← The Preamble
The Preamble
Book Bans and Free Speech with Suzanne Nossel
00:33:20
Over 4,000 books have been banned across the U.S., but what’s really behind the push to censor diverse voices in schools?
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:05]
Sharon McMahon
Hey, friends, thanks for being here today. Listen, there is almost no topic that I discuss that I get more incoming flack for than book bans. There is just something about it that really grinds some people's gears. And that is all the more reason to talk about it. So my guest today is Suzanne Nossel, who is the CEO of PEN America, an organization that works to ensure the free expression of writers, authors and readers in the United States and around the world. So let's dive in. I'm Sharon McMahon and here's where it gets interesting. I am really excited to be chatting today with Suzanne Nossel. Thank you so much for your time.
- [00:51]
Suzanne Nossel
Thank you.
- [00:51]
Sharon McMahon
Sharon, I have long admired the work that your organization does, and I wonder if you could fill us in on on the type of work that PEN America does, just in case somebody is not familiar with what you do.
- [01:07]
Suzanne Nossel
Sure, absolutely. I'd be delighted. We are an organization with a mission to both celebrate and defend freedom of expression worldwide. So on this kind of celebration side of the organization, if you will, we give out the country's most comprehensive program of literary awards, the PEN America Awards. They've been called the Oscar of books by Vanity Fair and the New York Times. We give out awards for fiction and nonfiction and biography and playwriting. Wonderful ceremony to celebrate authors. We do literary programs now all across the country. We have 10 chapters as well as offices in New York City, Los Angeles and Washington D.C. we do a big festival every year called Penworld Voices where we bring in writers from all over the world to be in dialogue with American counterparts. And then we have a side of the organization that is focused on the defense of freedom of expression. We consider that in a very broad minded way. So part of our work includes elevating lesser heard voices, people who are shut out of the debate. We have a program for incarcerated writers. We have a program for young undocumented dreamers to help them pursue writing careers and get their voices into public discourse. And then we do research, advocacy and campaigning on a wide breadth of free expression issues, both internationally and here in the US I'd say kind of the heart and soul of it is work on behalf of individual persecuted writers around the world. People who are jailed, prosecuted, persecuted, tortured, sometimes killed for expressing themselves. We work with friends, Frontline Sister Penn organization. So Penn is a global network of organizations in dozens of different countries. So there's, for example, a very active Penn organization in Ukraine that in the context of the war, has been at the forefront of using culture as kind of a mechanism of defense in very Powerful ways. And then we do research, campaigning, press work, and advocacy on whole breadth of US Free expression issues. And those issues, of course, have become more and more prominent.
- [03:20]
Sharon McMahon
They sure have, Suzanne. They sure have. I wonder if you could tell the listeners, how has the landscape of free expression, especially when it comes to the written word, how has that changed over the last 10 years?
- [03:38]
Suzanne Nossel
You know, when I came into Penn, probably 70% of our free expression work was international. We're an organization of writers, and our members saw themselves as standing with those who are punished for what we here in our own country did freely. So we thought of ourselves as an organization of people who were free, who had very few constraints on what they could say or write, that we would stand in solidarity with those around the world who faced much more difficult circumstances. The first sort of five years I spent in the organization, that really was the focus. We did work on some US Free expression issues, for example, the revelations of dragnet surveillance and the implications thereof for creativity and free expression. We did some work on protest rights and press freedom issues in terms of covering public protests. But, you know, it was pretty discreet, pretty limited, and. And I'd say in 2016, it really began to change. And the changes came on multiple fronts, I'd say, you know, to oversimplify a little bit, from both the right and the left. On the left side, what we began to focus on were burgeoning controversies on college campuses and raging debate over issues like trigger warnings, safe spaces, campus speaker disinvitations, and the sense that the college campus, you know, always a arena where the free flow of ideas was paramount, where academic freedom was protected, where you'd have the widest possible breadth of voices and perspectives being aired, where people would encounter notions that they had never before heard of that might make them feel uncomfortable. But that was kind of the point of college. What we saw, beginning in 2015, 2016, was a kind of retreat from that, in a sense, that the values of equity and inclusivity, that drive to make the campus a more diverse, welcoming place to people of all backgrounds, a very necessary evolution of the campus to realize the right to an equal education, but that that was increasingly being pitted against free speech. And people were using their concern over equity and inclusion, sometimes as a justification to curtail speech or say that attitudes that seemed hostile or unfriendly should be suppressed, pushed off campus, and silenced. And so we began to do research and explorations and convenings on that set of issues and develop kind of a foothold for the organization in the arena of free Speech and education. We also saw around the same time a attack on speech and expression coming from the right. Violence was erupting and affecting members of the press who were trying to do their jobs. And at the same time, another set of issues, sort of less traditional free expression issues, came onto our radar. The crisis of, you know, we originally called it fake news or fraudulent news, but you know, what then became called disinformation. Now that term has become tainted. But the sort of a rising prevalence of conspiracy theories and propaganda in our public discourse and on social media and the ways in which that has undercut kind of reasoned fact based discourse. So that became a whole area of focus for us, the demise of local news. Something that has come about as a result of the migration of ad dollars from what used to be newspapers to the online arena, leading to what some have called an extinction event for local news organizations around the country, compounding this kind of dysfunction in our information ecosystem. So a whole lot of complex issues began to bubble to our attention and to national attention sort of in those years. And it's only intensified, I'd say, you know, kind of from both the right and the left. The threats to free expression, to open discourse, to truth, have continued to multiply a couple of times over. I think we thought, you know, are we at the end of this, are we going to return to some sort of normal. And that just hasn't happened.
