Censorship in a DIVERSITY ISSUE

Ohio Libraries, Spring 2004 by French, Jeff

LIBRARIES DEFEND FREE SPEECH. WE STRIVE TO BUILD BALANCED, DIVERSE COLLECTIONS THAT REFLECT ALL SIDES OF EVERY ISSUE.

We frequently defend offensive ideas when they are criticized by our residents. We are true bulwarks in the defense of the First Amendment against those who would compromise it. Often, however, we feel uncomfortable defending material that offends some part of our constituency. When offensive speech approaches the realm of hate speech, we get squeamish about its defense. It is one thing to defend the merely vulgar; to stand up for the individual's right to read sexually-oriented books; even to defend Internet material the censors label "pornographic." But it is much harder to defend sexist, racist or other hateful, bigoted ideas.

Examples of hate speech in our society are abundant - racial slurs in Mark Twain's writings; derogatory terms for the gay/lesbian lifestyle; sports logos featuring stereotypical caricatures, like the Cleveland Indians; historical revisionism's lies about the Holocaust; and old symbols and language of repression such as the Rebel flag.

When faced with these challenges, it is important to see free speech as a diversity issue. Censorship of offensive speech sets a bad precedent because it implies that some censorship is acceptable and leads to problems defining what is offensive and whose sensibilities deserve protection. "Offensive" is not an absolute term, but a highly subjective value judgment. While we may be uncomfortable explaining that we will defend the inclusion in our collections of ideas minorities find offensive, it becomes easier when that absolutism is seen as the way to defend each minority's right to be heard.

Like Voltaire, librarians may disagree with what others say, but we should defend their right to say it. We may dislike many ideas found in our collections, but we should resist attempts to purge them. We defend everyone's right to be offensive because doing so also defends everyone's right to speak out. If someone claims superiority, the victim has the chance to prove that claim is false. When someone uses an offensive slur, its target has the chance to explain why it offends and apply pressure not to use it.

It is far worse to silence a group than to criticize, insult or offend them! Censorship is often an attempt to silence a disfavored group, as the accusation of "offensive" is a convenient ruse in trying to stifle another's voice. History shows numerous challenges in which accusations of offensiveness, indecency, immorality, or even un-Americanism were all used in a way to target the speech of a disfavored group. As an attempt to shut off diverse viewpoints, censorship is the ultimate hate speech.

The tactic of trying to silence minority views by labeling them offensive is so old and so common we hardly recognize it any more. Chris Link, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, states that common targets include any material that deals with such topics as homosexuality, teen sex, the occult, mythology and astrology, no matter how objectively presented.1 Ideas are attacked because of the values they present, because they are too liberal, or because they are viewed as sacrilegious or demonic.2 These attacks show a clear effort to maintain the dominance of majority viewpoint: censors excel at attacking anyone who holds different religious views, leads a different lifestyle, believes in equality for all or promotes alternative political views. A vigorous defense of free speech is our strongest advocacy of diversity.

Homophobia is probably the leading motivation in censorship attempts, to the point that John Berry cites the religious right's homophobic hidden agenda as a prime Stressor in director/board relationships.3 The leading example of homophobic challenges is the unending controversy over Leslea Newman's Heather Has Two Mommies and Michael Willhoite's Daddy's Roommate, books which are criticized for being "in conflict with traditional religious values."4 But this antagonism toward homosexuality runs much deeper. People for the American Way recognizes homosexuality as the "Religious Right's latest all-purpose bogeyman and cash cow," and quotes Karen Jo Gounaud of Family Friendly Libraries (FFL) objecting to material that "undermines traditional family values and the traditional family." Gounaud goes on to equate gays and lesbians with alcoholics and pedophiles in her attempt to justify denying them "the right to get their agenda in there."6 FFL even objects to "gay-oriented subject headings in library catalogs."5 The extent of the censors' hostility to gays and lesbians knows no bounds, as challenges extend even to the point of objecting to Shakespeare's Twelfth Night because its cast includes a cross dresser7 and to A Chorus Line because it includes gay characters.8

Closely related to objections to homosexuality, because it "violates our religious beliefs and convictions," according to a Seattle critic,9 are challenges designed to fight religious diversity. The Island Trees court case was based on objections to 11 books that were labeled "anti-American, anti-Christian and antiSemitic."10 The Texas textbook controversy was born from the desire to teach a religious belief, creationism, as science.11 Some of the more outrageous challenges based on religious reasons include: Dracula, because it "promotes Satanism;"12 Edgar Allan Poe, because his writing teaches witchcraft;13 and Tarzan, for "living in sin" with Jane.14 Kathryn Sheehan's book, Earth Child, was subject to a challenge because it "promotes Hinduism,"15 Anne Frank's Diary because it implies all religions are equally valid,16 and The Last Temptation of Christ because it is "blasphemous and pornographic."17 In a final turning of the tables, though, atheists in Minnesota asked to suppress the Bible because it is "obscene and violent."18