“We Must Ban Books That Omit The Truth”: Debrief on the House Hearing on Book Bans and Censorship

“The truth is that rarely do children of color or immigrants see themselves in these textbooks we are forced to use.  I write because I want them to understand the contributions their ancestors have made to our great country, whether that contribution was made as slaves or volunteers,” said Bridges in her testimony. “My books are written to inspire a new generation to contribute to building this great country for indeed there is much work to be done.  If we are going to have a conversation about banning books, then I say that conversation is long overdue.  Let’s have it, but it must include ALL books.  If we are to ban books from being too truthful, then surely, we must ban those books that distort or omit the truth.”

High schooler Mehta addressed the committee–and all of the adults tuning in–about how it’s their responsibility to stand up for students’ rights.  

“By not acting strongly against censorship and outspokenly defending students’ intellectual freedom we are proving that we haven’t learned from our country’s past mistakes when it came to moral panic, exclusion, and discrimination.”  She explained. “One parent’s opinion on what is the appropriate book for their child shouldn’t impede on a different parent’s.  A loud minority can’t be responsible for the cheapening of a young Americans’ First Amendment rights.” 

Though the bulk of the conversation centered on book bans, the testimony from Pidluzny focused on what he believes is a far bigger and more insidious censorship right now: the inability for right-wing speakers to talk on college and university campuses without pushback from students and administrators. He mentioned groups on college campuses reporting on professors and students who offer “alternative thoughts,” as well as providing rewards for turning in members of the campus community choosing to listen or watch right-wing news and podcasts. Students or faculty who tune in to Ben Shapiro face the “real” challenges.

“There is no epidemic of censorship, book banning, or viewpoint discrimination in K-12 education today. Parents, school board members, and state legislators are simply making good faith efforts to align public school curricula with the suitability concerns and priorities of the constituents served by local schools,” he said. “This contrasts sharply with what is occurring in higher education, where self censorship is endemic, viewpoint discrimination is the norm, and students and faculty are routinely targeted for investigation, including by school-sponsored bias response teams, for the political content of their speech.”

While there is much to be said about needing to discuss the fact free speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech, the inclusion of Pidluzny’s testimony sidetracked the conversation from its focus on book bans and censorship happening in schools and public libraries across the country. It instead gave conservatives an opportunity to claim their freedom and liberty is being squandered, and that they are the true victims of censorship right now–not the minors who are actually having books removed from their educational institutions or the educators who are having their careers ended because of gag orders and the “critical race theory” boogeyman.

South Carolina Representative Nancy Mace (R) further derailed the discussion of book bans by not only agreeing with and bolstering Pidluzny’s commentary, but also by suggested that censorship on social media is far more damaging to free speech than what is happening in K-12 schools. She noted that several individuals have had their Twitter accounts shut down, “while the Kremlin continues to tweet.” She believes the real enemy to free speech are privately owned and operated social media companies.