Let Librarians—and Not Activist Parents—Run the Library: Further Remarks to the Grand Haven Area Public Schools Board of Education

Thank you, Board of Education, for the opportunity to speak to you once more. As I said last time I spoke, my name is Jared Cramer. I’m a class of 2000 graduate of Grand Haven and for the past ten years I have been the priest at St. John’s Episcopal Church here in town.

I must admit that I am disappointed to stand before you once more. I am not disappointed because of you, to be clear. Quite the opposite, I am proud that our district Superintendent and Board of Education continue to support our librarians and the work they do in curating content for our children and enabling parents to be actively engaged in their children’s reading habits. I’m disappointed that a small group of parents in our community continues to believe that their standards for the content of books and how those books are accessed should trump those of library associations and trained professionals.

The claim being employed tonight is that the only concern is about sexual content in books for young teens. I continue to believe that claim is false, but I want to for a moment lift my skepticism and engage that claim directly.

The difficultly with what these parents are asking for is the question of who will set the standard for what qualifies as sexual content. The parents leading this charge are now using Michigan Law 722.675 as their standard—however, they are not taking the time to read the entirety of the law. To be considered sexually explicit in this law, sexual matter must meet all the laws criteria, including, “Considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest of minors” and “considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational, and scientific value for minors.” On the clear wording of this law, the books being criticized do not meet the standard set out for the inappropriate dissemination of sexually explicit matter.

Now, if you listen to their criticisms, they will say it is not just about what the law says but it is about sexual organs being used in a sexual way… and maybe also lewd profanity and extreme violence… so you can see how slippery the slope has already become. What constitutes lewd profanity instead of just profanity? What makes violence extreme instead of just violent? What do either of those have to do with sexual content, if that is the actual driving concern?

Furthermore, why are these categories highlighted but not other content that may be morally objectionable to young teens, like drug use? Will that be added to the list as well? What about other sins? Is the goal to remove sin from books? Just some sins? Who decides?
What sorts of books would be restricted by the system proposed by these parents?

• The Great Gatsby by F. Scottt Fitzgerald
• The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
• The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
• Beloved, by Toni Morrison, which was objected to by a parent at a previous meeting—even though it won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize.
• The Lord of the Flies by William Golding
• Brave New World  by Aldous Huxley
• Go Tell it on the Mountain by James Baldwin
• Rabbit, Run by John Updike
• And Are you there God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume

Now, are all of these books appropriate in a middle school library? That’s a fantastic question, and one that should be answered by library professionals. Because if instead you have a single box for opting in or opting out of sexual content, with no attention paid to the literary context of that content, then parents will unknowably opt their kids out of the greatest literature of our time.

There is no need for our district to create an entirely new system of categorizing books based upon content some parents find objectionable. As I said to you earlier, there is already a system in place, a professional program at the Library of Congress that uses experts in the field and identifies the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are trained to use these systems.

And this system works! If a parent believes a book may have been inappropriately categorized, they can raise that concern with the librarian who can determine if it should be moved to a different library. That’s already happened with one book that concerned a parent. And if you, as a parent, want to keep your kid from reading books by Salinger and Steinbeck and Baldwin and Updike, you can do that. Just give that list to the librarian.

Claims that parents don’t have time to find out which books have sexual content are false. Just google the question and you will find plenty of lists of books deemed inappropriate by some people. Whose list should one use when restricting your kid’s reading? Whichever one you, as a parent agree with. The fact that there are so many, and they differ so wildly, just demonstrates the point that there is not a clear line that can be drawn. Instead, you, as a parent, have to be active and engaged. You have to determine what sort of content is appropriate or not appropriate for your child. But you do not, as a parent, have the right to demand that the library flag certain books —without regard to literary content— as objectionable for other children who are not your own.

And why would I, as a parent, want my middle school child someday to have access to this kind of content? Because it helps. By reading in the pages of a book, kids can explore what is going on in their bodies safely.  Because I want my kid, as she grows up, to confront difficult and unsettling content—and then to know she can talk to me about it. And together, we’ll discuss what we believe and how that affects how we live in the world. Please, Board of Education, continue to support parents making these decisions for their own kids. Continue to support our librarians’ goal of helping parents engage with their kids reading habits. And please do not enable one group of parents to create their own category of objectional content for all students in our district.

Some Words on Christian Socialism

Below is my column in today's edition of the Grand Haven Tribune.

