The Hysteria Surrounding Alberta's "Book Ban"

Let's unravel what's really going on here.

I’m a little late to the story of Alberta’s supposed book ban. My nearly 10-month-old daughter doesn’t really like to sleep, leaving me precious little time to write—or even think. But this will surely continue to be a topic of discussion, especially with the new school year approaching, so I figured I would add my two cents to the issue. For those who might not be completely familiar with what I am talking about, let’s start from the beginning.

In May of this year, Demetrios Nicolaides, Alberta's minister of education and childcare, announced that the Alberta government would create consistent, province-wide standards to ensure the age-appropriateness of books available in school libraries. This move came after books containing sexually explicit content were brought forward by concerned parents.

The media release from the province provided examples from four graphic novels: Gender Queer, by Maia Kobabe; Fun Home, by Alison Bechdel; Blankets, by Craig Thompson; and Flamer, by Mike Curato.

The minister expressed that this was not, however, a ban on specific books and titles but about establishing clear policies and guidelines for the province’s school divisions. This, of course, did not stop Canadian media like CBC and Global News from referring to the guidelines as a “ban” once the ministerial order was issued in July. The progressive outlet The Walrus went as far as to call the government’s actions a “blatant act of cultural vandalism.”

The Alberta Teachers' Association was none too pleased, either. ATA president Jason Schilling released a statement claiming that the ministerial order would “have a chilling effect on our schools and signal to students who are coming to understand themselves that some expressions of their gender and sexual identities are shameful and should be hidden away.”

Quite frankly—and I have expressed this again and again—it personally enrages me as a lesbian that people like Jason Schilling insist on connecting children’s access to sexually inappropriate material with “sexual identity.” No, actually, the existence and even the acceptance of same-sex attraction doesn’t hinge on showing children the kind of material exemplified in the government’s media release. The insistence that this is somehow crucial for children coming to understand themselves has done great harm to same-sex attracted people.

On the same day as Schilling’s statement, ATA News also released a piece by Kristine Wilkinson echoing the same sentiments, titled, “Are we on a slippery slope toward book bans?” In the piece, Wilkinson states, “Should the books in schools be developmentally and age appropriate? Absolutely,” and “Sure, we can’t let students read anything they want in class.” So, she is essentially in agreement with the government here. However, she also takes issue with the fact that the order specifically made an example of books that “explore identity, culture and, yes, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community.” It doesn’t seem to matter how inappropriate the books in question were.

I am willing to bet that there are other books in Alberta’s classrooms that explore topics like sexual orientation. These books were not targeted by the new rules because they are not sexually explicit. And I am begging people like Jason Schilling and Kristine Wilkinson to stop making it seem like the only way to approach the issue of sexuality is in an age-inappropriate manner.

Due to all the hand-wringing and fear-mongering, Minister Nicolaides published an op-ed in the Edmonton Journal on August 8 to once again clarify that the government’s actions are not about banning books but about “ensuring young students are not exposed to graphic sexual content in a school library book.” He also responded to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s accusations that the policies would result in banning books like George Orwell’s 1984 and Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, stating that, “this is not the spirit, intent or wording of the policy.”

Now, this is where I do see the side of some of the critics. While I support the government taking the step that it has, there is a point of real contention here. As an Edmonton Journal letter by Kevin McBean stated two days later:

As a high school English teacher, I can say that both books — which many would acknowledge should be required reading — contain scenes which violate the criteria of the order.

So, the government can say they aren’t coming after these books, as they clearly are not, but I do agree that the policies as written could be construed as applying to them.

Consider the example of explicit content in Gender Queer, which depicts felatio on a strap-on. While I don’t want this book on school shelves, I think it’s fair to say that something like The Handmaid’s Tale contains sex scenes—or rather, rape scenes—that are more graphic and disturbing. So why make an example out of this book?

Because it’s obvious that among the types of material the government is trying to target here is material that pushes gender ideology more specifically and queer theory more broadly, and I think that’s a good thing. However, in what seems to be an attempt to escape accusations of being “anti-LGBTQ+,” the government is hiding behind the claim that all that’s wrong with the material is its sexual explicitness.

But that isn’t all that’s wrong with it. I don’t want “Gender Queer” on school shelves not just because it depicts felatio on a strap-on—though that’s plenty reason enough—but because it promotes dangerous and stupid ideas about sex and sexuality. Just how stupid? Have a look at the book description:

In 2014, Maia Kobabe, who uses e/em/eir pronouns, thought that a comic of reading statistics would be the last autobiographical comic e would ever write. At the time, it was the only thing e felt comfortable with strangers knowing about em. Now, Gender Queer is here. Maia’s intensely cathartic autobiography charts eir journey of self-identity, which includes the mortification and confusion of adolescent crushes, grappling with how to come out to family and society, bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction, and facing the trauma and fundamental violation of pap smears.

It is okay to say that, in addition to not wanting school libraries to contain sexually explicit and developmentally inappropriate material, we also don’t want them to contain material that encourages children to deny the reality of their sexed bodies. This is particularly important right now, when transition is so obviously a social contagion among young people. As I have written before, in Canada, “it is disproportionately girls, indigenous kids, and kids with mental health issues who are targeted for a pathway that will destroy their sexual functioning.”

I wish that decisions about the materials on the shelves of school libraries could be left up to librarians, teachers, school boards, and administrators, just like I wish medical decisions could be left up to medical professionals without the government stepping in. But medical and educational professionals have completely abdicated their duty of care by promoting and supporting ideas that can cause grievous bodily harm to young people. In these cases, I support the government stepping in, and I am happy that it is trying to.

And yes, any policies and guidelines about materials on school shelves are necessarily going to lack complete objectivity. This is not actually a bad thing, and I don’t think the government should shy away from the fact that there has to be a subjective element to this. This is how life works and how decisions are made all the time, especially concerning children.

Some decisions, like those about the types of materials children are exposed to in schools, require subjective judgments to be made. No spreadsheet or mathematical formulas can be called on to make our judgments for us. It is perfectly okay—good, even—that books such as 1984 and The Bible are judged to have educational value despite passages that are indeed sexually explicit, and it is okay that books which seek to confuse children about something as fundamental as whether they are a boy or a girl are judged to be inappropriate.

I wish the government would more pointedly affirm the inappropriateness of such material, seeing as they are already facing “anti-LGBTQ+” accusations anyway. Regardless, I am happy that they are at least taking a look at some of the concerning content that has been cropping up in schools. I could be wrong, but I think the guidelines aren’t going to end up getting used for many books other than the ones already highlighted. I think, eventually, they will be forgotten, and we will return to using good sense and sound judgment about schools and children, like we already do in most situations. At least, until then, there will be some recourse to tackle overly sexual and ideological material.

And finally, I do recognize that it is possible for people to have a good-faith disagreement about the government’s actions and feel that this is not the government’s role, even if they agree that there should be standards around the types of material allowed in schools. But for the love of God, I am asking progressives to stop crying about “anti-LGBTQ+” bias every time someone brings up concerns around sexual explicitness and children. All you’re doing is making us look bad. Please shut up.