- [08:04]
Sharon McMahon
I think now one of the things that my audience is very concerned about is related to the banning or removal of books from things like libraries, schools, classrooms. And I have certainly looked over many of the resources and tracking information that you provide on those sorts of topics as well. What are you seeing now over the past few years as this sort of fight about books in schools and libraries has heated up?
- [08:36]
Suzanne Nossel
I mean, we have worked on book bans my whole time at Penn and I think for many decades before that, we used to deal with book bands. You know, I'd say once or twice a year a book would be removed from the shelves somewhere in the country. We would usually write a letter, whether it was to a principal or a librarian or a teacher, and the book would be put back on the shelf and sort of that was the end of it. Honestly, when I came into Penn, I couldn't believe we worked on book bans. It seemed so kind of anachronistic. I couldn't believe there was a Banned Books Week. It seemed like something out of the 1950s. And you know, I'd say we, and so many were shocked when this became kind of a culture war tactic of choice, really, over the last couple of years. And we saw this extraordinary upsurge in book bands that I think it grew out of a couple of things. For one thing, this very pitched debate over how we become a more equal and inclusive society, a more pluralistic society, absorb demographic change and a kind of reactionary impulse from some quarters to try to suppress narratives that seem threatening to particular communities, to groups that are used to being in positions of power that question the right and authority of people from other kinds of backgrounds, with other kinds of life experiences to have a voice and have influence in society. In an effort to suppress those narratives, a lot of it gets framed around children and the influence of these alternative narratives on children. These have become kind of third rail topics in some communities where people are afraid, they're hostile. And what's shocking to me is that, you know, any American growing up kind of within the framework and the values of the First Amendment would think that restrictions on books are the right answer to ideas that you're afraid of. I mean, for me, it's so deeply ingrained that if you disagree with something, if you don't like something, put forward something else, close the book, have a conversation, a debate, but that you don't resort to book bans. And even worse, across the country, legislation that is essentially mandating book bans, maybe not in so many words, but telling schools and librarians that there are certain topics that can't be taught to the point where they're afraid that having a book on the shelf that relates to those topics in any way might get them into hot water. So it's become a very intimidating and censorious environment, and it really has a powerful momentum that we are seeing sweeping across the country.
- [11:26]
Sharon McMahon
Yeah. Just looking at some of the tracking that you have on your website, which is pen.org Some of your key findings related to book bans are things like this school year, instances of book bans are most prevalent in Texas, Florida, Missouri, Utah, and South Carolina. And the website talks about exactly what you just mentioned, that this is a combination of, like, state level legislative policy plus local school boards or even individual actors within school systems. You say that overwhelmingly book banners continue to target stories by and about people of color and LGBTQ individuals. 30% of the unique titles banned are books about race, racism, or books that feature characters of color. And 26% of unique titles have LGBTQ characters or themes. So that's 56% of the books that are being banned are about just those two topics. And the list of Facts that you have compiled is very sobering. It's very sobering. And you mentioned, too, that books are more frequently being labeled porn or indecent. And that seems to be sort of the inflammatory rhetoric that is being used behind a lot of these book bans. Because if you ask any sane adult, should we show porn to second graders? No adult is going to say, that sounds like a good idea. Of course, we're all going to say, nope, that's not appropriate. That's not appropriate for children. And so consequently, if you can label something porn now, you get somebody to agree that it's indecent. Is that what you're seeing happening around the country, sort of like a movement to reframe or redefine what constitutes something being indecent or pornographic or very inappropriate to show children?