By the time this column is published, we will know the results of the 14 states voting on Super Tuesday. Given the polling so far, it looks like Bernie Sanders seems likely to continue the momentum built in early contests. I had been leaning toward Pete Buttigieg, but now I’m pretty firmly in the Sen. Warren camp. That said, the rise of Bernie has happened hand in hand with continued hand-wringing about socialism, including the version Bernie supports: democratic socialism.

The scare concepts linking democratic socialism to communism are unfortunate, albeit rather expected. The most salient difference between the two is that democratic socialists believe in that – a democracy. Communist forms of government are not democratic because the people do not get to vote those who represent them. In communist systems, the state controls everything and a small group of people control the state.

In communism, there is no such thing as private property – everything is held by the state and individuals are given their basic needs from the state. Furthermore, Bernie is not advocating a wholesale government take-over of all means of production (classical socialism), but instead is arguing for the government to take over those systems best handled by that mechanism. We already do this in America, believing it makes most sense for the government to provide for a military, for a safety-net for the poor through Social Security and Medicare, and to have a hand in ensuring there is adequate public housing.

Bernie’s argument, for example, is that the current insurance-based system is an inherently inefficient way of paying for health care in our country and that Medicare for All would more effectively accomplish this work. Given the fact that our health care costs are far above any other developed countries (all of whom have some form of government provided care) and our outcomes are below other countries, I find his article persuasive.

Don’t get me wrong, I preferred Pete’s approach of Medicare for all who want it, enabling people to make the choice whether to buy into a government-run plan. Then it would be up to private industry to compete in the market with the public option. And I think Sen. Warren’s path to Medicare for All has a stronger chance of moving forward.

Regardless of who the candidate winds up being, I, for one, will not be scared by language of socialism. One of the most significant reasons is because Christian socialism is a significant part of the history of my own tradition of Anglican Christianity. This movement, particularly strong in the United Kingdom, began in the 19th century as an argument that many socialist concepts can clearly be supported based upon the text of Holy Scripture and the teachings of Jesus Christ. There was also a strong Christian socialist movement among Calvinists in France (the birthplace of the Calvinist movement) throughout much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

In the early 20th century, the Episcopal bishop of Utah, Spencer Spalding, put it most succinctly when he wrote, “The Christian Church exists for the sole purpose of saving the human race. So far, she has failed, but I think that socialism shows her how she may succeed. It insists that men cannot be made right until the material conditions be made right. Although man cannot live by bread alone, he must have bread. Therefore, the Church must destroy a system of society which inevitably creates and perpetuates unequal and unfair conditions of life.”

Spalding goes on to argue that competition always results in unequal and unfair conditions. I would not go so far as that, as I do believe that competition has the possibility of creating significant growth and development. The problem is when that competition is wholly unfettered by the state. Because then, those with significant capital (corporations and the exceptionally wealthy) can require cruel standards of living for access to only a small part of the capital in society.

We saw our own country fight against this with the labor movements in the 20th century. Let’s be clear, the ending of child labor, the creation of the 40-hour workweek and overtime pay, and the establishment of rules for safe working conditions were all a government intrusion into the free exercise of the market. But they were intrusions that needed to happen because of the way unfettered capitalism was destroying the lives of working people.

The great early 20th-century bishop of Oxford, Charles Gore, said: “The State exists to enable its members to develop a worthy human life. A State must be judged, and should judge itself, by its tendency to generate in all its citizens a worthy type of life. … If at any state it finds that the institution of property, as it exists, is fostering luxury and exaggerated power in a few, and enslaving or hindering the many, there is nothing to prevent it rectifying what is amiss.”

I would argue that we confront exactly this sort of reality in 21st-century America. We have a booming economy and record-low unemployment, but the results of that economy are enjoyed primarily by the wealthy. Over the past 30 years, the bottom 90 percent of our population went from holding 33 percent of all wealth to just 24 percent. At the same time, the wealth share of the top 1 percent went from 30 percent to 40 percent. Unemployment is indeed low, but 80 percent of workers live paycheck to paycheck.

We can do better as a country. And Christians, following the teachings of Scripture and Jesus when it comes to caring for the poor, orphan and immigrant, must make their voice heard during this election year to demand our country do better. And rather than let people turn “socialism” into a dirty and scary word, we should ask what actions our State needs to take so that our social society is more just, equitable and fair.

Why I Moved from Mayor Pete to Senator Warren

With the loss of Mayor Buttigieg, I have been unsure of where to go in this race.

