America in the book ban madness

Cancel Culture. In some US states, books have recently ended up on prohibited lists at the instigation of right-wing populist politicians.

According to PEN America, from July 2021 to June 2022, 1,648 books were banned in public schools nationwide. That number is expected to increase as conservative politicians and organizations step up efforts to censor works that address sexual and ethnic identity.

Republican-governed states like Florida and Utah have recently cracked down on school libraries, banning titles that deal with issues of race, sexuality and gender, such as Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer: A Memoir. Schools in parts of Florida have been ordered to restrict access to books on ethnicity and diversity, and warned that teachers who pass “obscene and pornographic material” to students face up to five years in prison. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster called Kobabe’s award-winning book “obscene and pornographic material.”

The current book bans are being driven largely by right-wing populist politics and parent groups who claim they are protecting wholesome, family-oriented Christian communities from the decadence of urban America. Thus, a children’s book featuring LGBTQ+ characters falls within their definition of pornography.

Florida’s governor and possible next US president, Ron DeSantis, is the leading advocate of state censorship and modern book bans. He and his fellow campaigners just introduced a new bill in Parliament that would ban universities and colleges from sponsoring student activities that advocate “diversity, equality, inclusion or the critical race theory.” The bill aims to eliminate critical race theory, gender studies, and “majors and minors derived from these belief systems” from academic curricula.

prejudices from the left

Although calls for book bans are heard less often from left-wing progressives, she also shows intolerance towards literature she finds offensive. Classics like Harper Lee’s To Bother the Nightingale and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have been removed from the reading list in some schools because they contain racist language and could “segregate” certain readers.

Of course, the right’s rigorous crackdown on academic freedom is more dangerous than the left’s literary allergies. What is interesting, however, is how many similarities there are between left-wing and right-wing intolerance. Right-wing populists like DeSantis tend to mimic progressive rhetoric about “inclusiveness” and “sensitivity” in the classroom. White students, they argue, need to be shielded from subjects such as slavery or the role of white supremacy in American history that might disturb them and make them feel guilty.

Left and right intolerance

The same logic is followed by progressives calling for an end to Huckleberry Finn in the classroom or for words like “fat” to be removed from Roald Dahl’s children’s books. Leftists also don’t want their children to feel offended or “unwelcome.” Their idea of ​​education is similar to therapy: the purpose is to help children feel good about themselves, rather than teaching them how to absorb information and learn to think for themselves.

The right’s imitation of the jargon of the left can be understood as a form of malicious revenge. The driving force behind conservative puritanism in the US has always been fundamentalism, not integration. However, religious dogmatism is closely related to the fear of being offended. An example of this is the controversy following the publication of Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” in 1988. Alongside Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s fatwa, Christian conservatives denounced Rushdie for mockery of religion. And some on the left – who belonged to no religion at all – still criticized Rushdie for offending millions of Muslims.

Christian Puritans reject books on homosexual subjects not only because the Bible forbids homosexuality but also (and perhaps primarily) because these works violate what they believe to be the structure of the natural order. This is no different from the stance of the thousands of people who recently signed a letter protesting the New York Times’ coverage of transgender issues. They were annoyed that some articles assumed that the question of gender was not scientifically resolved. A post by columnist Pamela Paul, in which she defended JK Rowling, caused particular excitement. Rowling doesn’t hate people who have undergone gender-to-sex change, but neither does she believe that being a woman or a man is simply a matter of personal choice.

Progressives who call for Rowling’s Harry Potter books to be banned generally do so for non-religious reasons. In this case, too, they speak of workplaces where one is not welcome, of exclusion, of a lack of sensitivity. Nevertheless, they are often just as dogmatic as believers. They are convinced that a person born with male genitals is a woman when he/she says so. To challenge that belief, as Rowling does, goes against her view of nature.

Unlike far-right parties, including today’s Republican Party, left-of-centre politicians generally do not call for state-mandated statutory bans. But some progressive rhetoric does play into the hands of the populist right.

The left will not win

In the absence of a coherent economic program, the GOP has turned its attention entirely to the culture wars in the United States. With appeals from religious and social conservatives resonating more with the electorate than dogmatic positions on ethnic and sexual identities, the left is unlikely to win this war. Democrats and other progressive parties in the western world would do well to focus less on hurt feelings and more on the economic and political interests of their constituents.

Translated from the English by Helga Klinger-Groier
© Project Syndicate 1995–2023

E-Mails an:debatte@diepresse.com

(“Die Presse”, print edition, March 10, 2023)