We’re With the Banned

The practice of certain groups banning books is not new to us and, perhaps because of this, our concept of what it really means may have grown a bit stale. When we hear those words, we might think of stereotypes like bonfires outside libraries in southern US States, dictatorships that restrict access to material that promotes other ways of life, or even over-protective parents censoring what their individual children can read. As a rule, we don’t tend to conjure up images of librarians in Manchester, England, being labelled a safeguarding threat, investigated for gross misconduct and threatened with police action for providing a comprehensive library to the diverse group of young people in her care.

An article published online last month by Index on Censorship told exactly that story, having taken place last year at a school since named as Lowry Academy, Manchester. The librarian in question has chosen to remain anonymous for fear of further abuse, which – considering that even the offices of her union have been attacked by members of the far right – seems like a sensible decision. Index’s investigation was backed up by extensive documentary evidence which was also made available to the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and their School Libraries Group (SLG), who have both been supporting the librarian.

Reportedly, the drama began when she stocked a copy of Men Who Hate Women, by Laura Bates. For those of you who haven’t read it, the book provides an insight into misogynist incel groups and their methods of targeting and grooming young men and boys online. Membership in these groups often leads to violent acts, particularly against women, and Bates herself has received death and rape threats as a result of her investigation and subsequent book. While this is difficult subject matter, the reasoning behind the librarian’s choice was that the school had recently provided safeguarding training on incels, so it seems ironic that they would ban a supporting text on an issue they’d already deemed important and instigated learning on themselves. As it was, the book was only available to children of school-leaving age as part of a “Life 101” project to prepare such youths for life outside of their educational bubble.

Despite her own reservations, when the investigation was opened the librarian dutifully moved the book to the staff section of the library which isn’t accessible to students. Unfortunately, that was only the beginning.

While the list of books eventually banned by Lowry Academy as part of their “safeguarding audit” runs to almost 200 titles and is too long to reproduce here, here’s a snapshot:

·         The Song of Achilles – Madeleine Miller

·         Twilight – Stephanie Meyer

·         Becoming – Michelle Obama

·         The Heartstopper series – Alice Oseman

·         The works of George R.R. Martin

·         Feminists Don’t Wear Pink (And Other Lies): Amazing Women on What the F-Word Means to Them - Scarlett Curtis

·         Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race - Reni Eddo-Lodge

·         Girl, Woman, Other – Bernadine Evaristo

·         Queerly Autistic – Erin Ekins

·         It Ends with Us – Coleen Hoover

·         The Notebook – Nicholas Sparks

·         The Trans Guide to Mental Health and Wellbeing – Katy Lees

The academy is a member of the United Learning Trust, which states online that it values “Christian roots, in schools which are fully inclusive and both welcome and respect students and staff of all faiths and none”. While the above list is only a small portion of the banned titles, there are some obvious themes present which would seem to counter a “fully inclusive” environment (if the banning of books itself hasn’t already). Neurodivergence, race, gender identity and sexual orientation all seem to be troublesome topics, along with “werewolf violence”, which was cited as the reason for removing Twilight. When challenged on the reasoning behind some of the removals, the school revealed that AI was used to categorise them, but that they stood by the results.

Index said “… young people who seek answers in books have been terribly let down. Without proper library policies and the reassurance they will be supported, school librarians will no doubt … self-censor through fear. Meanwhile young people will not find fulfilling safe spaces in their schools and look for information elsewhere – most likely, on the unregulated internet.” Isn’t this exactly what the librarian was hoping to avoid when she stocked Men Who Hate Women?

Curiously, in a previous incident where the same librarian was accused by a parent of exposing his son to “gender bending” by providing access to a certain book, the school defended both the librarian and the book in question. It would be interesting to know what has changed between then and now.

When interviewed by Index on Censorship for last month’s article, Caroline Roche, chair of the School Libraries Group (SLG) said threats of safeguarding accusations being levelled at librarians for stocking books will mean “we will be too scared to support our vulnerable teenagers.” This is what scares me too. There seems to be a pervading belief that access to these kinds of resources will somehow encourage or manipulate young people into becoming queer or inventing neurodivergence. Surely, we can give our young people, their parents and – dare I say – their educators more credit than that?

For one thing, I know from my own experience that several texts studied for GCSE English courses contain challenging material and are categorically not children’s books; Great Expectations, Romeo and Juliet and To Kill a Mockingbird to name but a few. Equally, other controversial books like Margart Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale were not removed as part of this safeguarding “audit”. Why is some of this content deemed acceptable as part of a young person’s education, and the rest not? At the school in question there are already a number of students who identify with one or more of these “inappropriate” topics and had their only safe place taken away from them when the library was temporarily closed to “protect them.”

One of the most contested books caught up in the school’s investigation was a graphic novel version of George Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four. Ironically, a senior staff member was cited as feeling that the library’s aforementioned Life 101 section was inappropriate, “based on the association with the television program Room 101.” Shouldn’t educators involved in this level of decision making and – let’s be honest – censorship, at least be aware that Room 101’s originated in Orwell’s novel rather than a TV programme?

The librarian in question has described this incident as the worst period of her life and has since resigned her “dream” job due to extreme stress. As the case was deemed a safeguarding issue, she will never be allowed to work in a school again. That such qualified and thoughtful educators can be penalised this way in our own green and pleasant land, should be a source of grave concern to us all.

Hopefully the impact of this case will be to give us all a moments’ pause and make us think more broadly about what kind of society we want to live in and how best that can be reflected in our speech, our actions and our votes.

Until next time, keep reading – especially, if they tell you not to.

Cate x