A "Geography" lesson

Book banning won't do.

I am certain Superintendent Patti Banks had concern for young people in mind when she banned "Geography Club" from the University Place School District libraries. The Internet can be a dangerous and predatory place. ["Principal pulls book from 2 libraries," Times, Local News, Nov. 21.]

But in censoring the book, Banks has loosed a more dangerous message — a message that disregards the United States Supreme Court's value and judgments; one that threatens our First Amendment right to free speech.

I would urge her to validate the concerns of the parents who complained about the book by listening to those complaints. I encourage [support] for [their] being aware of what their young people are reading and for exercising their parental right to approve or veto a book they might not like.

But tossing the book out for all students — including gay and lesbian students already marginalized by the political climate in America today, students three times more likely to commit suicide because they feel discounted and unseen — is far more dangerous than the Internet.

They have every right to see their lives — their sense of isolation — reflected in young-adult fiction. And author Brent Hartinger knows that reality firsthand. He knows gay and lesbian teens turn to the 'Net and the dangers there because they have no other voice, no other safe place to stand up and be counted.

In banning this book, Banks has made it more likely gay teens will turn to the 'Net for friendship and understanding, because she has taken away a safer venue — a fictional story, a book. She has accomplished something altogether contrary to her stated goal.

She has also slipped into a dangerous place that will empower other people with their own value judgments about various books at which to take aim and action. An atheist might see Christian fiction as a danger to his children. A creationist might demand the removal of a biography on Darwin. A vegetarian might demand all references to meat-eating pulled from library shelves.

They each have valid concerns — real dangers have arisen from each of those otherwise non-perilous harbors just as they have on the Internet. And each person is entitled to their own choices and value judgments, when it comes to their own children. But they are not entitled to make those judgments for other people's children. Neither is Banks, not according to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I strongly urge her to rethink her decision. I formally register my opposition to this stance. And I hope other like-minded Washington state citizens will do the same.

Freedom matters. So does a student's right to read. I hope Banks will consider both.

Kelly Milner Halls is a freelance writer in Spokane.