- [13:35]
Suzanne Nossel
Yeah, very much so. Look, there's a very well established legal definition of pornography, and everyone always jokes about the Supreme Court case where Justice Potter Stewart said, I know it when I see it. But in fact, there is a established definition that has been adjudicated, and it involves material that appeals to a prurient interest that has no redeeming literary value. So, you know, things like a Hustler magazine. But the way that the term is being used now and stretched beyond all recognition is to apply to books for adolescents and young adults that in some cases are pretty explicit. They may talk about sexual awakening. They may show drawings of their graphic novels, in some cases that show drawings of the human body. And so they may not be appropriate for young children, but they're not aimed to young children, and they're not being provided to young children. These are books that are directed toward teenagers. And we hear in some, you know, with some of these books, even the. Those that are most explicit that, you know, where they deal with LGBTQ or trans identities, that they can literally be lifesavers for some kids. Kids who are isolated, who don't have support from their families or their communities, can pick up a book kind of quietly, privately in the library or school classroom and realize they're not alone, that there are other people out there who are grappling with what they are grappling with, and, you know, they can see hopefulness and a way forward as a result of that. So to, you know, label these books obscenity and pornography is false. And it deprives students of access to literature that in some cases they badly need. And in other cases, it's just sort of part of life. It's part of what you're exposed to. And then Even beyond those exposure, explicit books, we're now seeing, you know, just kind of a blanket accusation of obscenity or pornography directed at anything that's remotely sexual. I mean, we now are hearing from schools that are taking Shakespeare off the curriculum because of the love scenes in the Bard's play. So this has become a kind of moral panic, a real distortion, a determined agenda to expunge and kind of purify our schools and to convey the message that books are dangerous, which I think in itself is a very dangerous message.
- [16:09]
Sharon McMahon
You know, something that you said struck me as exactly the point, which is you mentioned that in some cases, these kinds of books can be lifesavers. Students who feel isolated, students who feel like they don't have anybody to talk to or they don't have any role models, and they're able to pick up a book and privately in the library and are able to find information or comfort or whatever it is from this book. Right. And that is precisely what many people do not want to happen. The idea that they can privately access this information that some people disagree with is exactly why they want them taken out of the libraries. So speaking to the larger point about culture wars, using the argument that, like, kids really need these books, these books are lifesavers, that actually is, in some cases, feeding the beast. That that idea that, like, some kids need these is proof to some culture warriors like, aha. In fact, children are accessing information that their parents disagree with. I'm sure you've heard this. You. You have your fingers on the pulse of this entire situation. So what would you say to people who feel like, I don't want my children accessing that information, even if they're 16 in the school library? I don't approve of it and I don't want it. It doesn't belong there. What would you say to them?
- [17:46]
Suzanne Nossel
A lot of this gets framed in the rubric of parents rights, that parents have the right to determine what their kids can and can't read. And look, we agree. Parents do have rights. As a parent, I mean, I'm a parent, and I want some say over when my kids were younger, what they might read or be exposed to at school or what kind of play they might be in. If something upset me or was contrary to my values, I wanted an avenue to raise that. Those things exist. We have parent teacher conferences. We have PTAs. You could call the principal. Those avenues have always existed. Parents do have rights. There's no question about it. But this is really not about parents rights. I mean, nobody would say, you know, if you're dead set against your kid reading a certain book, that the school should provide it to them over and above your objections. But what these parents are trying to do is take the books off limits, not just for their own kids, but for every kid. So this is not about parents rights. This is about, in most cases, a very small minority of individuals with very strong views who are seeking to impose those opinions on communities writ large, in some cases on tens of thousands of students in school systems. We're filing suit in Escambia County, Florida, where you have one teacher who's objected to over 100 books and gotten them essentially removed from classroom libraries and school libraries all across the entire county. One person's initiative. And so, you know, this is not about parents asserting their legitimate right to influence what their kids are exposed to. And I think it's exactly what they fear in terms of kids being exposed to some of these books. I think that's true in some instances. I think there's a lot of confusion about, you know, what influence these narratives have. In the stories that I hear from librarians and teachers, this is not about kids picking up a book and suddenly getting sucked down a path to adopt an identity that otherwise would never resonate with them. Like, let's face it, these kids are spending upwards of seven or eight hours a day on their phones. If they're being exposed to alternative lifestyles and cultural figures who live differently, that's where they're getting it. It's not from a book on the library shop. It's kids who are isolated and who don't find others to identify with. Those are the stories that the librarians and the teachers are telling about people who have these questions and doubts, and they're looking for an in depth, thoughtful exploration and some kind of grounding to understand what's going on with them, to get some insight into questions that they're already asking. So I think this notion that a term that gets thrown around is groomers, that students are somehow being groomed, and I think that term has become really kind of a slur that gets used willy nilly with absolutely no basis in fact. And so I think we need to be factual about what parents rates are about which parents we're talking about. Is it the majority of parents or the minority? And about the, you know, the truth of how adolescents develop and how they relate to ideas. You know, when children encounter ideas that they're not ready for, they close the book or they turn off the television. They have natural inclinations in Terms of what content they're ready to engage with. And teachers and librarians are professionals in guiding that process.
