Judy Blume presents Laurie Halse Anderson with her Free Speech Defender award! We all honored Laurie for continuing to write awesome, challenging books for kids of all ages.

Publisher Jane Friedman and Kaylie Jones! This year, Kaylie released an uncensored version of the classic From Here To Eternity, written by her father James Jones.

And Free Speech Defender Paul M. Smith, who mightily battled for video games as protected speech before the Supreme Court on the California ban case — whose award is being presented by NCAC Executive Director Joan Bertin!

Check out the whole gang: Event Chair Don Weisberg (Penguin Young Readers Group — thanks to Don and everyone at Penguin!), Judy, Paul, Laurie, Jane, Kaylie and Joan!

(Photos by James Patrick Cooper)

Here, a participant in the Occupy Wall Street movement talks about the judge’s restraining order stating protestors must be allowed entrance to Zuccotti Park (pending a hearing), and the NYPD’s non-compliance:

Activists sing “We Shall Not Be Moved” while linking arms around the park:

Demonstrators took to using the “human microphone” call-and-response to read aloud the text of the temporary restraining order granting them access to Zuccotti Park, as the NYPD stood by in silence:

In fact, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian placed second on the Christian Science Monitor’s2010 list of the most frequently-challenged books.

But recently, a storm that had brewed around Alexie’s book in Mattapoisett, Massachusetts came to a conclusion. At Old Rochester Regional Junior High school, a parent complained that the work was not appropriate for eighth-graders. When the book was initially challenged, the Powers That Be were tempted to simply pull the book to avoid conflict, stating that a proper policy for reconsideration did not exist in the school district. One resourceful librarian, however, located the policy in the district’s manual and presented it to the superintendent.

In a faith-restoring move, the school board agreed to keep the book in the eighth-grade curriculum, with the condition that an “opt-out” book (in this case Kira-Kira by Cynthia Kadohata, which deals with similar themes) be offered to students whose parents felt uncomfortable with Part Time Indian.

It’s important to note the way this was handled. Making an opt-out book available as a compromise is one of NCAC’s long-standing recommended practices for educators facing book challenges. Schools should respect the right of parents to determine what material is appropriate for their own children, but no parent is entitled to override a teachers’ professional judgment and play “content cop” for every child in the community.

The opt-out compromise, and the overall meeting itself, was described as “a polite give and take,” which is far better than many of the horror stories of late surrounding challenged books. We also appreciate that the school board and all concerned parties made sure to actually READ the book before making a decision. One can hope that future incidents will be handled with such diplomacy!

So, without further ado,

Congratulations to Sherman Alexie and Old Rochester Regional Junior High!

References:

Tri-state newspaper article on the Mattapoisett incident

South Coast Today article

Christian Science Monitor article

Previously, on NCAC…

The reason: the proximity of the town to the 9/11 attacks: “Flight 93 flew right over our heads.” A fact which apparently has made local citizens extra sensitive to Muslim characters. Sensitive to the extent that the story of a wily beggar-poet, his  beautiful daughter and the handsome caliph who falls in love with her in ancient Baghdad is banned just because of religious associations.

What can we say about the culture and society that would ban Scheherazade and her stories from production just because they are set in an Islamic country? And what has happened to the principles of tolerance and diversity? Perhaps, in flying over Western Pennsylvania, Flight 93 dropped a Taliban virus that affected the brains of some of its citizens? I have no other explanation for the absurd and racist decision to “protect” the sensitivities of local people by suppressing any mention of Muslims.

.

Called the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights, the law was adopted in the aftermath of the suicide of a Rutgers University student and the subsequent focus on teen suicide, especially among LGBT students, who are frequently subject to bullying.

The law requires schools and colleges to adopt procedures that would potentially subject every moment of school life to closely monitoring for anything that could be interpreted by someone as “harassment, intimidation or bullying.”  The key provisions prohibit:

▪ any verbal or physical communication, including a single incident

▪ that is reasonably perceived as being motivated either by an actual or perceived characteristic, such as race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or a mental, physical or sensory disability, or by any other distinguishing characteristic

▪ that takes place on school property, at a school-sponsored event, on a school bus, or off school grounds

▪ if it may cause substantial disruption of school activities or interfere with the rights of other students, or have the effect of insulting or demeaning any student or group of students or creating a hostile educational environment.

The law is likely to penalize speech that is protected by the First Amendment. Students, for instance, routinely use racially charged language, and even call each other by words that in another context might be construed as a “racial slurs.”  Some students might consider this evidence of a “racially hostile environment,” but many would see it as an idiom widely accepted in certain situations.  It is also common, and even normal, for teenagers to joke about sex, to share stories and images, and to report rumors.  Some may find this offensive, hurtful, and objectionable, but that does not mean the expression loses First Amendment protection, or that the behavior amounts to bullying or harassment.  As the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held in a similar situation,

“There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First Amendment’s free speech clause.  Moreover, the … policy prohibits a substantial amount of speech that would not constitute actionable harassment under either federal or state law.”

The expansive and vague language of the law can be easily abused and will invite harassment complaints to address all kinds of conflicts among students.   As Westfield superintendent Margaret Dolan cautioned

“an unintended consequence of the new law could be that students, or their parents, will find it easier to label minor squabbles bullying than to find ways to work out their differences.” 

