An Open Letter Against Book Bans in Plymouth
by Keith Yancy
I had considered not publishing this until tomorrow, but I’ve discovered that people can voice their opinions on banning books in a college-level AP class in Plymouth at suggestions@pccs.net, and since the board doesn’t meet until tomorrow, it allows people to voice their objections to censorship. Remember, this is a college-level class. You can certainly refer to my recent posts regarding this issue to hear arguments I have regarding this issue. I’ve included my last letter to the school administration below, and may (time and schedule permitting) attend a school board meeting tomorrow.
Below is the letter I sent this morning.
____________________
January 16, 2012
Dr. Jeremy Hughes, Interim Superintendent, PCCS
John Barrett, Board President, PCCS
Adrienne Davis, Board Member
Mark Horvath, Board Member
Michael Maloney, Board Member
Judy Mardigan, Board Member
Sheila Paton, Board Member
Barry Simescu, Board Member
An Open Letter to the Interim Superintendent and the Plymouth-Canton School Board
Dear Dr. Hughes:
My name is Keith Yancy. I am the father of Meredith Yancy, an AP Literature student at Salem High School. I am writing this letter to you and the Plymouth School Board to express my disappointment with recent changes – and proposed changes – to the AP English curriculum.
Let me be very clear: I, like many other parents, am outraged about what has taken place, and am incensed that a one group of parents has affected the choices of all AP Literature students.
But first, let me share with you some facts. I am a husband and father of three daughters. I do not promote or endorse pornography. I do not believe college-level reading material should be forced upon students. But I do believe in providing college-level reading material in an AP-level Literature course. I believe that it’s better to prepare my child to recognize, understand and learn from challenging ideas rather than prevent her from seeing them. Most importantly, I believe my daughter’s rights (and the rights of other students) have not been adequately considered.
The parents in question (and “P-CAP,” the organization to which they belong) state, “This is not a book de-selection issue. This is a parent’s rights issue and flawed process issue.” That statement, however, is clearly incorrect. The efforts of this group have resulted in a de facto “book de-selection” (read: ban) already, and threaten to result in another book’s removal. Furthermore, had the true intent of these parents been about defending a process, then a review of the material in question should have occurred prior to the book’s removal, or (preferably) in an open forum prior to the start of the school year. To remove a book from the curriculum due to a parent’s complaint amounts to correcting one procedural error with another.
This parent group has also asserted the following on their web site: “We believe, as Dr. Hughes does, that if the majority of the residents of the community were aware of the contents of these books, they would object to them.” Dr. Hughes, I am a parent. I am aware of the contents of these books. And – like many, many other parents – I do not object to them, but encourage their study. These books are not focused on sexuality, do not satisfy the legal definition of pornography, and are considered outstanding works of literature by recognized authorities. Perhaps most importantly, I do not need other parents or a dubious organization like “P-CAP” to project their opinions and choices on my child’s curriculum – or presume that I am somehow not “aware.”
Additionally, whispers among the parents suggest that, if this group does not succeed, they will “read selected passages aloud” to the school board to alert them to the “dangers” of the books in question. I am not frightened of such a possibility, and you shouldn’t be either. It’s obvious to any discerning person that selecting only the salacious passages from any book ignores the larger context of the book in question, and cannot be adequate evidence for drawing an informed conclusion about a book’s value or legitimacy.
I won’t belabor other legitimate objections, such as the requirements of the AP Literature test, the fact that such parents had ample opportunity to review the syllabus prior to the start of the academic year, or that parents in favor of the books were not allowed to directly rebut this group’s emotional and illogical arguments at a recent committee meeting. Each of these objections has merit, but perhaps none is as important as the basic question that now rests before you:
Are all of you truly ready and willing to ban these books?
I do not envy you, Dr. Hughes, because you and the school board have a significant choice before you. If you retain these books in the curriculum, then sensationalized attacks from those who choose only salacious passages from literature (e.g., “P-CAP”) could create a media firestorm, and perhaps even legal action from those claiming these books to be pornographic. Of course, if you choose to ban these books, you’ll face an even greater media firestorm from those who support intellectual freedom, and potential legal action from those who would defend the First Amendment.
Dr. Hughes, I implore you and the members of the Plymouth School Board to recognize that your choice should be clear: these books should remain in the curriculum. If a parent demands an alternative text for their child, provide one, and let that option be presented prior to the beginning of the school year. To give in to the demands of a select few to impose their moral standards on the majority, however, is unequivocally wrong. As a person who has earned a doctorate degree, Dr. Hughes, you know as well as anyone the value of intellectual freedom, and the inherent risk of selective attempts to limit that freedom, because you must recognize that such limits can quickly escalate to other books, other subjects, and beyond.
I remain cautiously optimistic that the school administration, including yourself and the Plymouth School Board, will recognize these recent events as what they truly are: a sad, tired refrain of the failed arguments of limited thinking. Banning books has always been negatively viewed by the American public, and history shows that such efforts usually (and rightfully) fail. Even now, the public at large is rallying to defend intellectual freedom and voice its opposition to censorship. For instance:
- Unflattering articles regarding this misguided local effort to ban books (again, masked as “upholding process”) has already been published on the mlive.com news web site, as well as the New York Post.
- Another article discussing the PCCS situation, under the subtitle of “Censorship,” was published in Media Bistro – a popular on-line, media-oriented web site.
- An individual has publicly offered to provide Waterland or Beloved free of charge to any PCCS student who requests a copy.
- Former students, academics, and citizens from around the country are joining local parents like me and my wife, expressing outrage and opposition to the removal of these books from the curriculum. Many of these people are preparing their own letters for your review.
