Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Observing the right to freely read

Observing the right to freely read
Getty Images

Johnson is a United Methodist pastor, the author of "Holding Up Your Corner: Talking About Race in Your Community" (Abingdon Press, 2017) and vice president of the Bridge Alliance, which houses The Fulcrum.

Last week marked Banned Books Week (October 1-7, 2023).


The essence of the week represents a shared responsibility to preserve democratic values and oppose efforts to hinder knowledge. It is an observance that exposes citizens to the information and autonomy necessary to formulate their viewpoints and make well-informed decisions, reinforcing the building blocks of a functioning democracy.

Banned Books Week invites reflection on the problem of prohibiting books that have resurfaced in our country. A critical examination of the banning movement reveals an effort fueled by a minute fringe group antithetical towards BIPOC+ (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color+) and LGBTI+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex+) writers, readers, and themes. The act of book banning contradicts our First Amendment rights -- the freedom to abstain and engage with texts as individuals choose.

One must recognize books' integral role when reflecting on history. They impart knowledge, broaden perspectives, and foster critical thinking. Literature transcends geographical boundaries and cultural differences, enabling a deeper understanding of ourselves and those around us.

It is essential to examine why certain groups are advocating for book bans. Historically speaking and still relevant today, banned books often contain content deemed controversial or threatening to specific segments of society. Defenders of book bans often use fear-based tactics with language such as "protecting children" or "preserving values" to maintain their version of order and morality without considering diverse perspectives on sensitive issues.

Even more alarming is how this banning movement disproportionately targets BIPOC+ and LGBTI+ writers and narratives. In turn, it undermines the much-needed representation these communities deserve. As a society that champions diversity and inclusion, we must ensure that marginalized voices are heard rather than silenced.

The First Amendment is the cultural cornerstone of the values of freedom of speech and expression. Inherent in that right is our ability to choose what we read without unnecessary restrictions imposed upon us by others. A request that encompasses acknowledging and defending the freedom of others to abstain from engaging with particular works if they so choose.

While parents and educators must regularly make decisions based on the moral principles they follow, they should also be aware of the societal consequences of suffocating diverse perspectives in literature. Engaging in open conversations regarding sensitive subjects breeds empathy rather than perpetuating discriminatory misconceptions.

Book banning is an assault on the First Amendment and intellectual inquiry. It is a dangerous precedent that threatens individual thought and diminishes our shared cultural expression, which makes us united in our differences. Last week's observance is a respectful act of resistance in opposition to censorship and responsible expression of civic participation.


Read More

House key on calculator with wooden table background copy space.

95% of Americans see an affordability crisis, and most distrust government to fix it. An argument for tracking real outcomes, not just GDP growth.

Pla2na/Getty Images

America’s Affordability Crisis Is a Democracy Crisis

Affordability dominates the national conversation because it dominates people’s lives. Ninety-five percent of Americans say the country is facing an affordability crisis, yet two-thirds don’t believe the federal government will successfully address it.

This is more than an economic problem – it’s a crisis for democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A U.S flag flying.

Constitution Day gets little fanfare compared to July 4th, but an attorney argues it should remind every American of their role in defending democracy.

Prasit photo/Getty Images

Defending the Constitution Is a Year-Round Responsibility—No Oath Required

For 250 years and counting, Americans have celebrated Independence Day on July 4 through fireworks, concerts, parades, barbecues, and more. By contrast, Constitution Day arrives soon after, on September 17, with far less fanfare. It is not a time to hear patriotic medleys on the radio, enjoy 20% off a new air-conditioner, watch a hot-dog-eating contest, or exchange cheerful greetings with neighbors. The observance marks the anniversary of the moment when 39 delegates signed our nation’s founding document at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787. Constitution Day came and went last month with little public awareness. But the observance should inspire all Americans to protect our cherished Constitution throughout the year.

Presidents of the United States recite an oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This oath, familiar to many Americans who watch Inauguration Day ceremonies, is mandated by the Constitution itself (Article II, Section 1, Clause 8). Public officials, judges, service members, and lawyers like me also swear oaths to support the Constitution as part of their public or professional roles.

Keep ReadingShow less
Capitol building
white concrete building during daytime

Congress Broke the Constitutional Order — And Now They Want Voters to Forget

How can leaders who broke the constitutional order, ignored their oath, weakened rights, and harmed the people now ask Americans to forget — and reward them with reelection? The question is not abstract — it goes to the heart of what the Constitution demands from those who swear an oath to uphold it.

The constitutional order is the framework that protects the Republic: three branches, checks and balances, oversight, limits on executive power, and the oath every member of Congress swears — to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Yet in recent years, Congress has allowed that order to erode. Oversight collapsed. Guardrails bent. Silence replaced accountability. Loyalty to a president replaced loyalty to the Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less