Oh, wait here’s an idea

Well, here we are, the first of July, and as I open up the Royal Examiner this morning, I see we’re still talking about the Great Samuels Public Library Book Ban of 2023.

This time, “one of ‘the 53’” (her words, not mine) is complaining that her request for the removal of Prince and Knight from the children’s section has been denied. By her own admission, the book is “engaging and charming,” but since it “legitimizes” gay marriage, the writer has taken the position that by refusing to remove the book, Samuels Public Library is now “an official promoter to [ages] 3 and up of same-sex attraction.” She adds that while “[Samuels is] fine with 3-year-olds reading a story that glorifies same-sex attraction and gay marriage: [she] is not.”

So, yeah. A few things here.

First, is anyone else picking up on the breathtaking degree of entitlement inherent in the proposition that because the complainant isn’t fine with a book, it necessarily follows that the book should be removed from the Public Library? That’s all I’ll say about that.

Second, are these hypothetical 3-year-olds driving themselves to the library and bellying up to the book bar while Mom and Dad are working the late shift? I’m guessing not. I’m guessing there’s probably some adult involvement in any book selection scenario involving a 3-year-old. Not to mention the fact that while some 3-year-olds read, most don’t. So if a parent wants to check out Prince and Knight at SPL and read “the beguiling rhymes” to their child (of any age), for whatever reason, then I say, hey, freedom, Baby. This is America, not Afghanistan, so go for it.

Third, I’ve been hearing a lot about parental rights lately, but what I haven’t heard too much about is parental responsibilities. During last month’s Board of Supervisors meeting, one speaker suggested that if parents are concerned about age-inappropriate library book content, rather than trying to ban books, they should simply monitor their child’s reading material. A few minutes later, another speaker angrily retorted that it was completely unreasonable to expect a parent to be responsible for monitoring their child’s reading materials. (I suppose it’s easier just to make the public library responsible for it.)

Boy, howdy, let me tell you, back in the day, my Mama surely did monitor what I read. She exercised her parental rights to control what I did and did not read, and she most certainly did not abdicate her parental responsibilities by attempting to foist them off on the library. What’s that, you say? You’re too busy to monitor your child’s reading? Cry me a river. Do you think my Mama wasn’t busy? Mama had more than enough to do, but Buddy made time to see that Judy Blume didn’t find her way into our God-fearing household. Here’s an idea. Maybe if the folks who are so concerned about what’s on the shelves at the library spent a little less time on the Moms for Liberty Facebook page, filling out book-banning forms, writing letters to the editor, or harassing and maligning library staff, or lobbying the BOS to defund Samuels, or emoting tremulous, red-faced moral outrage while reading “pornography” (their word) aloud into the very public and very permanent county record, they’d be able to find the time to do a quick scan of their child’s library books.

Just sayin’.

Laura Kelly
Linden, Virginia

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the letters published on this page are solely those of the respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Royal Examiner’s editorial team, affiliates, or advertisers. The Royal Examiner does not endorse or take responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or validity of any statements made by the authors. The statements and claims presented in the letters have not been independently verified by the Royal Examiner. Readers are encouraged to exercise their own judgment and critical thinking skills when evaluating the content. Any reliance on the information provided in the letters is at the reader’s own risk.

While the Royal Examiner makes every effort to publish a diverse range of opinions, it does not guarantee the publication of all received letters. The Royal Examiner reserves the right to edit letters for clarity, length, and adherence to editorial guidelines. Moreover, the Royal Examiner does not assume any liability for any loss or damage incurred by readers due to the content of the letters or any subsequent actions taken based on these opinions.

In submitting a letter to the editor, authors grant the Royal Examiner the right to publish, edit, reproduce, or distribute the content in print, online, or in any other form.

We value the engagement of our readers and encourage open and constructive discussions on various topics. However, the Royal Examiner retains the right to reject any letter that contains offensive language, personal attacks, or violates any legal regulations. Thank you for being a part of our vibrant community of readers and contributors, and we look forward to receiving your diverse perspectives on matters of interest and importance.