NCAC Protests Cancellation of Ellen Hopkins Appearance at Teen Lit Fest in Texas

An invitation to young adult novelist Ellen Hopkins to speak about her experiences as a writer was rescinded by the Superintendent of the Humble (Texas) Independent School District after some parents complained about the content of her books. NCAC coordinated a letter of protest with five other national organizations.

After Hopkins was disinvited to Teen Lit Fest 2011, five other authors dropped out – including Brian Meehl, who was “yanked” by one of his own characters – in protest rather than participate in an event that had censored another author. Sadly for the students of the area, the program has been canceled. Some might blame the authors who withdrew, but we think full responsibility rests on the school officials who made the decision to censor Hopkins.

The following is an excerpt from the letter:

We can conceive of no legitimate pedagogical rationale that could be advanced for excluding Ms. Hopkins. The invitation was withdrawn peremptorily, with no consultation or opportunity for different opinions to be expressed. The judgments of the professional educators and librarians who organized the event were simply ignored, but plainly they selected Ms. Hopkins because they believe that students would benefit from hearing her speak. …

The Artist Received an Apology

The Executive Director of the Springfield Business Improvement District (SBID) in Massachusetts has issued a formal apology for painting over the underside of a resident artists’ artwork. Robert Markey was asked to paint a “sneaker” for the “Art and Soles” project – giant sneakers covered the town in hopes to illustrate “what makes Springfield great.”  He painted his “sneaker” with dancers of all kinds; the sole of the shoe depicted a non-nude pole dancer. When it was installed, leaders of the organization painted over the pole dancer with black paint without contacting Mr. Markey in advance because, according to Springfield Arts Initiative’s Gina Beavers, “there just wasn’t time.”

Mr. Markey released the following statement about the incident:

I was told that the pole dancer painted on the bottom did not answer the question “what makes Springfield great?” If you look at the other sneakers, this is a bit absurd. Elephants make Springfield great? Spider webs make Springfield great? Gina herself told me a few weeks ago that many of the designs were not specifically about Springfield .

My sneaker was defaced because the pole dancer referred to strip clubs which Gina feels are a blight on Springfield. Actually for many, it is the strip clubs (which add quite a few dollars to the Springfield economy), that attracts them to Springfield. Are the patrons of these clubs not to be included in our public art audience?

…  A public art painting of a pole dancer honors these women as the paintings of the other dancers honor them.  The painting was not meant to be political, but in Springfield there is a class action lawsuit brought by the exotic dancers in the strip clubs against the owners who have been treating them unfairly for years. Is there a problem honoring these women? If they win their lawsuit, perhaps it will be a precedent for similar lawsuits in other cities and states. That would indeed be a thing that makes Springfield great.

There is a movement to bring more art into Springfield. To begin that process by destroying, defacing or censoring an artist’s work is outrageous. If a work of art is indeed controversial, then use it to discuss and understand the issue. …

SBID’s Executive Director Donald A. Courtemanche admitted the organization had made a mistake, noting,

It’s a fair question to ask how a group of people who believe in the power of art and in the importance of art to the revitalization of Springfield could make such an error.

UPDATE: Since the incident, Courtemanche has promised to bring all the invited artists together to discuss what happened, inspiring a community discussion. “I feel that a lot of communication took place and the result hopefully will be a better understanding of the whole issue,” Markey tells NCAC. “So I think the sneaker turned out to be a much more profound work of art than I had planned.”

PEN American Center issues statement in support of Park51 Community Center

PEN American Center, a member of NCAC’s coalition, released a statement in support of the proposed Park51 Community Center project, calling First Amendment freedoms “the birthright of all and our best defense.” NCAC is grateful to PEN for expressing thoughts we share about this fear-based controversy.

