In response to the American Library Association’s commemoration of Banned Books Week, Focus on the Family is encouraging antigay and antiabortion activists to overwhelm public libraries with stacks of donated conservative books.
Focus complains that the ALA’s campaign in defense of free speech and access to ideas “showcases books to which parents have objected ‚Äî and which libraries have generally not pulled from shelves.”
“Every year, the ALA and other liberal groups use this trumped-up event to intimidate and basically silence concerned parents,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action.
Cushman defends “silenced” parents’ efforts to ban such “liberal” books as:
1. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald
2. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
3. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
5. The Color Purple by Alice Walker
6. Ulysses by James Joyce
7. Beloved by Toni Morrison
8. The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
9. 1984 by George Orwell
But those efforts have stalled, so Focus tries to buy time:
Cushman said it’s time for families to turn the tables and challenge the ALA to honor its own principles.
“You can do this most effectively by simply going to your local public library, or a school library,” she said, “and donating books that communicate your family’s perspective on those issues.”
While Focus continues its low-key campaign to ban American literature, meantime our nation’s libraries can look forward to receiving hordes of freshly bound, barely read copies of classic works by the greats: Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Beck, Randall Terry, and John Paulk.
I find it hilarious that Focus on the Family, which is already a crazy, right-wing pack of dogs, is targeting classic books. They say that they don’t want ‘government interference,’ but they’re more than willing to tell people how to live, who to vote for, what they can/can’t do with their bodies and what they should read. Sounds like the Fourth Reich to me…
As a conservative I find this utterly appalling. Of the 9 books listed above I have read 7 and 3 of them are on my favorites list.
Why ban Orwell? The author can’t compete with Focus on the Family for producing Orwellian works of literature.
What conservative titles are on Focus’ list? No doubt they are already on the shelves of many libraries. Libraries usually carry a sampling of all kinds of books, whatever they have room for…including books by Limbaugh and Coulter and all the rest. Focus is probably going merely for the disruption such a flood of donations might cause…similar in some ways to when conservative types drop tons of manure along gay pride parade routes. Real mature, folks. Let them keep it up, Americans will eventually realize they are motivated by hate and fear, and nothing else.
I too would like to know the reasons behind “1984″ being banned. There is sex in it, though it is hetero sex, if I recall correctly. Also I remember a part where a fellow prisoner uses the common commode in a crowded cell and its flush mechanism did not work and the cell stank of feces. Maybe this is what inspired the banning. People who ban books are often unworldy and childlike, motivated to ban anything that might seem ‘icky’ to them…like SEX obviously, defecation maybe less obviously. Could they have banned 1984 because it doesn’t cast authoritarianism in a nice light? Religion is authoritarian after all, these Focus types are constantly harping on the importance of religion…
Focus offers no list — it simply defends parents that seek to ban books. Focus unconditionally accuses free-speech advocates of seeking to “silence” the book-banners, and Focus offers no objection whatsoever to book-banning.
The list above is from the ALA’s Banned Books Week, which Focus ridicules as a liberal ploy to silence Christian Rightists.
Of course, it’s actually the Christian Rightists who are seeking to silence free speech and freedom of information for individuals, families, and communities — and Focus agrees with them.
The title of this post is “Focus on the Family Favors Banning Classic Books,” but the text says FOTF is seeking to get people to donate books, not to “ban” any. That’s the exact opposite. Only the conclusory statement without support about how “Focus continues its low-key campaign to ban American literature” says anything about “favoring banning classic books.”
Would someone please specify the “low-key campaign to ban American literature”? Since no books have been banned for about half a century, it must be really, really, really low key.
All I see so far is an effort to add books, and I do not see anything wrong with suggesting books be added. Libraries have policies for such things, after all.
Remember, as one former ALA Councilor said, “It also highlights the thing we know about Banned Books Week that we don’t talk about much ‚Äî the bulk of these books are challenged by parents for being age-inappropriate for children. While I think this is still a formidable thing for librarians to deal with, it’s totally different from people trying to block a book from being sold at all.”
Dan,
The text — and Focus’ original article — say Focus supports parents who happen to try to ban “liberal” books.
It’s my impression from the ALA that books continue to be banned, and I regularly see attempts to ban books. Where has it been documented that no bans have happened or been attempted in 50 years?
Book-ban efforts have indeed lost ground, not because the Christian Right is more tolerant (quite the opposite) but because librarians and liberals (pro-free-speech advocates) fight back against the Christian Right and educate the public about the ongoing threat.
