The right to read.

Politics is not something that I have ever brought to the pages of Luminous before, but this story isn't just politics, it is about books and politics and therefore I feel confident that the story fits well to luminous' mission.  That is: anything related to books.  

Sarah Palin has been the talk of the town for a whole week now.  A few disturbing things have come to our attention about Mrs. Palin but this bit of news takes the cake for all of us who have dedicated our lives to the right for intellectual freedom. 

Shortly before becoming mayor Ms. Palin approached librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, at the Wasilla town library about the possibility of banning some books, which books Mrs. Palin would not say.  Anne Kilkenny, a Democrat "who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin’s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. 'They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,' Ms. Kilkenny said."(NYT.)

Mrs. Emmons, of course resisted all efforts at censorship, in accordance with the Library Bill of Rights. And how did Mrs. Palin respond to not getting her way? She fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office.  Mrs. Palin under estimated her constituencies, who made a great show of support for the librarian in question, and she was untimely given her job back. 

So what is the big deal here?

Our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech – the right to talk, write, publish, discuss – was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution – and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.

How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? If the library is doing its job, there are lots of books in the collection that people won't agree with; there are certainly many that I object to. Library collections don't imply endorsement; they imply access to the many different ideas of our culture, which is precisely our purpose in public life. The best way to know your stance on an issue after all is to have a grasp of the opposing view point.  Libraries, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?