An Open Letter to People who Attempt to Ban Books

To whom it may concern (namely, any and all invasive, narrow-minded people who attempt to censor the reading materials of others):I don't know what's up with the tap water in suburban Wisconsin this year, but the state I currently call my own has sprung forth with not one but two attempts at book banning that have, embarrassingly, earned national attention.

The first came out of West Bend last summer, when a concerned citizen wanted all young adult novels that discussed same-sex relationships without including homophobia, hellfire and brimstone removed from the shelves of the public library. The craziness of that attempted censorship could fill about three pages of this paper, so I'll leave the specifics out of this column for the future Googling pleasure of any readers.

The second, and more recent, case comes from Fond du Lac, where a concerned mother wants several young adult books (including the relatively benign, body-image-friendly "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants" series) that discuss sex pulled from the shelves at her children's public school.

Um. What? As if it's not bad enough that Wisconsinites have to insist to the rest of the U.S. that we, in fact, don't live inside episodes of "That 70's Show" or go cow-tipping in our spare time, we now have the added burden of assuring the rest of the nation that we're actually, for the most part, progressive and literate.

I can't criticize you for using your right to free speech, failed Wisconsin book banners. But I can use my own to let you know that I just don't understand you at all.

Well, I understand that you want to "protect the children." I feel you on that, in theory. I plan on protecting my potential future spawn from all kinds of things: gang territory, sex offenders, paint chips and Glenn Beck, to name a few.

However, even in my current childless condition, I'm well aware that the burden for protecting my children to the degree I want will rest upon me. (After all, Fox News is what child protections on the cable box are for!) And that there is a lot my children will see and hear that is totally outside my control, so I had better equip them with the independent, intellectual skills required to deal with that.

But you, book-banning individuals, don't seem to grasp this, and you'd rather have every child subjected to your parenting standards than just go about your business, quietly enforcing them yourself and dealing with any outside influence in a healthy, constructive way. This situation? Totally not as much of a challenge as you're making it.

If you don't want your kids reading things you find objectionable, don't let them read those things. That's your job, not the job of public institutions that are frequented by other people's children as well as yours. Is it that hard to just watch what they're reading? And to, um, not make a big public deal when they choose something of which you don't approve? Anyone who has ever interacted with children in the history of childhood will tell you that will just encourage them to go read it behind your back.

But, at the same time, if a friend or family member were severely restricting their child's reading, I would seriously encourage them to reconsider their draconian stance, so I'm going to do the same for you.

I'm not saying you should go around passing out copies of "American Psycho" for kids' tenth birthdays, but there are numerous good things to be said for letting your kids learn to love unrestricted independent reading, even (or, maybe, especially) if it's beyond one's supposed age level.

First of all, English major that I am, I feel like it's just inherently wrong to ever crush a person's desire to read, regardless of the context.

I mean, reading books that are "too old" teaches your kids things no one's telling them but they're probably curious about anyway, thanks to recess talk and television. It gives them a space in which they can safely figure things out secondhand rather than leaping into them head-first-and uninformed.

Plus, if they can pick a book up, they probably have the autonomy required to put it back down if it gets to be too much for them.

Secondly, your kids aren't going to learn to think critically if you don't trust them to think critically. If you treat them like you think they're idiots and funnel-feed them information, there's a distinct possibility they'll grow up to formulate conspiracy theories, wear tinfoil hats and get all religiously fundamental on you.

I mean, they might do that even if you let them read freely. But it should decrease the number of misspellings on their offensive protest signs, at the very least.

Third: A library card is a totally reasonable and educational amount of responsibility for your kids once they're a certain age. They can make their own decisions about what they want to read, learn to manage deadlines, and live with the consequences of failing to do so. God knows I learned all about fiscal responsibility from my astronomical library fines.

Actually, I still haven't learned to consistently return my library books on time, but damn it, I'm going to get there someday. Anyway, don't worry about that. Your kid will probably do a better job, and not just because it would be a challenge to do a worse one.

Finally, and perhaps the thing about book banning that just slays me the most: Banning books does not punish people who write controversial things. It gives them press coverage books usually don't get and makes them sound interesting and appealing.

Not only does attempting to ban a book help sell copies, it puts the writer in fantastic company-the book you attempt to ban today for the sake of your children could very well be required reading when your grandkids go to college.