- [21:26]
Sharon McMahon
Yet the word groomer, you're absolutely right, is something that is now used for everybody who thinks that book bans are a slippery slope. If you don't think books should be banned, well, you're a groomer. One of the things that I am curious about is what can the majority of parents. Because the research demonstrates over and over and over again that the majority of parents do not support book bans. They do support the right to have free expression. The power that is wielded in their favor today can be wielded against them tomorrow. So we know that this is the majority of parents who do not support banning books, just wholesale. And we're talking about age appropriate books. We are not talking about showing Hustler magazine to second graders. That is not what anybody is discussing. What can the majority of parents who agree with everything that we're talking about today, what can they do about this issue? What can they do to make sure books are not being banned in their communities?
- [22:33]
Suzanne Nossel
Well, they have to speak up and step out. There's a lot that they can do. You're living in a community where books are being banned. You can become part of a legal challenge. We're working with a group of parents and students who are co plaintiffs with us in suing in Escambia county. And we're interested in doing more of that across the country. People should reach out to us at Pen America. We'd be happy to talk with them. You can mobilize in your local school board, which is where a lot of these issues play out. Going to a school board meeting, making an argument in favor of the freedom to read. We have materials on our website@penn.org that can equip you with the arguments with the talking points being specific about books, reading the books and talking about why they are valuable, grounding it in local community values. It's often most valuable when it is someone from the local community who speaks up in these settings rather than coming in from a national organization. And so that's part of the value of our network of chapters across the country. And if you're in one of the cities where we have a chapter, we can connect you with that. Where there is an opportunity to run for school board, getting broad minded, open minded people who are committed to the first Amendment and the freedom to read, to sit on these school boards, people who don't want our schools to become pitched battlegrounds where learning is disruptive. And I think that's one of the saddest things about this whole debate, is that there was so much concern over the disruption of education during the pandemic and learning loss when the schools were closed or kids were engaged in hybrid learning. And now that the kids are back at school in many parts of the country, this is what is in focus. And parents are on a warpath, some of them. Teachers are being intimidated, librarians are intimidated, school administrators are running scared. And that is not a healthy learning environment for students. That, that's not instilling in students the values of open inquiry that American public schools should be laying the foundation for. So taking up positions of authority, running for office, becoming an active member of the school board, I think is extremely important. In some states, there are pieces of legislation, we have documented hundreds of pieces of legislation that affect access to books that have been tabled in states across the country. A portion of them have been passed. There are reasoned voices on this issue, even conservative voices, and there have been conservative governors who vetoed some of the worst bills. And so I think it's important to make common cause even with people where you might not agree with everything. It might not be a book that everybody would want at home or in their kids personal library, but to recognize that for somebody that book is important and necessary and you're going to stand by it even if it's not your personal preference. So forming alliances, getting activated, and you know, we can help you do that if you reach out to us through our website.
- [25:45]
Sharon McMahon
I mean, the same principle applies to freedom of speech, that we cannot have freedom of speech just for statements we agree with. That's not actually freedom, that's somebody being the arbiter of what you can say. Right? So in as much as we would say, listen, I don't like what you're saying, but I will support your right to say it because we have freedom of expression in this country. It's the exact same principle when it comes to books. I don't like this book. I'm not going to buy it. But I support your right to read it. I support your right to read, to write it, because that is what freedom means. In a pluralistic, free society. We actually do have to tolerate ideas and expressions that we don't like. And that is, you know, sometimes difficult to swallow. But I wonder if you could talk to somebody who maybe feels like, yeah, but I just don't want that around my kids. Yeah, but I just don't want things that I think are dangerous or damaging or not age Appropriate around my children. What would you say to those parents who feel that way?
