Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Book banning: A red flag behavior

Book banning: A red flag behavior
Getty Images

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

“Just the facts, ma’am,” was the infamous introductory phrase Sgt. Joe Friday would use when interrogating a witness in the whodunit TV series Dragnet. Jack Webb played Sgt. Friday during Dragnet’s 1951-1959 lifespan.


Dragnet’s civil servant show often dealt with complex social issues. Let’s apply Sgt. Friday’s flat and concise “just the facts, ma’am” line to the current book banning craze before offering an opinion.

Fact no. 1: According to Pen America, 2,532 books were banned across 32 states – including all red states -- during the 2021-2022 school year.

Fact no. 2: Over 50 major groups with affiliate groups exceeding 300 are advocates for banning books in school districts and public libraries.

Fact no. 3: Book banning groups, like Moms for Liberty, Parents Defending Education and No Left Turn in Education are linked to Republican mega-donor Charles Koch and GOP donor Leonard Lee, a former VP of the Koch-funded Federalist Society (Adam Gabbatt, The Guardian, Jan. 24, 2022).

Fact no. 4: Under Adolf Hitler’s dictatorial orders, more than 4,000 books were banned and burned in Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945.

Fact no. 5: A Feb., 2022 CNN Poll found only 12% of Americans believe parents should control which library books are on the shelves.

Fact. no. 6: A CBS News/YouGov survey of Americans found: A) 83% don’t want books banned that criticize US history, B) 85% don’t want books banned that offer different political ideas, C) 87% don’t want books banned that depict slavery and D) 87% don’t want books banned that discuss race.

Fact no. 7: A plethora of research reveals a LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum promotes a positive school environment and student well-being.

Fact no. 8: The predominant advocates of the Nazi-like book banning conspiracy are Republican legislators and GOP governors from Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia.

Fact no. 9: The children predominantly affected by the book banning craze are Gen Z (ages 10-26). Pew Research Center notes “Gen Z is more racially and ethnically diverse than previous generations.” Gen Z individuals are independent learners who value diversity and inclusive cultures.

Pat Scales, author of Scales on Censorship (2007) – an ardent First Amendment advocate – notes outright censorship is only one aspect of book banning. Shelving books by keeping them out of readers’ hands is about control, a far-right, Nazi, fascism, authoritarian and totalitarian ideology tactic.

Scales notes “intellectual freedom is about respect.” It appears book banning advocates don’t respect the intellectual freedom and First Amendment rights of Gen Z students who want to become knowledgeable about history and 21st century reality.

For parents who don’t want their child to learn about this diverse world, please do your utmost to shelter your child. First of all, take your child out of school as a certified teacher or peer student may expose your child to knowledge that may be offensive to you.

Next, television, radio, social media and newspapers should become taboo in your household. Of course, all books and the internet will be off limits.

For goodness sake, don’t let your child play outside as they may observe or hear something that is offensive to you. Don’t permit your child to hold a part-time or – Lord be – a full-time job as they may interact with a non-homogenized person.

Growing up and adulthood is dangerous to one’s health. Protect your child and hope that someday s/he will live alone on a small planet.

Politicians’ book banning censorship actions are all about controlling children under the age of consent from the real world, a red flag behavior. Book banners don’t value democracy, they crave authoritarian rule.


Read More

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding
person in red shirt wearing silver bracelet holding red and black metal tool
Photo by Wassim Chouak on Unsplash

Fueling the Future: The Debate Over California’s Gas Tax and Transportation Funding

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

Keep ReadingShow less
A person looking at social media app icons on a phone

Gen Z is quietly leaving social media as algorithmic feeds, infinite scroll, and addictive platform design fuel anxiety, isolation, and mental health struggles.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images

Gen Z Begs Legislators: Make Social Media Social Again

Lately, it seems like each time I reach out to an old acquaintance through social media, I’m met with a page that reads, “This account doesn’t exist anymore.”

Many Gen-Z’ers are quietly quitting the platforms we grew up on.

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less