Montgomery County group forms to fight book banning
A couple days ago, I posted a rant about a group of Conservatives in Montgomery County, just north of Houston. The self-appointed arbiters of all that is right, just, and pure call them selves the Republican Leadership Council. These folks seem determined to turn Montgomery County into something out of the set of "Pleasantville".
Today, we get the other side of the story from our beloved Chronk, and we learn that there are good, decent, and TOLERANT people in Montgomery County.
In a county where art and children's books have been at the center of an intense ideological battle lately, the word "mainstream" has become the latest bone of contention.
Two groups in Montgomery County have staked claim to the word, saying they represent prevailing public opinion in a struggle over one side's effort to get two children's books banned from the county library.
The newer group, calling itself Mainstream Montgomery County, was formally organizing Friday. Its leaders say the group resulted from a public backlash in response to the Republican Leadership Council, which has been trying to take control of the county Republican Party.
Each accuses the other of being too far from the center of the political spectrum.
The Republican Leadership Council wants the books banned for what it says is inappropriate sexual content and promotion of homosexuality. The council was instrumental in convincing Commissioners Court on Monday to add political appointees to a committee of librarians who review challenged children's books.
Mainstream Montgomery County made its first appearance at that meeting to oppose the policy, which was approved even before opponents were allowed to speak.
Anne Bayerkohler, who helped found the group, said the book-banning issue has roused people of every political stripe to opposition. The response has consumed most of her time, she said, and 70 people have sent e-mails requesting membership.
The biggest question, I suppose, is not so much who gets to use the word "mainstream" to define themselves, but who gets to be the one making the decisions. The people who make up the Republican Leadership Council ("the largest political organization in Montgomery County, dedicated to upholding the conservative, pro-family principles of the Republican Party Platform") have shown themselves to be quite willing to impose their views and standards on everyone, particularly those who disagree with their rigid brand of fundamentalism.
Mainstream Montgomery County ("We are pleased to provide a voice for moderate beliefs in Montgomery County.... We are vehemently opposed to any form of censorship and promote tolerance and understanding among people with opposing beliefs."), at least seems to recognize the reality that a community involves a wide spectrum of viewpoints.
Community standards should not be a zero-sum game, and MMC is becoming a voice for openness and dialogue, unlike the RLC, whose rigid, dogmatic, slash-and-burn politics leaves no room for dissension or open-mindedness. It's encouraging that some people in Montgomery County have found it within themselves to fight those who would turn back the clock and ban what they refuse to understand. This is still a free country, and that should mean freedom to choose the books that you or your child reads.
It's a small step to go from banning books to burning books. I wish the MMC well in their battle for tolerance and open-mindedness. It's not going to be an easy sell in Montgomery County.
Ya know, while I'm not in favor necessarily of pulling any particular books, if what we're talking about here is pulling books from the kids section of a local library, or pulling them out of a school library, isn't it a little irresponsible to compare that to book burning? In fact, isn't it a little irresponsible to even call it book "banning?"
If you can still buy the book, and adults can still get the book, what the heck? Isn't this a little hysterical? The children's section of a library should have books that reflect the broadest possible definition of non-offensive to the local community. If the book is still available elsewhere, isn't it really an attempt to force your values on others if you insist that a book that others may find offensive be readily available to kids?
Maybe I'm missing something here.
I've found myself appalled at the lack of coverage of this issue by the press, and comment further on what I see here on my own weblog.
Comments invited. (Hope Jack doesn't mind my posting the link here.)
The problem with book banning is who does the banning. The same people that speak out against banning gay and lesbian themed books tend to want to ban books that discuss faith and religion. (and vice versa)
The libertarian in me says put all the books in the room and let the readers decide which ones they want to read.
As far as curiculum goes, I think kids should be forced to read the same old crap I had to read when I was in school. If they can overcome those, then they have a true passion for reading.
Ravenwood, enjoying a rare moment of agreement with you, here ;-)
Ditto....
Ditto....
Looking at your own linked post Dean (since you evidently don't accept comments there, I say here), I wonder why having a book in a public library is "ramming it down their throats?" It's a weirdly thoughtful piece, but . . .
I wonder too, what's up with the widely growing (not just you) aversion to "citing" in favor of "siting," an entirely different word. Cite Emerson, site in Texas.
On a lighter note, I see that we agree on the correct number of dogs and cats and way to meet a wife. Same here ;-)
And isn't your initial comment similar to saying, "If black kids in the South don't like 'White Only' drinking fountains, they could have their parents move them north?"
To wit, I think you mean "narrowest possible."
". . .broadest possible definition of non-offensive. . ." does not compute!