- Citizens from around the country are already alleging that the effort to ban Beloved is racially motivated. (I encourage you to review Toni Morrison’s public Facebook page and web site for corroboration.)
- Parents opposed to censorship are already preparing to speak publicly via radio and other broadcast media.
In other words, the opportunity to keep this issue “local” is gone, and the attempt to restrict access of the books is failing. Thanks to the power of social media, the motivated parents of PCCS students, and the predictable outrage American citizens always express at the thought of banning books, individuals who wish to impose their beliefs on all students – not just their own children – will find it impossible to work in the shadows or hide behind closed-door, bureaucratic “process meetings” any longer. If these voices of censorship succeed, negative coverage of Plymouth’s school system, and its curriculum, will be persistent, widespread and prominent. Such negative coverage could only be seen as a detriment for our students, your administration, our school board’s leadership, and our community as a whole.
It would be a very sad day to see Plymouth added to the dark list of communities that banned books of literature. Take a stand for your students, your faculty, your community and your integrity, and reject yet another shrill and hollow attempt to ban controversial works of literature. The citizens of Plymouth – and people across the country – are watching.
Respectfully,
Keith Yancy
_______________
We shall see.
Until next time… : |
Counterpoint 
What a great letter. Thank you.
Thanks for taking the lead on such an important issue. You speak for many who have not taken the time to do so.
Thanks, Laura. One book has since been restored (Beloved). I’m hoping that
Waterland
will soon be approved also, though (regrettably) it’s too late to include in the course. I’ve read it, and it’s excellent.
Both my children took AP English at PCEP (my daughter, who graduated in 2006, brought this issue to my attention) and read the books in question with my knowledge and approval. Contrary to being shocked or titillated, they both approached the novels from an objective standpoint; that is, by reading and analyzing them as works of fictional literature. Was it an entertaining experience? No. Was it an enlightening and valuable part of the AP learning experience? Absolutely. My children accepted the assumption (and responsibility) that they were mature individuals capable of handling the material, which in turn prepared them well for the academic atmosphere of a major university. Should any parents not wish their children to be exposed to any of the materials contained in the AP English syllabus (as is their right), they should overrule their children’s desire to take the class and make alternative curriculum choices for them. On the other hand, if they welcome the prospect of intelligent, open and mature discussions with their children, I suggest they allow the teachers to continue doing their job with the AP reading list left intact.
Carol, your note could be the best, most concise argument in favor of the existing curriculum I’ve read yet. A terrific note. It reminds me of a true story… there was a famous speaker/orator who spoke for about 2 hours at Gettysburg just prior to President Lincoln’s now-historic delivery of his Gettysburg Address. Days after the ceremony, he wrote the President and said, “I should flatter myself if I came as close to the central idea of the ceremony in two hours as you did in two minutes.”
Thanks for sharing and for reading my blog. It’s a great relief to know that there are still many enlightened, thoughtful parents and students here in Plymouth and Canton, and that good people are still willing to fight for what is right.
Keith, a bit of a follow-up to my comment on your previous post. I’ve been watching developments in this situation with interest and I’m pleased that cooler heads seem to have prevailed — at least with regard to one of the books.
It occurred to me that the archdiocese up there has excellent schools, including high schools with outstanding records for academic excellence in their graduates. Don’t misunderstand: I’m making no assumptions here about the parents who started this whole thing. The decision whether one’s children attend a public school, or whether one makes the significant personal and financial sacrifice to place them in a private school, is emphatically no one else’s business (most especially mine!). But as one who has “been there” I can say that if I had chosen this issue on which to take such a public and forceful stand, as a Catholic I’d also be exploring that alternative even as I registered my objection to course content with the public school administrators (though I’d stop short of demanding that they pull the books).
This is why: It’s not the school district’s responsibility to ensure that my beliefs are reflected in the curriculum, and trump other parents’ opinions on the basis of higher moral ground, the vehemence of my objection, and/or my standing in the community. If that were so, the public schools would be teaching nothing of substance, because the “squeaky wheel standard” would have to be applied across the board. It would effectively empty the school library shelves of all but the most benign and bland writing, because let’s face it, there is always somebody who’s going to take offense … at something. “Public” means the whole public, and that’s quite a mixture.
Keith, I’ve been a voracious reader since approximately age four. I’m now pushing 58 and haven’t stopped. When I was growing up, none of my parents’ hundreds of books were “off limits” to me. I’d occasionally pull one off the shelf which my mother told me was a bit mature, and she’d prefer that I wait to read it, but if I wanted to go ahead anyway (what kid who hears “that may be too grown-up for you right now” doesn’t want a peek at it?) she would make time to discuss it with me. This, while also raising my (much younger) siblings, holding down a job, and trying to keep a fracturing household together. Many times, her brief periods of rest late in the evening were spent helping me process what I’d read in books that were way, way over my head in terms of theme. She didn’t forbid me any book; there was no “book ban” in my home, no upper shelf that I couldn’t touch. I was exposed to an amazing world in literature and discovered the many ways in which words can be powerful. I learned more about the difference between mediocre writing and mastery of the craft at home than I ever did in my public school career.
We were people of faith. There were moral absolutes in my household. But they were used as a framework, not a hammer. I learned discernment not by living behind a protective parental firewall, but by being allowed to view an entire spectrum of ideas and language within the embrace of my mother’s wisdom.
No judgment here of the parents who precipitated this book incident … just an observation that there is another way (or ways) besides the way they chose, which caused acrimony. I will grant that they are well-intentioned, and care about all the students. I understand their position, but in all charity I think their community prominence led them to think their take on this issue carried more weight than it did … or should.