Michelle L. Smith - The Ebony Quill, LLC

When I see reports about efforts to ban books from our public and school libraries, it hearkens back to the time when I realized that much of my middle grade and high school American History lessons were misrepresented. More recently, I learned of an effort by the Archivist of the National Archives Museum to replace certain planned exhibits that reference untoward acts committed against historically disenfranchised communities with exhibits omitting such depictions.

An article in the Wall Street Journal reported last fall that the Archivist and her top advisors "have sought to de-emphasize negative parts of U.S. history." While she strongly disagreed with the Journal's perspective in an official statement last October, the exhibits she plans to remove represent Civil Rights icons, Native Americans, and Japanese-American incarceration camps, which she intends to replace with the likes of the disgraced former president Richard Nixon.

When a parent complains about what they perceive as inappropriate content in a book, the removal of that book from libraries dictates its appropriateness for everyone else's children. Over the last several years, banned books have skewed heavily toward those written by authors of color or those that depict historically marginalized populations. How would that same parent handle a brown-skinned mother's request to remove a long-favored fairytale from the school library because she disagrees, for example, with its inaccurate representation of indigenous people; or because the heroes and heroines are exclusively white-skinned, blue-eyed blonds, and the foes all have dark skin—representations this parent might interpret as hostile to her child's sense of self-worth?

These efforts to "sanitize" student readings is geared toward eliminating the possibility some children and/or their parents might be uncomfortable with them. If a parent finds a particular book offensive, they and their child have the right not to read it. But why should a personal decision be forced upon others who may not agree?

Censorship, book banning, and "cancel culture" all tie into our First Amendment right to free speech, a critical component of our fragile democracy. I have great admiration for the saying, "We can agree to disagree," which is why I find the removal of books that speak to the truth of this country's founding quite disturbing. I don't know of anyone who feels good about the shameful aspects of our history; but if we choose to ignore it, we're doomed to repeat it, as many great minds have portended. This last sentiment contributes to the impetus, in my humble opinion, to ensure the Holocaust is not forgotten.

I recently read a gripping memoir written by a good friend's father, a 94-year-old Holocaust survivor. In his book titled The Life of a Child Survivor, Ben Midler poignantly laid out the atrocities he witnessed as a young teen. Midler took me on a harrowing journey, starting with the Nazi bombings and invasion of his home town in Poland to his long overdue rescue and liberation, all while continuously searching for members of his family. He provided keen insight into the political and societal aspects of how such depravity could ever take place and is acutely aware that the current generation of youths is far removed in their familiarity with this history.

Leading up to last week's mid-term elections, many decried the frightening possibility of the loss of our democracy to fascism and autocratic rule. The re-engineering of voter districts primarily to the disadvantage of marginalized communities (gerrymandering) made it more difficult for those voters to participate in a free and fair election. However, this self-serving scheme led to record voter turnout even in the face of rising inflation, extremist tribalism, and growing political violence. Our voices would have been extinguished and the outcome of the elections likely predetermined if we lived under autocratic rule. But the American people spoke up once again for democracy.

When I first wrote this blog to be posted after the elections, I wasn't sure we'd still have a democratic government. However, it seems the American people remain vested in its survival. If we don't fight for democracy, our Great American Experiment will fail. And that fight necessitates an understanding of the principles on which our Nation was founded—the good, the bad, and the ugly.