Here is a challenge to any parent of a child in the Grand Haven School District: contact the curriculum director or Superintendent and ask who the district relies on for suggestions on what books to order for the school libraries. You will be given a list of resources such as the Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC), School Library Journal, and Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) among others. If you follow up and ask why these groups are relied on so heavily, you will be assured that these are groups of “highly credentialed” experts that have recommended appropriate books for your children.
But what if, as parents, you do not agree with these “highly credentialed’ groups? What if the parents who do not agree with these groups of “highly credentialed” people are highly credentialed themselves? What if the groups of “highly credentialed” so-called experts create such a wild strawman argument to stand in opposition of concerned parents as to make you wonder whether their credentials are worth the paper they are written on?
At the January 2022 school board meeting, 22 people spoke during the public comment portion. Of those 22, at least 16 of the 19 that spoke out on issues discussed on this site had degrees. At least ten spoke on obscene, pornographic and age-inappropriate books. Of those ten, eight had degrees or “credentials” themselves, with many having advanced degrees. This isn’t a debate between the credentialed vs the non-credentialed, educated vs uneducated, or informed vs uninformed. This is a debate between two groups of highly educated, informed and knowledgeable groups with differing views on appropriateness of materials being put in front of children. The biggest differentiator: one group is made of groups or organizations who have their own goals or agendas or ideologies. The other group is made up of parents and grandparents who’s sole reason for entering the debate is the protection, health and welfare of their very own children.
The Materials Reconsideration Guide is a document that GHAPS created as a supposed solution to parental concerns over obscene, offensive and pornographic books in school libraries. It is an eleven page document that lays out the defense of the school, then a form to fill out if a parent has a concern about a book. There are already a plethora of articles on here discussing it. I want to focus on the section in it that came directly from the “credentialed experts” you inevitably will be told about if you raise concerns to GHAPS employees.
The section titled “The Freedom to Read Statement” is a statement inserted in the Materials Reconsideration Guide that comes directly from the American Library Association, and can be found online here. These are the arguments put forth by the “credentialed experts” that we are supposed to trust. It reads as an adversarial document to concerned parents. In the first paragraph alone, it claims parent groups are looking to “censor content in schools”, “purge libraries”, and claims the actions of concerned parents “apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid.” The strawmen are already piling up.
Paragraph two goes on to claim this “suppression” is a “denial of the fundamental premise of democracy: that the ordinary individual, by exercising critical judgment, will select the good and reject the bad.” “We do not believe they are prepared to sacrifice their heritage of a free press in order to be protected against what others think may be bad for them”, it goes on to say. Reminder: we are talking school libraries, where children are the viewers.
This is an argument that may work with children, but not with educated adults. In fact, it did, as The Buc’s Blade, the school newspaper, included an editorial that parroted similar arguments. The points being made by concerned parents are far more nuanced than made out by these organizations of “experts”. Perhaps they are having trouble understanding our arguments, so let me try and help them.
At no point have any of the concerned parents raising the issue of inappropriate books in the school libraries ever advocated for banning books. The argument is and always has been, putting appropriate material in front of appropriate age groups. If the organizations that are trusted have decided that books that are only appropriate for high school age children are now needed in middle schools, and books that are appropriate for middle school age children are now appropriate for elementary schools, that is a problem. Pornographic material being allowed and issued to minors is a problem.
As covered in a previous article on here, television shows and movies have parental ratings. A minor can not attend a rated R movie without the accompaniment of an adult. Cartoons such as Archer or South Park have TV-MA ratings. All the concerned parents are arguing for, is a similar system in schools, where parents are not with their children to monitor what materials they can find. In theory, parents are supposed to be able to trust the professionals and schools to protect their minor children from inappropriate material. This is no longer the case. That is the argument here, not censorship or book banning.
To further illustrate the hypocrisy of the “Freedom to Read Statement” and those who wrote it, take Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters”. This book is not in any Grand Haven Area Public School Library. Why, you may ask? While “credentialed experts” are making adversarial statements toward parents asking for age appropriate materials, other “credentialed experts” are fighting to literally ban books such as this one. The American Booksellers Association issued an apology just for including it in promotional material. Or, take Halifax Pride, who broke their association with the Halifax Public Library, over their decision to not pull the book (ban) from their shelves. Or, take Dr. Seuss Enterprises. In a statement from March 2021, they decided, after consulting with a panel of “experts”, no doubt “highly credentialed”, which included educators, to cease the publication and licensing of six of their books. The National Education Association has also distanced itself from Dr. Seuss in recent years.
So to make the point clear, Dr. Seuss has effectively “banned” some of their books with the support of “credentialed experts”. Other “credentialed experts”, including a fellow at the Stanford University School of Medicine, have fought the distribution of Abigail Shrier’s book “Irreversible Damage”, and others like it. Meanwhile, actual pornographic material being disseminated to children as young as 10 is defended. This is the hypocrisy of the so-called “credentialed experts”.
So while GHAPS hides behind the “credentialed experts” they rely on, where the majority are credentialed in very homogenous degree fields, I will gladly stand on the side of the credentialed residents of Grand Haven, who’s degrees are from various fields and industries. This diversity of thought and education brings with it more varied viewpoints and “lived experiences” than those the school district relies on. When we can’t even rely on these experts to put forth an honest representation of our views, while promoting statements that stand in direct opposition to the views of parents and of the protection of minors, maybe it is time we stop relying on just their credentials, and view their actions for what they are. Those actions are harmful and abusive to minors.