I've spent a lot of time thinking, reconsidering candidates I had given up on. After that consideration, I've decided that my support will go to Elizabeth Warren. Let me explain why.

Klobuchar is going nowhere in this race and I don't see a sudden surge moving her to a an actual majority of delegates. She is simply pulling delegates from others and needs to do hard thing that is best for the party (what Yang did and what Buttigieg rather bravely and selflessly  did before Super Tuesday) and end her campaign. (Same thing for Gabbard, I have no idea why she is still running). Michael Bloomberg also needs to get out of this race. He is helping no one—certainly not the Democratic party. Once these three remaining unserious candidates exit, we are left with three strong candidates (any of whom, to be clear, I would vote for if they are the nominee): Biden, Sanders, and Warren.

I admit that I still find Biden not to be a compelling candidate, unable or unwilling to think critically about the mis-steps of the Obama administration and focusing a campaign largely on Obama-era nostalgia and not upon new solutions for today's problems. He might wind up being the waiting stage between the Trump era and the future of the Democratic party, but I am uninspired by the prospect of his presidency (other than that he would be better than the current occupant of the office). Furthermore, as you will see below, I disagree with several of his policy positions. 

I agree ideologically with much of Sanders' platform—however, in politics I am more of a pragmatist than purist. I do not see a Sanders' candidacy resulting in the kind of massive changes needed in congress to enable an immediate move to Medicare for All. I think his presidency would only continue the current partisan fighting and would be unlikely to advance his policy aims (once more, many of which I agree with) in Washington.

Which leaves me with Elizabeth Warren—someone who I have long admired, beginning in her work in pushing for the creation of the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau. One the major issues, I agree with her:

• Abolish Capital Punishment
• Eliminate Private Prisons
• Bring back Glass-Steagall to regulate big banks (Biden voted to repeal it in 1999)
• Create broad paid family and medical leave plans for up to 12 weeks (no strong Biden Support)
• Make public colleges and universities tuition free (Biden only supports two years)
• Ban Fracking (Biden opposes)
• Institute universal background checks and a national firearms registry (Sanders only supports the registry for Assault weapons)
• Decriminalize illegal entry to the United States (Biden opposes)
• Federally legalize marijuana and scrap past convictions (Biden wants to leave with the individual states)
• Create an annual wealth tax on the super wealthy—you have your wealth because of our society, it's time to pay back into that society (Biden only supports a modest increase to the bracket)

As you may know, Sanders and Warren are aligned on many of the issues above. What sets them apart, I believe, is her policy and plan-oriented approach compared to his ideological indignation. To me, this makes her the better choice both for the moderate and the liberal Democrat. 

Healthcare is, to me, one of the most essential issues facing us as a country and Warren is the only candidate still standing with a compelling plan and approach. I support the end-game of universal healthcare coverage. Whereas Biden seems to want to leave us in ACA limbo.... But the ACA—though helpful and some areas—has been unable to deal with our systemic problems. It was a bandaid, not a solution. Sanders will never get an immediate movement to Medicare for all through Congress. Warren's plan might actually work. As a great Vox essay in support of her candidacy notes: 

She came out with a sequencing plan: First, she would pass a bill, using the 51-vote budget reconciliation process, to expand Medicare’s benefits and open the program to everyone over age 50; expand Medicaid eligibility; strengthen the Affordable Care Act; and create a public option with generous benefits, universal eligibility, automatic enrollment, and free coverage for anyone under the age of 18 or making less than 200 percent of the poverty line.

By the way, I'd encourage you to read the rest of that Vox essay above, if you haven't. It charts her path and, to be honest, only solidified my support for her candidacy. 

I'm well aware that she is pretty far behind in the Delegate count (8, compared to 53 for Biden and 60 for Sanders) and the polls (currently averaging 14% compared to 28.5% for Sanders and 20% for Biden). That said, I'm hopeful that with Buttigieg now out of the race, we will not see a swing of his support in the direction of Biden (despite claims that they are the moderates and so that would be natural, many of those I know who supported Buttigieg disagree with Biden on a host of issues). 

We'll see what happens tomorrow, but I'm hoping her campaign gets some momentum in Super Tuesday, the remaining unserious candidates drop out, and by the time the March 10 primary rolls around, we are choosing between the final three I outlined above. 

This election is about the soul and future of this country. No matter who you are leaning toward right now, continue to do your homework and think carefully. And please—please—show up and vote.