READING INTO THE PROBLEM

Back to Banning

Missouri Senate bans books from public and private elementary and secondary schools with revision to law

By Cadence Rulo

Staff Reporter

“Fahrenheit 451” by Ray Bradbury is categorized as a dystopian novel where books are outlawed and burned. I always felt this book was frightening fiction with the control the authoritative figures had, taking away every book, gaining more power, stripping their people from the beauty a book can bring. However, with the Missouri Law on book bans, “Fahrenheit 451” is becoming less of a fiction and now a reality.

On Aug. 28, the Missouri Senate enacted a revision to SB 775 stating schools cannot provide, assign, supply, or distribute books and/or materials that contain explicit sexual information to a student. If a person were to provide such material in school, they would spend a year in jail with a Class A misdemeanor or pay a $2,000 fine. Work that provides artistic or anthropological significance as well as materials in a science or health

illustration by Raina Straughter

class that contain explicit images are voided from this law.

Adding this provision to SB 775 equates sex trafficking and sexual assault with being handed a book. How can a book come anywhere close to what is under SB 775?

Books like “Stitches’’ by David Small, “Flamer’’ by Mike Curato, “Bleach, Vol. 21: Be My Family or Not” by Tite Kubo, and “Himawari House” by Harmony Becker were all rated above a 4.05 out of a 5.00 point scale on Goodreads, one of the largest websites to rate and recommend books, but were all on the list of books to be banned from students and were all removed from Francis Howell School District’s libraries. Some people who stand against the book ban believe this is happening so LGBTQIA and African-American writers are silenced. Others believe this is to open a gate to ban more and more books from schools and gain more authority over teachers and students.

I believe the banning is to shield young adults from the real world, censor readers and writers, to have yet again more control in our lives. When we walk into school, we lose many freedoms. We cannot dress a certain way, say certain words, wear a hood, and now read certain books.

What harm does it cause anyone if I were to see something explicit in a well-written book over a video or picture in health class? Why does the Missouri Senate or a different child’s parent care what I read or where I read it? Why does my life, my escape become limited because adults are afraid of adolescents seeing what the real world is like?

In an interview with 5 On Your Side, Republican Senator Rick Brattin — who filed the amendment to SB 775 — said he believes these books are, “literally destroying kids’ innocence.”

In the beginning of getting the law finalized, Brattin admitted they wanted to go after literary aspects, but they decided upon the visual aspects instead. Brattin was surprised at how this topic has caused controversy. As if everyone would sit down and agree with him, because it’s okay for a book to talk about these explicit things, but they shouldn’t show it.

As a 17-year-old Missouri citizen who has read multiple books on the ban list, my innocence is the same as before. Every morning I wake up in my bed covered in stuffed animals, cuddle my puppy, go to school, work, come home, talk to my parents, and sleep. I still collect small Harry Potter toys and watch the newest Disney movies. I can read, watch, listen to all these explicit things and still be exactly who I was before these books. I can have the same innocence I had before I opened a book.

We can see the reality of the world in real-time, but reading or seeing it in a book at school is cause for legal prosecution? Literature is not the source of what these senators and adults believe is “destroying” our innocence. The fact is we are growing up. Seniors are leaving in less than a year to try and become an adult in this world. How can that happen when reality is being censored?

I am worried for the people at risk of facing the consequences from this law. My librarians want to give me a book I can enjoy, and relate to. Why should they go to jail for doing their job? Why should someone’s opinion take away my options? I’m confused, angry. I have read the revisions to this bill over and over, I have listened to these senators and parents explain why this is happening, but it will never make sense as to why they have the right to tell my teachers, librarians, or principals what books they cannot give me.

Missouri SB 775: What it says

SB 775

Information provided by Senate Bills nos. 775, 751, and 640: “Any person officially associated with public/private elementary and secondary schools who knowingly provides visually explicit sexual content is committing a Class A misdemeanor.”

Francis Howell School District

According to information on the district website, the following books have been removed from FHSD libraries: “Attack on Titan” (manga series that consists of 34 volumes) by Hajime Isayama “Bleach” Volume 21 by Tite Kubo “Flamer” by Mike Curato “Himawari House” by Harmony Becker “Home After Dark” by David Small “Stitches” by David Small “This Book is Gay” by Juno Dawson

St. Louis area district data, from area school districts

Rockwood: removed 22 Webster Groves: removed 11 Kirkwood: removed 14 Hazelwood: removed 7 Ritenour: removed 6 Parkway: removed 5

Nationwide challenges

Most Challenged Books of 2021, according to the American Library Association “Gender Queer,” by Maia Kobabe was banned, challenged, and restricted for LGBTQIA+ content and was thought to conatin sexually explicit images. “Lawn Boy,” by Jonathan Evison was challenged and banned for LGBTQIA+ content and was thought to be sexually explicit. “All Boys Aren’t Blue,” by George M. Johnson was challenged and banned for LGBTQIA+ content, profanity, and was thought to be sexually explicit. “Out of Darkness,” by Ashley Hope Perez was challenged, restricted, and banned for representations of abuse and was thought to be sexually explicit. “The Hate U Give,” by Angie Thomas was challenged and banned for profanity, violence, and was thought to promote anti-police messages.