Focus offers no objection whatsoever to book-banning, it offers no defense of the hundreds of books that have been successfully banned, and it dismisses efforts to protect books as a “trumped-up event to intimidate and basically silence concerned parents.”
What some people consider age-inappropriate, many other parents consider vital and necessary.
I looked back at that FOTF article that is linked and I could not find support for what you are asserting they say. Would you please find the exact text and perhaps the URL as well? If I see for myself that they are advocating banning, then I’ll write to them myself about that. I don’t see it yet.
Also, these Banned Books Week resources may answer your questions:
“American Library Association Shamed,” by Nat Hentoff, Laurel Leader-Call, 2 March 2007.
“Banned Books Week and the ALA,” by Dennis Ingolfsland, The Recliner Commentaries, 4 August 2009.
“‘Censors’ Are So Scary,” by Annoyed Librarian, Library Journal, 6 October 2008.
“Finding Censorship Where There Is None,” by Mitchell Muncy, Wall Street Journal, 24 September 2009, p.W13.
“National Hogwash Week,” as coined by Thomas Sowell. And this resource has a long, updated list of BBW-related articles.
“US Libraries Hit Back Over Challenges to Kids Books,” by Sara Hussein, Agence France-Presse [AFP], 6 September 2009.
“Various Humbugs Regarding Banned Books Week, by Mateo Palos, Mateo Palos, 27 September 2009.
OK – I’ll turn up at Jim Dobson’s headquarters in Colorado Springs and donate lots of new books on Charles Darwin for him to sell in the bookshop. Or what about making time for gay-affirming stories in church as well?
Oh, how silly of me – tolerance is just a one-way street with these people.
Not a bad idea, Adrian — I have lots of books about Focus on the Family that can be donated to the local library.
One label the WingNut crowd seems to prefer is “Christian Conservatives.” Wouldn’t “Christian Controlatives” be more accurate and descriptive? And that term is not even snarky.
So, “Safe Libraries,” would you consider a book about a gay relationship “safe” or would you need it to be put behind lock n’ key so that librarians would know when fellow citizens decide to read “pornography?”
What about a children’s book that features a child with an unconventional non-Leave-It-To-Beaver family? Would that be “safe” enough for the citizens to read?
My guess would be “no.”
I have been looking over the titles of banned books at the ALA site, and though most of them I know have been on the pro-banning hit list for years, I was surprised to see Winnie-the-Pooh, The Wind in the Willows, and Charlotte’s Web included. Horrors! Hell’s bells, censortards!! What reasons could there be to ban three children’s titles? The ALA site lists explanations for many of the bans but not for these three. Any ideas? Talking pigs and spiders too satanic? Mr. Toad makes capitalism look bad? EEEK
Oh brother is right!!! I recall that when I was visiting relatives in Texas on Halloween, they told me they did not want to put their jack-o-lantern in the window to invite trick-or-treaters because their nearest neighbors complained that jack-o-lanterns were satanic. Good grief, time to give these religious types some candy and a good laxative…they are just so full of it!!!
Dan Kleinman, when FOTF explicitly criticizes the so-called “parents” (instead of defending the book-banners), and when FOTF explicitly opposes book-banning, y’all let me know. Thank you very much.
The Chicago Public Library prohibits book donations for this reason. I expect any decently funded library is the same.
But this is so 20th century. The Internet is the new information broker with no censorship and liberals are way ahead here.
David, I LOVE Dark Shadows. I was in third grade when I got hooked on it and though my parents forbade me to watch it (because it was giving me bad dreams) I tuned in and enjoyed the fear. Our TV set was black and white so the show came across as truly dark and gothic. I was only eight years old but I had a very secret crush on Gerard Stiles. He can haunt me any time. Though nobody picketed my school about Dark Shadows, I recall some upheaval about The Brady Bunch. A woman on the PTA at my school got it into her head to create a list of TV shows that kids should not be allowed to watch, and the only one I recognized back then was The Brady Bunch. I don’t recall why she compiled the list or what her gripe against the shows was. She gave a copy of the list to my mom (who was also on the PTA). My mom laughed and threw the list in the trash. Go mom!!
Thanks David! Incurring the Lord’s wrath is one of my fave hobbies. Incurring the wrath of the 700 Club is fun too.
This was put to my attention by a co worker. I can not believe their are still ignorant people in this world. How dare some narrow-minded group tell people some of the greatest books should not be read. We do not live in the Puritan era, in fact, we fought against these people. Stop this now and mind your own business.
This site must be a politically motivated satire.
I wish it WAS, Jeff, but unfortunately, Candi Cushman is a real person. a******s of her magnitude really exist. Scary, huh?