Recently, I attended a local panel discussion about banning books. The topic of book banning has been rattling my community since early 2023 when, during story time at the library, a librarian read Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack and illustrated by Stevie Lewis. From what I understand, while no one objected to the title during story time, by the next day, the library started received phone calls and messages from unhappy patrons and community members, some of which were threatening. I gathered that some folks were outraged that a book depicting a love story between two male characters was read to children; some even accused the librarian of exposing children to “obscene and explicit” material. Check out the blurb for Prince & Knight below, copied directly from the publisher’s website (linked above):
Once upon a time, in a kingdom far from here, there was a prince in line to take the throne, so his parents set out to find him a kind and worthy bride. The three of them traveled the land far and wide, but the prince didn't quite find what he was looking for in the princesses they met.
While they were away, a terrible dragon threatened their land, and all the soldiers fled. The prince rushed back to save his kingdom from the perilous beast and was met by a brave knight in a suit of brightly shining armor. Together they fought the dragon and discovered that special something the prince was looking for all along. This book is published in partnership with GLAAD to accelerate LGBTQ inclusivity and acceptance.
As a parent of young children myself, reading that description, all I kept thinking was how much I lament my kids missing that particular story time…especially because reading Prince & Knight was a part of a bigger program, centered around fairytales and magic. The library director said the kids even made their own magic wands as a part of craft time. I can’t imagine anything truly obscene or explicit about that.
Following the outrage about the book in question, the library hosted a meeting during which community members were able to come forward and voice their thoughts and opinions about which books should or shouldn’t be allowed at story time. Ultimately, the library agreed to post the selection 24 hours in advance, that way caregivers can decide a day ahead if it’s a book they don’t want their kid(s) exposed to. The library director spoke at the panel discussion I attended, talking about this exact incident, and said that if she doesn’t have at least one book in the library that upsets everyone in the room, she isn’t doing her job right.
It took me a second, but I have to agree with her.
As someone who works in publishing, I spend a lot of time thinking about the books that are currently being released. I’m the acquisitions editor for an independent publisher, and it’s quite literally my job description to help make some of those decisions; I’m the one who reviews queries from hopeful authors, who reads their submissions, who solicits manuscripts, and who decides (with the supervision of our editor-in-chief) if a manuscript is one we want to publish. I wield a bit of the power when it comes to books because I help produce them…and there are certainly books that I would never endorse.
Books that promote racism or sexism, for example. Books that glorify abuse or idealize violence as “romantic.” Frankly, I wouldn’t even endorse anything in the smut genre because I stand against pornography of all kinds. And that’s part of why I love my job so much, because I know the company I work for feels the exact same way.
But, as the library director said, that’s each private citizen’s right. Just like it’s each private business’s right. It is not, however, the right of public institutions, like public libraries and public schools.
A lawyer also sat on the panel, and her specialty is protecting the separation of church and state. From my observations, I don’t think enough people comprehend exactly what that means.
In the First Congress (1789), James Madison introduced twelve amendments to the United States Constitution. One was never passed; another wasn’t ratified until 1992 (the 27th Amendment). The other ten, however, became what we know as the Bill of Rights, which were ratified on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
According to Merriam-Webster, religion is defined as
1 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
2 a(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
b: the state of a religious
a nun in her 20th year of religion
3 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
4 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
So how does the First Amendment make book banning quite literally unconstitutional?
Well, the First Amendment prohibits legislation of an “establishment of religion” or “prohibiting free exercise thereof.” While many individuals who disagree with inclusive or diverse texts cite their religion as the reason for their objection, the First Amendment merely protects their right to disagree. It does not, however, create an opportunity for individuals—or the government—to publicly ban those texts due to their belief system. If we look at it the other way, reading a diverse text as a part of one’s belief system is that person’s right, but there is no legal provision for them to force that belief system on others.
In other words, the First Amendment doesn’t say that the freedom of religion means one group can eliminate options for others, just because their group disagrees with those options. In fact, the First Amendment says that any group is allowed to disagree, and that’s it.
If you’re wondering why this notion was so important to America’s first legislators, it’s important to understand how this country came to be. The United States began as a colony, established for the sake of religious freedom. Those aboard the Mayflower who landed at Plymouth Rock in December of 1620 were fleeing a religious state.
Due to the founding of the Church of England by Henry VIII in 1534, the monarch was head of the church and state, which meant there was no safety for anyone in England who believed in or practiced a different faith than whomever was on the throne. This meant that from one monarch to the next, the legal faith in England may change, and the monarch could wage a holy war against their own people (check out this article about Mary I’s reign for what that was like for non-Catholic English citizens in the late 1500s). The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were turbulent for all in England; when the religious separatists first left, they were traumatized. They wanted a place to be safe, and once they’d found it, they protected it at all costs.
As the colony grew, then as British imperialism claimed land in the New World for the Crown and through the American Revolution (1775-1783), Protestantism remained the primary faith of those on American soil. As the nineteenth century began, however, the world turned to America and viewed it as a land which promised a fresh start. After all, in less than two centuries, the land had grown from a wilderness harboring dangers unknown which promised refuge to a small group of religious separatists into a nation that had won their independence from the most powerful empire in the world. The Founders of the United States of America were only a couple of generations removed from those religious separatists—they grew up hearing about their ancestors’ hardships and experiencing trials they never wanted their children to know. (I think “Dear Theodosia” from Hamilton really captures this spirit.) Despite the prevalence of Protestantism in the United States at the time, the Founders remembered all too well what had happened in England to those who practiced different faiths, and they didn’t want that to happen here. Their freedom was what their ancestors had sailed the seas for, what they themselves had fought, bled, and died for…and they wanted that for generations to come.
With this history in mind, the only conclusion I can draw is that banning books—censorship—goes against everything the United States of America was founded on. Reading the First Amendment, my understanding is that the Founders viewed books as benign—as irrelevant to the law as a glass of water. Freedom was what mattered to them, not theocratic declarations regarding education or available information. When it comes to what we should or shouldn’t read, the Founders didn’t have a legislated opinion; what mattered to them was that Americans could choose for themselves based on their own beliefs.
As an acquisitions editor, I have some say in the books I feel the company I work for should publish. But it isn’t up to me what other publishers do. And the Founders didn’t want it to be up to the government, either.
As a reader, I can say that a book offends me; I can even have an opinion about why I think it should offend others based on my belief system. But I don’t have the right to forbid they read the book and decide for themselves. Neither does the government.
And as a parent, I have the right to choose what stories—and which belief systems—I want to expose my children to. But it’s not my decision what other parents expose their children to. And the government doesn’t get to choose, either.
Ironically, in regard to my community, I think the whole discussion about banning books to honor one group’s belief system reflects the messaging of the book that started all of this local controversy. In Prince & Knight, the prince is looking for a princess, a quest we can only assume he embarked on because he was raised to believe that’s what princes do. However, when he set out on his own, although he tried to honor that tradition, he found a different path for himself—one that allowed him to be truer to himself than ever before. And while, on the surface, it seems as though the moral of Prince & Knight is that true love conquers all, I think there’s another message my community—and all who seek to ban books—could glean from it:
When people are given the opportunity to choose for themselves, they will choose what’s right for them. And I believe that’s a liberty each one of us deserves. Just like our Founders did.