[Republished article from earlier assignment.]
Can I blame all my faults on reading Dr. Seuss, Peter Pan, and Snow White when I was a child? The individuals who attempted to ban those books probably entertain that belief. Although book banning is hardly a new occurrence, it is likely to be as old as books themselves. There are recorded attempts, and references, hundreds of years before Christ, such as Socrates and Plato (Plato). Per chance even a few petroglyphs were smudged beyond recognition over one clan taking offense at another. However, after reading the prescribed book banning articles for my latest assignment, I feel one should be singled out and positioned away from the others.
In his article “Books Are Being Banned,” Michael Granberry, a Los Angeles Times staff writer, points out how book banning is not only on the rise, but it is being perpetrated by both the conservative and liberal factions. To strengthen his claim Granberry chooses a variety of evidence, combining specific incidents with various organizations that profess local and national book banning agendas. This is seen with his use of individual cases like the book banning situation played out, ironically, in the town of Banning, involving well-known poet Maya Angelou’s autobiography I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. Granberry then weaves in related statistics from watch-dog organizations like People for the American Way, founded by Norman Lear, along with various authoritative comments by officials representing nationally recognized organizations like the American Library Association. Further solidifying his contentions, Granberry recounts a diverse array of books and authors that have been targeted for banning. The list includes Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, and the Bible: even Dr. Seuss and Snow White. However, in an attempt to show impartiality, Granberry concludes it is not just the conservatives worried about family values; he claims the liberal factions equally weigh in with race, age, and gender complaints. Sadly, although Granberry attempts to portray a sense of impartiality by admitting both conservative and liberal factions participate in book banning efforts, it is a dishonest and feeble attempt so blatantly obvious through unbalanced and manipulated evidence, along with logic and emotional fallacies, that it diminishes his credibility in the eyes of any reader not burdened with a similar bias.
When Granberry plays the sympathy card, although a legitimate practice, in his hands it is nothing short of overkill. He positions the event first and foremost, repeats parts of it, allocates over twenty-five percent of the forty-two paragraph text to it, and succumbs to the temptation of spreading a post hoc fallacy with regards to the incident. The fallacy pertains to the “book banner from Banning” (Granberry) affair with Kathy McNamara, who, if believed, is under the assumption that protesting parents sent her colleague Deborah Bennett to an early grave instead of the unfortunate combination of lung and breast cancer. Although the protesting and publicity curiously had no detrimental effect on McNamara, who went on to acquire the Banning Unified School District’s Superintendent position (Quan, Hill). Unfortunately, accomplice to one fallacy was not enough for Granberry, who carefully practices some subtle name calling. He refers to Christian conservatives as “critics,” “wannabe censors,” and a “religious sect:” sect is a word most modern-day writers use to describe cult factions, like Jim Jones or the Branch Davidians. It is rarely used to simply denote a smaller inner group as it once was. On the other hand, he at least refrained from going as far as Thomas Storck in his article “Censors Can Be Beneficial,” who lumps “Bible Belt provincialism” in the same sentence with Hitler and Stalin. However, back to the Banning affair, Granberry gives voice to McNamara’s claim that “They all say the same thing…,” as if it is not taken on an individual basis, but a combined mob mentality. Then in the very next paragraph he lumps librarians and school officials together for not mustering enough backbone to fight back against the wannabe censors. It is a statement to add credence to Judith Krug, director of the OIF and Freedom to Read Foundation, who claims that librarians and school officials will not put forth that amount of effort because they do not make as much money as those who fight longer and harder against censorship: an inappropriate pass the buck excuse for anyone questioning the fact, and a rather poor image of her colleagues if you ask me.
If Granberry, who is undoubtedly against censorship, but equally a die-hard liberal, would have honestly stated his position instead of giving a half-hearted attempt at impartiality, he would have retained credibility. To act like he was being objective while blatantly stacking the deck is unethical and does not befit a professional writer. Out of forty-two paragraphs Granberry only mentions the liberal factions attempting to ban books a brief three times. How objective and impartial is that? Similarly, his statistics and quotes are only liberal representations, including the fore mentioned fallacies, when trying to support his point of view. He then reverses it and only uses conservative quotes in an attempt to make the book banners look bad. This would not be the case if he honestly wanted to attack both the liberal and conservative book banning factions.
Likewise, claiming the censorship advocating parents are carrying out a “war on books” is an oversimplification fallacy by Granberry, in an obvious effort to polarize his target readers. It is here that he transitions to the statistics and opinions by far-left liberal factions, such as the People for the American Way, and various quotes from the aforementioned Krug. Krug has not only been director of the OIF within the American Library Association for over forty years, but she has partnered with the ACLU, serving on their board for three years, and was instrumental in lowering the responsibility level of librarians through the amended Library Bill of Rights, as Helen Chaffee Biehle diligently points out in her article “Libraries Should Restrict Access to Offensive Books.” In other words, the evidence speaks for itself, shooting Granberry’s credibility all to hell.
Anyone can make a mistake, and oversights can be forgiven, but Granberry’s style of writing is so clearly misrepresentational that any chance for serious consideration is gone. A writer cannot stack the proverbial deck with statistics and opinions from the extreme left, succumb to perpetrating a half dozen fallacies, and allocate approximately 5% to liberal book banners and 95% to conservative book banners, and expect anyone but extreme liberals to believe them. And yes, I acknowledge that there are extremes on both sides, but moderate liberals and conservatives are more interested in the truth so they can make more informed decisions, or at least be able to base their beliefs on provable facts. Any professional writer who takes a serious topic and blatantly attempts to scam the readers through manipulation of alleged evidence forfeits all credibility, and should not even be a professional writer.
Therefore, Granberry’s feeble attempt at impartiality has done nothing to persuade me to give up my moderate view on book banning. There are simply things that minors are not mature enough to properly grasp. How would you like to learn that a rebellious and unsupervised youth living next door to you just acquired the step-by-step instructions for building a bomb using nothing but items found under the sink or in the garage? Or find out that the ten-year old boy that molested your six-year old daughter had been constantly indoctrinated with verbal and visual images of rape through books, music, and videos? Are you then going to confess to your daughter that you stopped the local censors from taking the inappropriate material out of the hands of the immature youth that hurt her? And yet, going overboard on censorship can be nearly as detrimental, though I would rather err on the side of safety for all. Therefore, the keyword should be responsible limits.
Biehle, Helen Chaffee. “Libraries Should Restrict Access to Offensive Books.” Opposing
Viewpoints: Censorship. Tamara L. Roleff. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2002. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. ORBIS Central Oregon Community College. Web 6 July 2009.
Granberry, Michael. “Books Are Being Banned.” Opposing Viewpoints: Censorship. Byron L.
Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.
ORBIS Central Oregon Community College. Web. 6 July 2009.
Plato. “Republic II.” Molloy Edu. Translated by Benjamin Jowett. Revised & Edited by Michael
- Russo. Sophia Project. 376d-383a. 2000. Web. 6 October 2009.
Quan, Douglas & Hill, Lisa O’Neill. “Officials’ Credentials Questioned.” The Press Entreprise.
Web. 2 October 2009.
Storck, Thomas. “Censorship Can Be Beneficial.” Opposing Viewpoints: Censorship. Ed. Byron
- Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale.
ORBIS Central Oregon Community College. Web. 6 July 2009.