In June of 1953, during a time of intense political scrutiny, the American Library Association and the Association Book Publishers Council released a groundbreaking document called “The Freedom to Read.” This manifesto, issued amidst the McCarthy era, staunchly defended free expression and denounced censorship and conformity. Its message, which resonates even more strongly today, called for a wide range of views and expressions and argued against purging works based on an author’s personal history or political affiliations. It urged publishers and librarians to resist both government and private suppression and emphasized the importance of providing books that enrich the diversity of thought.
“The Freedom to Read” received significant media coverage, with President Dwight Eisenhower himself commending the authors in a letter. Despite the oppressive environment of the time, the manifesto emboldened librarians and publishers to fight for their principles. As one librarian noted, it created a community of dedicated individuals who were unwavering in their convictions.
Fast forward to June of this year, when the library and publishers’ associations reissued “The Freedom to Read” on its 70th anniversary. Numerous publishers, libraries, literary groups, civil-liberty organizations, and authors showed their support by endorsing its principles. Yet, many of these institutional signatories, including major publishing conglomerates, often fail to uphold the very principles they endorse. They unwittingly neglect to defend intellectual freedom as ardently as their predecessors did in 1953. This begs the question: why is the American literary world in 2023 struggling to uphold the ideals of “The Freedom to Read” compared to those who championed it 70 years ago?
The contemporary attack on intellectual freedom takes multiple forms. The primary concern of the signatories lies in the official campaign by various governing bodies to eliminate books and ideas they find objectionable. The targets of this campaign tend to be politically left-leaning works that present facts or express views on race, gender, and sexuality that the censors perceive as dangerous or divisive. Starting in Texas in 2020, this effort expanded to Florida and other states, infiltrating every level of education and resulting in the removal of thousands of books from library shelves and reading lists. Writers like Toni Morrison and Malala Yousafzai have faced the brunt of this censorship.
While it is true that states and school districts have the responsibility to set curricula, laws and policies aimed at preventing students from encountering controversial or unpopular ideas can be seen as repressive forms of book banning. Some of these measures may even be unconstitutional. This trend stems from a long-standing tradition of narrow-minded panic in the face of rapid change and unorthodox thinking. From the Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925 to Florida’s Stop WOKE Act of 2022, this fear of intellectual freedom persists. Progressive and enlightened individuals within the book world should find it easy to oppose this threat, as they firmly stand up for works like “Gender Queer” and “The Handmaid’s Tale.”
Ray Bradbury once stated, “There is more than one way to burn a book, and the world is full of people running about with lit matches.” The second threat to intellectual freedom comes from within the publishing industry itself. This is the subject of a new report from PEN America called “Booklash: Literary Freedom, Online Outrage, and the Language of Harm.” The report explores the trend of publishers and authors canceling their own books, often under pressure from organized online campaigns or their own staff members, particularly younger ones. PEN has identified 31 cases of what can be described as literary infanticide since 2016, with half occurring in the past two years alone. These cancellations do not stem from allegations of disinformation, glorification of violence, or plagiarism. Instead, they are based on the offense taken to an author’s content or their personal beliefs.
Some cases have gained significant media attention, such as Hachette canceling Woody Allen’s autobiography and Norton withdrawing Blake Bailey’s biography of Philip Roth, both due to allegations of sexual misconduct by the authors. Other books have been canceled because of an author’s public remarks, like those made by cartoonist Scott Adams, journalist Julie Burchill, and provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos. In an extreme case, author Natasha Tynes saw her debut novel on the verge of publication collapse after she posted a tweet about a Black employee of the Washington, D.C., Metro. Within hours, her distributor and publisher dropped the book, branding her as a racist. While her novel eventually saw publication, thanks to contractual obligations, its prospects were severely damaged. Tynes rightly questioned the expectation that authors must be faultless creatures. Most publishers now include morals clauses in their book contracts, legitimizing these cancellations, despite contradicting the principles they endorsed in “The Freedom to Read.”
Many of the cases discussed in PEN’s report do not revolve around an author’s offensive statements or behavior. Instead, they involve accusations of poor phrasing, problematic characterization, controversial plotlines, sensitive subject matter, or an author’s identity. Last year, Picador dropped a memoir by a schoolteacher due to allegations of racially insensitive portrayals. Similarly, a scholarly study of Black feminist culture was withdrawn by Wipf and Stock after critics pointed out that the author was white. Simon & Schuster preemptively canceled a children’s biography of Hitler, for obvious reasons. Four young-adult and children’s novels have also been pulled due to supposedly offensive content. One of these, “A Place for Wolves,” a novel about two gay American boys set in Kosovo during its war with Serbia, was canceled by its own author, Kosoko Jackson, who had previously prosecuted literary offenses on Twitter. The attack on these books often centers around the concept of “marginalized identities” and accusations of harmful language, lack of representation, appropriation, or content deemed “problematic.”
These instances of literary self-censorship demonstrate the prominent role of identity in current book controversies. The red flags that lead to the demise of a writer’s work are often connected to issues of identity. When white writer Jeanine Cummins received substantial attention and a lucrative book deal for her novel “American Dirt,” which tells the story of a Mexican mother and child fleeing from a drug gang, she faced severe criticism for supposedly taking an opportunity that should have gone to a Latina author capable of producing a better book. While her publisher did not withdraw the novel, it created a divisive debate. This internal attack on intellectual freedom poses a significant challenge for the book industry.
In conclusion, the threats to intellectual freedom in today’s society come from various directions. The official campaign to ban books and ideas, spearheaded by government bodies, is a significant concern. Simultaneously, the rise of self-censorship within the publishing industry creates an environment where authors are pressured to withdraw their own works. These challenges call into question the ability of the American literary world in 2023 to uphold the principles laid out in “The Freedom to Read.” It is crucial for publishers, librarians, and all individuals who value intellectual freedom to remain steadfast in their defense of diverse voices and ideas, regardless of the political climate or internal pressures.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
