. The Fayetteville School board eventually decided by a narrow margin not to restrict access to certain books. The stories below cover the issue from its beginings through the decision by the school board and the aftermath.
- School board spends much of 2005 debating books (01-01-2006)
- Taylor becomes public figure with war against books (01-01-2006)
- Times Editorial : A good sign (10-06-2005)
- Taylor joins UA debate team for discussion of library books (10-06-2005)
- School committee says ‘crude’ book to stay in FHS library (10-05-2005)
- UA debate team addressing school’s recent book issue (10-05-2005)
- Books wonít be restricted (09-16-2005)
- · Times Editorial : Back to the books II (09-15-2005)
- The great book debate (09-14-2005)
- Times Editorial : Back to the books (09-13-2005)
Correction
Erin Brothers, Fayetteville High School student and president of the FHS Literacy League, was misidentified in this story in the print edition.
Fayetteville School District patrons can be proud of what happened Tuesday night in one respect: At a public forum called to discuss the district's policies regarding library book selection and access, most of the 300 people treated each other with respect. Perhaps that shouldn't be surprising in Fayetteville, but with the raw emotions involved, it's easy to anticipate trouble. But it was clear that opposing sides in the Great Book Debate of 2005 were talking past, rather than with, each other. Many wore buttons urging "Don't ban the books,"yet nobody has advocated that. Laurie Taylor, who started this debate, reminded the largely opposing audience she only seeks a mechanism through which she can place limits on which books are accessible by her children, not anyone else's. It's difficult to understand the fierce reaction to a parent who actually wants to exercise some control over the books to which her child has access (gasp!) and expects the school district to help her do so.
One point was plainly lost on the folks who have decided that censorship - that fightin' mad word - is the battle cry: The folks who seek changes are saying "This is not about keeping a book away from your child; it's about keeping a book I view as objectionable away from my child."
Words like "censorship"and "ban"achieve one purpose, and that's to drive this debate to the precipice, where people who use such terminology can proclaim that moving one inch toward common ground will destroy everything Fayetteville schools and the community represent. It establishes a Hobson's choice: Either side with us, or you'll be un-American, unenlightened and an enemy of freedom.
One influence strongly felt at Tuesday's event was that of the University of Arkansas, not the institution itself, but the people it thankfully draws to this community. Several - including the university's provost, Bob Smith - spoke against any limitations. Their comments bespoke of the almost religious fervor with which they regard academic and intellectual freedom, as they should. But even these speakers, we would hope, would recognize that the full freedom they witness on the university campus is not the same level that is or should be applied to, say, elementary students. While UA architecture department head Tim DeNoble passionately says he finds "censorship in any form"offensive, we presume he would be offended if anyone donated a collection of Playboy magazines to Holcomb Elementary's library. Would rejecting such a donation be censorship or an affront to intellectual freedom? No, it would be common sense for those grade levels.
Laurie Taylor went too far. Her collection of titles contains works that, taken as a whole, would hardly be considered pornographic or obscene. By targeting books at the high school level, she shifted the debate away from the young children that need more protection.
So much of Tuesday's rhetoric was focused on protecting the freedoms of older students to read books freely, it might be easy to overlook a clear need to split the discussion in two - one approach for the more mature students of the district, for whom the district must recognize some level of added freedom to make their own choices, and one approach for elementary and middle school students, who need strong guidance from parents.
When parents drop their children off at school, they do not abdicate their parenting responsibilities, nor should any policies of the school district require them to do that. Parents have the ultimate responsibility to guide their children's development on all levels. That includes instilling in them their own level of responsibility for deciding what they will read. But parents need the school district's assistance as they help their children develop those skills.
There is a world of difference between the protections our school district needs in place for elementary and middle school children and those necessary (or perhaps totally unnecessary) for junior high and high school children. Our school board would do this community a favor by seeking an answer that recognizes this. Parental involvement in the decisions by and influences on younger children demand a heightened standard at the elementary school level and probably middle school. The school district should not try a one-size-fits-all-grades approach, as that will clearly serve none of them well.
FEEDBACK:
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online