- [26:54]
Suzanne Nossel
You know, I'd say this. I'd say, look, you know, I understand that each of us as a parent, we are committed to our kids education and upbringing. We have certain values that are important to us that we want to instill. But when you go into a public education setting and you make that choice, you're not going to be in a religious school, they're not going to be homeschooled you, they're going to be in a public environment. You know, one of the central purposes of that is the engagement opportunity that we have that children have with one another. They're meeting kids from other kinds of backgrounds with other sorts of values, with family structures that may be different. And that's one of the great values of American public schools is that kind of coming together of people who have differences, but who share a commitment to their children and their children's education. And, you know, how can a system like that work? Well, it can work if you have a school board where people are elected, where you appoint teachers, principals and librarians who have professional credentials to exercise judgment about how to teach our kids and what's appropriate at different levels. And you never going to agree with everything. I mean, I don't think any parent would be on board with every last book in the school library and think it was valuable or entirely consonant with their values. And there just has to be a certain amount of give and take. If we gave every parent the right to dictate precisely what shouldn't be on the shelves, you would have nothing on the shelves. In fact, that's what's happening. The libraries are being in some cases shut down entirely because there's no agreement about what books can be provided. You know, that's just not how we go about things in this country. We believe in openness. We believe that the best antidote to ideas that you dislike or disagree with is more speech. It's an alternative set of ideas. It's a different book. So if your child brings home a book from the school library that you don't approve of, you have every right to have that dialogue with them. You know, you can take the book out of their room or out of their backpack if that's what you so choose to do as a parent. But you don't have the right to dictate for every other parent in the school, the classroom or the school system what their children have the right to read. In a public system. We have to delegate that authority to the Professionals to the people that we entrust with managing our kids education. Otherwise the system doesn't work. And so when you invite people to try to issue these personal dictates, you know, the system really begins to crumble. And we're seeing that in, in systems across the country.
- [29:40]
Sharon McMahon
Just to wrap things up, what would you hope that somebody listening to this would take away their main takeaway? From learning more about Pan America, from learning more about the rights of free expression, from learning more about the problems of book bans, or about disinformation, what do you hope the listener takes back to their dinner table this evening?
- [30:04]
Suzanne Nossel
Yeah, I'd say it's this. No matter what you care about, whether it's your kid's education, whether it's climate change, whether it's public health and the pandemic, whether it's racial justice, gender justice, you have a stake in open debate and the free flow of ideas. You have a stake in being able to change, choose what to write, what to read, what opinions to absorb, where to get your information. And as imperfect as that system is, it's the best system that we have and we need to stand up and defend it. We need to reject legislation trying to dictate that certain books must be off limits, as dangerous in our schools, books that teachers and librarians think deserve to be on the shelves. We have to reject efforts to shut down and silence speakers and viewpoints because somebody disagrees with them and feels their comments are dangerous or hurtful, instead of recognizing that the best rebuttal is through more speech. And so it's a real call to action. I think to me, First Amendment and free speech rights are a key underpinning of democracy. We all have a sense, I think, that our democracy is teetering, that there are threats to voting rights, to civic trust, and I think shoring up our collective respect for free expression and First Amendment. These are values that historically have sat above politics. And I think we need to reassert and reestablish their place and renew our vows to these very Central American and global values and commitments as the best underpinning that we have for a healthy democracy.
- [31:58]
Sharon McMahon
The principles of democracy are more important than any position you might agree or disagree with. I love that. Suzanne, thanks so much for being here today. Thanks so much for your work. And tell people where they can get more information from PEN America.
- [32:14]
Suzanne Nossel
Sure. Please go to our website at pen.org, remember that old fashioned thing, a pen that you used to write with? That's the name of our organization, PEN America. And Sign up for our newsletters. Join PEN America as a member. We'd love to have your support, engagement and involvement. And if you're facing a problem with book bans in your own community, please get a hold of us and see if we can help.
- [32:37]
Sharon McMahon
Thanks Suzanne.
- [32:38]
Suzanne Nossel
Thank you so much.
- [32:40]
Sharon McMahon
You can learn more about the issues of book bans and about the work that Pen America does on the their website pen.org they have a ton of great resources and tracking of statistics, book titles that have been banned and all kinds of other very valuable information to help you advocate for free expression in your community. Thanks for being here today. Thank you so much for listening to here's where it gets interesting. If you enjoyed today's episode, would you consider sharing or subscribing to this show that helps podcasters out so much? I'm your host and executive producer Sharon McMahon. Our supervising producer is Melanie Buck Parks and our audio producer is Credit.