The statement reads:

As members of the American literary community who believe in the universality of human experience and human rights,

As proud citizens and residents of a country that recognizes the free exercise of religion as a fundamental benchmark of freedom of thought and expression,

And as PEN members pledged to oppose any form of suppression of freedom of expression in our community and country, as in the world elsewhere,

We stand with Mayor Michael Bloomberg, with religious leaders of all faiths, with political leaders of both major parties, and with all our friends and neighbors who support and celebrate the freedom to construct the Park51 Islamic Community Center on its city-approved site in lower Manhattan.

We oppose all efforts to circumscribe this freedom; we deplore the rhetoric of suspicion that seeks to deny our common humanity and shared aspirations; and we emphatically reject the tyranny of fear.

None of this is to deny the anguish of those who lost family and friends in the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, nor is it to diminish the trauma we experienced and still clearly share.

Nevertheless, we are sure no lasting comfort or peace can come from abridging the rights of others or yielding to distrust and fear.

We have faith that the freedoms enumerated in our Bill of Rights are both the birthright of all and our best defense.

We invite everyone to join with us in reaffirming those freedoms and the power of civil discourse as the true vehicle for healing.

Kwame Anthony Appiah, President
for the Board of PEN American Center

Appiah said the organization was moved to speak out by the increasingly rancorous tenor of the debate. “Today, when the world’s divides are as much religious as national, we know the need for conversation across our differences is as urgent as ever.”

Book retained in Oklahoma because “we have to”

The word “fuck” has caused quite a stir in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Its appearance – 45 times, according to parent and avid swear-word-counter, Kelli Smith – in young adult novel Shooting Star by Fredrick McKissack Jr. is reason enough for one parent to remove the book from school district libraries. Grudgingly, the Broken Arrow Board of Education will keep the book on the shelves.

I do feel like we’re at a point where it’s almost what we have to decide versus what we want to decide,

says Board member Jerry Denton [emphasis added].

Yes, Jerry, there is such thing as a First Amendment.

Shooting Star is about a high school football player who starts using steroids to enhance his performance on the field, which ultimately leads to negative consequences in his life. The book was the recipient of the CCBC Choices award (Cooperative Children’s Book Council) and Kirkus Best Young Adult Book.

Smith thinks the school library shouldn’t contain books with language that kids aren’t allowed to use in class. If that were the rule, the library shelves would be pretty empty. Perennial favorites by Katherine Paterson, Robert Cormier, Lois Duncan, and Judy Blume would disappear, along with classic literature by William Faulkner, Toni Morrison, John Steinbeck, and Kurt Vonnegut.

No one has to read a book because it’s in the library. Parents can set the rules for their own kids – but they can’t make the rules for everyone else’s kids too.

[HT: The Clyde Fitch Report]

Secrecy vs transparency in the struggle over gay rights

The battle over same-sex marriage has taken many twists and turns.  One of the more unusual cases pitted the privacy rights of those who signed a petition to repeal a Washington law on domestic partnerships against supporters of the law who claimed the public records law required disclosure of the names of the petition signers. Both claimed the First Amendment was on their side. The petition signers argued that disclosure of their names would subject them to harassment and intimidation.  Their opponents argued that disclosure would guard against the possibility of fraud.

In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of disclosure, although added that evidence of actual threats of violence and harassment might result in a different the decision.  Sure enough, the case is back in court on that issue, and the names have still not been disclosed.

Update: the law the petition sought to repeal was upheld by the voters, so now the case is about disclosing the names of people who signed a petition for a referendum that failed.  It seems unlikely that disclosure of their names now would subject them to threats or intimidation, even if it might have previously.  If that threat no longer exists, it’s hard to say why the names should be kept secret.  Fear of criticism or embarrassment isn’t a sufficient reason.

Mermaid Sculpture Covered with Bikini Top in UK

In the latest case of a nude sculpture causing a stir…

Managers at Chessingtons Sea Life centre have covered up a topless mermaid sculpture. Justine Locker, Chessingtons Zoo Experience Manager, said: “Young boys, and not so young boys, spending a lot of time ogling her in the walkthrough ocean tunnel”

(Courtesy of the Telegraph.)