Mr. Neal’s recent opinion piece regarding Huntington Beach’s book restriction policy and the associated legal case cannot go unchallenged. As frequently happens when trying to support a specific perspective, Mr. Neal conveniently only recognizes points that he believes support his point of view, while conveniently ignoring those that don’t.
Let’s start with his first point about the first amendment. The first amendment is about speech and makes no distinction between adults and minors. Access to information is a slightly different category, and no one on either side of the debate ever suggested that minors should have unrestricted access to all library holdings. Strike one.
Next, Mr. Neal asserts that no books were ever banned and children were never prevented from access to any books. Let’s start with the ordinance itself, which would have empowered a citizen’s commission to decide what books remained in our library system and also which ones would be procured in the future. Removing books from our holdings or preventing them from ever entering the holdings effectively constitutes banning, whether Mr. Neal believes it or not. It’s also important to recognize that no criteria for commission membership was cited other than being over 18 and having a child. And, of course, they would be political appointees. I don’t think any thoughtful person would seriously argue that a commission of political appointees with no expertise in library science are more qualified than those who have obtained a Master’s degree or higher and dedicated their careers to library science to craft the library’s holdings. Strike two.
Next, Mr. Neal suggests that not all information is helpful to all children at all ages. I couldn’t agree more, but that doesn’t really support his argument. He also states, “Who better than a parent to know if a book is appropriate for their child”. Again, I agree, but again it does not support his point. Just because a book is in the library doesn’t force every child to check it out. In fact, the library’s policy is that children are to be accompanied by a parent, so if a parent objects to the book, they simply don’t let their child access it. Under Mr. Neal’s way of doing things, HE would have the right to decide what books MY child can read – hardly the definition of parental rights! Strike three!
Mr. Neal then suggests that there is so much propaganda on the topic and suggests that books like Everybody Poops and The Amazing Human Body were restricted because of malicious compliance by the librarians. He would better understand what actually happened if he read the directive the librarians were given. It required them to restrict any book that had a picture where any body part covered by a bathing suit was shown – whether in photo, cartoon, or other illustration. It was not malicious compliance – it was appropriate compliance with an ill-conceived and poorly thought-out directive. I guess we’re giving Mr. Neal four strikes!
Finally, Mr. Neal suggests that this is some huge, nefarious plot by the state to drive a wedge between parents and children. Poppycock!
Wanting information to be available to those who seek it is the soul of education, not a nefarious plot. It is the very function of a library. By definition, a good library contains books for a broad range of tastes and interests. If you loved every book in the library, it would suggest that the library is not doing its job very well. I expect my library to have a great many books that I have no interest in, as well as many I totally disagree with. If they didn’t, it would mean they were only serving me and people just like me, and not serving people who aren’t like me very well. I think we’ve run out of strikes.
Seeking to prevent anyone from accessing information that you disagree with, as Mr. Neal and the HB City Council attempted, is the real first step towards the one-party rule he is so concerned about. Our founding fathers knew that the success of our democratic experiment depended on an educated electorate. Libraries are critical to that success. Two-thirds of voters agreed in a special election on this very topic.
If there is a wedge between you and your children, maybe it’s because you are trying to force them to believe exactly what you believe.
David Rynerson is a retired technology systems engineer with a background in economics. He is an avid reader and patron of the Huntington Beach library system. He lives in Huntington Beach, CA.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
For a different view on this issue, consider: