Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
Date: 10/17/2023
LEVERETT — Librarians, in the business of keeping books accessible, are sensitive about banning them. Hannah Paessel and Jodi Levine, library directors in Leverett and Pelham, agree that provocative books shouldn’t be banned. They should be in every collection.
“Every library should have something that offends someone,” Paessel said.
Levine doesn’t see careful thought behind book bans.
“The challenges come from the same handful of people. They don’t read the books, but they get all excited because of something they read on the internet,” Levine said.
Banning books is uncommon in progressive Massachusetts, but a recent incident in Ludlow of a formal challenge raised the hackles of two state legislators. Sen. Jake Oliveira, representing Ludlow, and Rep. Aaron Saunders, from Belchertown, introduced bills on Beacon Hill that would make it fiscally prohibitive for local school committees and library trustees to ban books.
The mechanism behind S.2447, the legislation put forth in the state Senate, works by requiring libraries to adhere to the American Library Association, or ALA, Library Bill of Rights. The ALA policy includes language that condemns book banning “because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.” Under the legislation, libraries that do not adopt the Bill of Rights will lose state and federal grants and support, which significantly augment local funding.
Levine introduced the topic of book banning to Pelham’s library trustees after receiving a letter from Montague prompting the trustees to co-sponsor S.2447, “An Act protecting against attempts to ban, remove, or restrict library access to materials.” The letter contended that most of the book bans attempt to get rid of materials about LGBTQ+ topics and literature about minorities.
According to the letter, state governments in Montana, Missouri and Texas are severing ties with the ALA. The letter claims Oliviera and Saunders were prompted to file legislation because of the Ludlow incident, a formal request to ban several books from school libraries there. Confirming Levine’s opinion, the letter concluded, “The sponsor admitted the proposal [to ban the books] had been copied directly off the internet.”
Liberal states recently enacted or introduced legislation similar to the bills of Oliveira and Saunders. Illinois became the first state to outlaw book banning in public libraries and schools. New Jersey has a bill under consideration. Those bills also require libraries to adopt the ALA Library Bill of Rights as a requisite for state funding.
In discussing book bans with her trustees last week, Paessel clarified that patrons may take exception to a book, but a specific form must be filled out and submitted before a concern becomes an official “challenge.” The form then leads to formal consideration of a ban by trustees and library staff. Both librarians suggested that a patron’s personal preferences shouldn’t sway the process because libraries serve everyone, not just specific people.
“While I firmly believe every parent has the right to decide what’s right for their child, they don’t have the right to decide what’s right for other people’s children,” Levine said. “We’re not taking [a book] off the shelf just because one parent or another disagrees with it. That would become a very, very slippery slope.”
Levine faces a different set of challenges than Paessel, who oversees a strictly municipal library. Pelham’s town library also serves as the school library. Discussions with trustees revealed that most school libraries do not have teen and adult sections, while Pelham’s library does serve the full age range.
During school hours, three days a week, Pelham’s students are kept away from the sections for more mature readers. Some parents, Levine said, later visit and allow their children to browse those books, choose to expose their children to controversial topics. When a book ban is requested, Levine may find the reasons are misguided.
“The Diary of Anne Frank,” Levine said, is a classic example of a book that excites misguided objections. The classic coming of age tale about a young Jewish girl who hides from the Nazis during World War II is a perennial target for book bans. The reason for seeking a ban often misses the point of the book, Levine said, or objects to a minor element.
“It has been challenged multiple times, nationwide, not because it was a Jewish child who was killed by the Nazis,” Levine said. “It was [challenged] because it was about a young girl who fantasizes about being involved with a boy romantically. That’s the part they objected to.”
Discussion among the Leverett trustees quickly struck to the heart of the matter: concerns about morals and values and social trends. Chair of the Friends of the Leverett Library Leslie Fisette said, “A big part of it comes from fear, right?”
Lisa Sullivan-Werner, chair of the Leverett Library Trustees, and Trustee Rachel Flint agreed.
“I think so,” Flint said. “Words are dangerous. Ideas are dangerous.”
Trustee Judith Davidov introduced the topic among the trustees in Leverett and was tasked with writing a letter in support of bill S.2447. The trustees in both towns were also interested in other methods for opposing book bans and maintaining access to literature, which should be controversial, or becomes controversial as social standards change.
“If you were to remove every book from the 1800s with racial stereotypes you would have very few classics left,” Levine said. “It is a good opportunity for a conversation about times and places, and about how things have changed, and how we are glad things have changed.”