Compounding the problem is the fact that complaints will be referred to law enforcement, making it highly likely that even a frivolous claim could have devastating and unwarranted consequences.

NCAC strongly supports efforts to prevent bullying and to provide services and resources to the victims, but the New Jersey law, while it does include educational initiatives, is so skewed towards punishment that, like earlier punitive “zero tolerance” policies, it will likely do more harm than good.

Read more about bullying and responses to it here: http://ncac.org/Cyberbullying-Introduction

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Study in Scarlet was banned from a Virginia school district for its depiction of Mormons. Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five is one of two books banned in Republic, MO. after a parent complained about material incompatible with the Bible.

And now Monroe Township Schools in New Jersey have decided to pull Haruki Murakami‘s Norwegian Wood and Nic Sheff‘s Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines from a summer reading list after a few parents complained about instances of sexual content. The school district went even farther: it apologized for ever including the books.

But was the selection a mistake?

Murakami has been placed “among the world’s greatest living novelists” and is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Franz Kafka Prize and Jerusalem Prize. Norwegian Wood, a novel about growing up, hugely popular with Japanese youth, was the book that made Murakami somewhat of a superstar in his native country.

Nic Sheff’s Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines is the story of the author’s struggle with drugs. It is a harrowing first person narrative that is likely to teach more about the dangers of drugs than any amount of abstract lecturing. Here is a review from a 13 year old just as it was posted (typos and all):

“all i can say is nic sheff is amazing he is inspiring the book is negitive at one point but gets very positive; he finds himself withought being high and its great it really is an eyeopener and it does kinda scare me; i will never do meth; and reading this book is one of the reasons.. [: GREAT!”

And another from a 14-year old:

“People say this book shouldn’t be read by young teens but people should also see how kids can learn from this. this kids i go to high school now are like Nic and are going down his road. Reading this could make a big impact on their lives.”

(Both reviews were posted on the site of Common Sense Media whose approach to book ratings we have condemned, but whose publication of kids’ reviews offer great insight into how kids themselves see the books adults sometimes fear.)

The selection of both Norwegian Wood and Tweak books as engaging – and educationally sound – summer reading was clearly justified. And so one would expect, given that the books had been placed on the list by a committee of area teachers, librarians, and school administrators and approved by the board of education.

When deciding to remove the books, superintendent Chuck Earling said students see more graphic things on television or in the movies and that only about a dozen people had actually complained.

So why did he not stand behind the professional committee’s selection?

According to Mr Earling: “There were some words and language that seemed to be inappropriate as far as the parents and some of the kids were concerned.”

A few words out of context, a few parental complaints and — bang, the considered selection of a professional committee is overruled? Is that how educational decisions are to be made?  Shame on Monroe Townships School district for lacking the backbone to stand up for the decisions of its selection committee and shame on them for trampling over young people’s need to read fiction that engages with their real-life concerns, fiction that lets them explore and imagine, fiction that helps them make choices and negotiate the difficult process of growing up.

Parents will continue launching complaints, that is for sure. But school districts should take seriously their main responsibility: to educate kids and prepare them for adulthood. Whenever a complaint is made it should be considered by the same committee, which made the initial selection: that committee should then respond to the complainer explaining why a book was chosen. Unless a book was selected based upon unsound educational criteria, it should never be removed just because a few parents object: those parents can always ask for an alternative assignment for their own kids, they have no right to restrict the reading choices of every student in the whole district.

And Tango Makes Three is a true story about the two male penguins, Roy and Silo, at the Central Park Zoo. These two penguins acted like a couple so the zookeeper gave them an egg to raise. Many might be surprised to know that the book topped the American Library Association’s (ALA) list of most-challenged books from 2006 to 2010, and it continues to draw opposition across the United States. The book was first challenged in Missouri, when several parents asked two public libraries to remove it. Complaints have also surfaced in Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and North Carolina.

The source of controversy surrounding the book is that some readers have distorted this story of an alternative family to be about encouraging homosexuality. The two most cited lines in support of this argument are the comment by the zookeeper that “They [Roy and Silo] must be in love,” and one section mentioned, when describing Roy and Silo’s activities, that states that “(t)hey slept together”.

While And Tango Makes Three could be used to introduce children to LBGTQ issues, another potential lesson is one of tolerance. Banning the book in a particular community could potentially lead to alienating homosexual individuals and couples, and possibly children. The book conveys to children the importance of strong family bonds. That Roy and Silo both were male penguins did not deprive them of the ties necessary to raise and care for their child.

In light of ALA’s Banned Books Week (coming up this fall from September 24-October 1)  we decided to gage public opinion about And Tango Makes Three through a short survey.  Of the 59 people that we surveyed online and at New York City’s South Street Seaport, 86% felt comfortable with this book being available to children.  The second question in our survey asked how surprised people were that a book of this nature was the most controversial book in the country. The plurality (44%) of respondents was surprised by that fact. However, while the large variety of responses conveyed that people understood why the book would cause controversy, they were surprised that it was the most challenged book in the country.

Recently, the school board of Republic High School in Missouri voted to remove Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 and Sarah Ockler’s Twenty Boy Summer from the school curriculum and the school’s library. As Banned Books Week approaches, it is important to remember the benefit books contribute both within schools and as a leisure activity.

Thanks to everyone that participated in our survey and make sure to check back for more information as Banned Books Week approaches this fall!