Censoring Gay Fairy Tales

It has become a truism to say that queer-inclusive books are some of the most challenged in libraries and schools. In the ALA’s most challenged books of 2018, six were LGBTQ stories or had gay characters. This is part of a trend that is noticeable by perusing the past few years of the ALA’s list. A book certain to join the next list is Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack and Stevie Lewis. The book is currently facing at least 15 challenges in Loudoun County, Virginia, schools and it is now being challenged in Upshur County Public Library in West Virginia. What could possibly be so horrible about this fairy tale? Well it depicts a prince searching for his true love and finding him. Yep, you read that correctly: him. Gasp.

“This book tells a story of homosexuality - it is not appropriate for a 4 year old - I am not homophobic but I do not feel this is content suitable for small children”

Unsurprisingly the only challenge to the book notes that homosexuality is the reason for seeking to have the book moved. There is no need for the challenger to explain why it is unsuitable, having gay people in a children’s book is so obviously unacceptable that no elaboration is necessary. A local pastor amplified this challenge with a call on Facebook complaining that it “is a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children, especially boys, into the LGBTQA lifestyle. This book is deliberately appealing to their imagination, creativity, and their innocence when they still think girls have ‘cooties’. Children’s books, which are promoted by the state and put into circulation by taxpayer funds, should remain innocent.” This call, in turn, triggered many public comments supporting removal/relocation of the book (and it appears more comments supporting the book). Yet again the simple depiction of gay people existing is treated as indoctrination that harms children. One resident complained that “[i]ntroducing a young child to a perverted lifestyle is not only irresponsible, it is extremely negligent and is a form of child abuse.” Oddly none of those challenging Prince & Knight seemed concerned that there are likely hundreds of books showing the exact same content with straight couples. Those are obviously “normal” and thus not “sexual” in nature.

A few people submitted form letters complaining that the library should represent their views, and their views only: “I do not believe this book to be representative or reflective of the ideals I want my tax dollars to be put toward.” After reminding the library that it is publicly funded, another writer expressed “[m]y hope is you would not allow these funds to be used to prey on our children” and pointed the library to various Bible passages. As a public institution, they should only include what the majority supports and here each writer assumes they represent the true voice of the people. The fact that they could simply not check out a book for their children is not sufficient. After all, parenting is difficult and forcing them to carefully check all books for the “gay” would be a lot of work. Furthermore, many worry about the lazier parent who isn’t aware of the dangers hiding in the stacks. They believe that they are helping other parents rise to their level.

Here, challengers frequently stressed that they weren’t trying to “ban” any book. They simply wanted it shifted around. One proposed removing it but allowing access through interlibrary loan and if that was unacceptable than the library should create an “LGBTQ section in the library so anyone wishing to check out the book will realize what they are getting.” The general argument, including that of the original challenger was that the book should be moved: “It can be placed in the ADULT section of books and if a family chooses to allow their child to read it then the adult can check it out and provide it to the child.” One problem is there is no such thing as an “adult” section in a library; they are typically referring to the general fiction shelves and anyone, including small children, can check out from there as well. This is important to challengers because if the book is still in the library, they aren’t censoring anything (see Emily Knox’s wonderful paper on this). Such relocation, however, is censorship because it is designed to hide the content from easy discovery. Most people select children’s picture books by scanning the shelves and removing a book from its natural location makes finding it more difficult. A federal court concluded that this exact situation unconstitutionally burdened patrons’ First Amendment right to read.

Any responsible library should reject this challenge as unfounded. This is a simple fairy tale that does nothing more than expose kids to the fact that gay people exist. There is no ethical method of relocating this book and doing so would violate the library’s commitment to professional values.* Further it would send a message that queer stories simply do not deserve a place in the library. As I’ve argued many times, there is no politically neutral position here. The choice is between inclusion of all members of the community versus the exclusion of certain segments deemed unsuitable by others. This should be an easy choice. The fact that the library delayed consideration is concerning and could reflect that it is vulnerable and concerned about retribution, likely directed at its budget, if it does not accede to the demands of challengers. Or it could reflect a decision to let things settle down before taking the obvious stance of retaining the book as is. I hope it is the later.

*The pastor who got involved on Facebook reported that the library pulled the book from circulation pending the challenge. If true that violates the library’s own policies which clearly state that “Library resources are not removed from the collection during the review period.” If I had to guess, the director likely pulled the copy so that it could be read by the relevant decision makers who have to consider the challenge.