Book Bans and High Conflict
Last week we introduced you to Amanda Ripley and her book, High Conflict. If you’ve explored any of her work, it won’t take long to realize that high conflict is all around us these days.
How does banning books from libraries and classrooms fit into Ripley’s framework?
First, there is a false binary—just two choices forcing an us-against-them situation.
Activist groups, such as Moms for Liberty, seeking to ban books claim their goal is to “organize, educate and empower parents to defend their parental rights.” Claiming they are protecting children from age-inappropriate content and “woke” indoctrination, they have called for book bans, classroom censorship and bans on teaching about slavery, race, racism and LGBTQ people and history.
Librarians support the right to read—individuals rights to seek information, to be intellectually curious, and to see themselves in the books and resources provided. Librarians ensure access to information for all. They don’t force children to read materials that individual parents disapprove.
This sets the stage for firestarters or accelerants that supercharge the conflict with public humiliation.
Librarians who reject book banning have been threatened, harassed, sued, fired, and labeled “groomers” and “pedophiles” on social media—causing some to resign. There have been calls for firing librarians and defunding public libraries.
Finally, conflict entrepreneurs who inflame the situation through manipulation to boost their popularity and power, abound. Politicians across the country are jumping on the “woke” bandwagon and stoking the so-called culture war to remain in office.
Ironically, in 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while school boards have an interest in promoting respect for social and moral values, the imperatives of the First Amendment take priority. Removing books from a school library because certain people dislike the ideas they contain violates students’ First Amendment rights and puts the library at risk of lawsuits. ["Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico by Pico." ]
How might we get out of this particular high conflict?
Lean into it. Take the time to question and listen, really listen, to the other side. A library director in Southeastern Louisiana suggests that concerned parents who take the time to learn how libraries curate their collections might discover that books that are upsetting to them are not displayed in the children’s section, for example. If the threats and harassment stopped, there is room for real dialogue around everyone’s concerns—a much more productive approach.
While listening to the other side, it’s important to be curious about the things that influence their thinking—their backgrounds, experiences and understory. Do this in a non-judgmental way. Ask: Why do you believe [a certain fact]? Did you read that on social media? Do you have any evidence or examples to support it?
Be sure to share your backstory. For example, perhaps you, a friend, or family member has been bullied for being “different”.
Finally, recognize that the issues underlying this high conflict are complicated and not binary. They are complicated because, as human beings, each of us has our own unique, multidimensional diversity—our backstory. None of us can be neatly, nor singularly labeled.
Central to any conflict is a focus on finding common interests. In this conflict, everyone’s mutual interest is the children who are being affected, yet they are the ones who will be worse off. Can you think of a better reason for getting out of this high conflict?