Censorship and Children's Books

Recently Index on Censorship published an article about what at first sight appears to be a very worrying trend in school libraries: namely, that more than half of school librarians surveyed are reporting that they are being ordered to take books off shelves. Banned: school librarians shushed over LGBT+ books - Index on Censorship.

SEEN in Publishing was set up in response to censorship within publishing, and in particular to experiences of people holding gender sceptical views (that is, that sex is binary and people cannot literally change sex). We are opposed, in principle, to censorship, and welcome investigation where it occurs.

However, this story is not quite as straightforward as it looks. For starters, only 53 librarians responded to the survey, 56% of whom said they had been asked to remove books, which represents roughly 29 librarians; a relatively small number.  It appears that many of the books in question come under the LGBT+ banner.  Some of the examples given, such as the Catholic school in Purley which cancelled a talk by a gay author at the behest of the diocese, and another Christian school which refused to have Philip Pullman’s Dark Materials series on its shelves, are indeed appalling. (Such instances however, are nothing new: Pullman’s books have faced censure from the beginning, as did the Harry Potter series.)  We deplore any attempt to prevent children from being allowed access age-appropriate books.

We are concerned, however, that what is skated over in the article is why some books that fall under the LGBT+ umbrella cause controversy. And here we would suggest that parents (who are not universally bigoted and not necessarily even religious) have identified that some content is simply unsuitable for children.

Which is where we part company with the article. It is our position that adults have a responsibility to ensure the books we offer children are age-appropriate, and that doing so sometimes involves restricting inappropriate content. There is a difference between this endeavour and the censorship of harmless books. The Index on Censorship wrongly conflates the two.

Among the examples given in the article is a book that contains graphic details of sex at a level which (whether referring to gay or heterosexual acts) is unsuitable for the lower end of the intended readership. It is therefore entirely appropriate that adults responsible for children’s welfare limit access to this book in school libraries. Also listed as ‘censored’ are books that show images of self-harm, sexual fetishes and gender-identity-driven double mastectomies; others encourage negative body images, and the idea that you can be ‘born in the wrong body’; some advocate for social transitioning, medical transition and use of puberty blockers (now banned in the UK). Some of the examples are picture books for 3-5-year-olds. Parents, teachers and librarians are not unduly ‘censoring’ if they decide not to stock books that may harm some girls and boys. Those adults are simply doing their jobs in looking out for the minors in their care.

We need to ask whose interests are being served by the muddling of different meanings or motivations of censorship, as the Index article does. It does not serve children to confuse discrimination with safeguarding. It does not serve children to conflate a high school banning a teen book by a gay author with the request of worried parents to remove books showing their son sexual fetish images while at nursery, or coaxing their gender-confused daughter to access life-altering drugs. Behind the smoke and mirrors, real children are placed in real harm by such disingenuous reporting. We need more data, more accuracy and more honesty – and adults in the children’s books world needs to start putting the interests of children first.