Six major book publishers have teamed up to sue the US state of Florida over an “unconstitutional” law that has seen hundreds of titles purged from school libraries following rightwing challenges.
Since it went into effect last July, countless titles have been removed from elementary, middle and high school libraries, including American classics such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, For Whom the Bell Tolls by
Ernest Hemingway and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain.
Contemporary novels by bestselling authors such as
Margaret Atwood, Judy Blume and Stephen King have also been removed
The suit contends the book removal provisions violate previous supreme court decisions relating to reviewing works for their literary, artistic, political and scientific value as a whole while considering any potential obscenity; and seeks to restore the discretion “of trained educators to evaluate books holistically to avoid harm to students who will otherwise lose access to a wide range of viewpoints”.
DeSantis has attempted to portray the issue as “
a hoax”, arguing that because the state has empowered parents to make objections, and is not directly making the challenges itself, it is not responsible for books subsequently removed from shelves.
See also this (I believe ongoing) case:
I don't see this issue, as one that the book publishers have any
right to resolve. I see this topic as one of BOOK USE, as apposed
to BOOK PUBLISHING.
The issues involved (I think), are ...
1 What are the Consitutional definitions of freedom of speech, and
freedom of religion.
2 What is a workable concept of responsibility, for what is "said".
3 What is a workable definition of "religion", in America.
4 What is a workable definition of a "qualified educator",
given the previous 3 points.
---------- ----------
--- Note that the argument that possible restrictions on which school
libraries allow which books, is not really a topic within freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech exists, even if there are no libraries, or no K12 schools.
Freedom of speech existed BEFORE the internet, or social media sites.
We should not drag "freedom of speech" into topics in which it is not
a necessary component.
--- Note that "freedom of religion" IS a consideration that may affect
which books are in which K12 libraries. But this should be addressed as a freedom
of religion topic, not a freedom of speech topic.
The associated question, that America does not want to seem to address,
is what a valid definition of "religion" is, in America. For example, can we stone
to death students whom parents think are grossly immoral, and claim coverage
for this action under "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech/expression"?
Most states allow state money to support religious K12 education. BUT,
there is almost no public discussion in America, as to what a "valid" religion
is, Consitutionally.
--- The topic of required professionalism among educators, is a valid
concern. Can religious K12 schools hire anyone they wish, as a "professional
educator"??? Or, are there basic philosophical constraints about the nature
of our shared reality, that require that "competent" educators hold to a
model of reality, that is compatible with the Consitution being able to work?
--- The topic of which parents, may claim to represent which religion, is
a key topic. Although anti-intellectual Protestant Fundamentalists may be
very politically active, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO TACITLY CLAIM TO
REPRESENT ALL CHRISTIANS, and do they have the right to impose their
personal religious opinions on all people in their state (religious, and non-religious)?
I would argue that anti-intellectual Christian denominations do NOT represent
historic, orthodox Christianity, and so anti-intellectual Christians have no right
to impose restrictions on all christians who live in a state, even though these
opinions are the opinions of some religious groups in America. Freedom of religion,
also means the freedom to NOT have a specific group of religious positions
imposed on you, if you are not a member of the imposing religious group.
Note that anti-intellectual religious groups may not embrace the basic
philosophical disciplines of Epistemology, Moral Theory, or Formal Logic,
that should be required of any "professional educator". Can educators
in these religious schools, even be validly called "qualified"? Should they
be required to teach these basic courses, even in anti-intellectual
religious schools?
---------- ----------
I would argue that America has not carefully thought through the
basic philosophical models in Epistemology, Moral Theory, and
Formal Logic, that are REQUIRED or desirable given the Constitution
and bill of rights that America supports.
If educators are not competent to address the topics of what our
shared reality is, what human perception is, what real evidence is,
what a fair rule of law is, what proper legal process is... then they are
not teaching a necessary foundation for reaoning about how JUSTICE
is produced (Constitutionally). Educators who teach conspiracy theories,
are openly abusing these basic philosophical disciplines.
Many educators cannot handle these basic philosophical topics.
Educators who focus on STEM topics, almost NEVER address these
basic and necessary topics. (Are they really qualified to teach, in
America???)
---------- ----------
American citizens need to have many more, and deeper discussions,
about what a valid religion is, and what professional educators
must teach.
