Caring Nearness in a Time of Distance

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

I never thought I would crave some things that were routine in my life, things which are now impossible to come by as we live under the current “Stay Home, Stay Safe” order and try to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

I miss popping over to Arturo’s Tacos, Mr. Kozak’s, Don Luis or Righteous Cuisine for a quick lunch when the day has gone long and I just need to sneak out of the office.

I miss the familiar sights of my morning commute to the church, the question of whether I’ll be ahead of or behind that school bus stopping time this morning, whether my favorite Ottawa County Sheriff’s Office deputy will be hanging out where the speed drops to 45 mph so I can show him I learned my lesson after a stop (or two).

I miss the flow of people in and out of the church office, familiar faces poking in to say “hi” or to come and pet our standard poodle puppy, Maisie, who will function as the church dog until she is trained as a therapy dog for my wife’s work.

I miss the laughter and hugs of Sunday once-a-month family dinners, watching cousins and adult siblings connect and feeling the joy that physical presence can bring.

And I miss the altar. I miss the grounding that it gives me to stand there. I miss holding up bread made in the homes of our parishioners and wine chosen by parishioners, saying prayers over that bread and wine and knowing that Christ becomes truly and physically present to us once more.

I miss the nearness of all the things I love and I yearn for this distancing to be over.

We’re learning how to make it work, I think, as best as we can.

One of my parishioners who doesn’t even like doing email joined our Tuesday afternoon Zoom Bible Study that I lead. Seeing her face put the largest smile on my face as she pushed herself to learn a new technology, something she truly tries to avoid.

I’ve loved seeing all the Facebook posts supporting local businesses and restaurants that are trying as hard as they can to stay afloat. The Tri-Cities Pastors’ Gathering, of which I am a part, has been more active then ever in our Facebook group, sharing ideas and advice, prayer requests and hope. And each church, in its own way, is trying to figure out how calling people to worship can happen in a time of pestilence and quarantine.

But we all know, deep down, that this is not who we are. We are not minds connected by pixels and fiber-optic lines. We are not souls trapped by bodies that we will hopefully somehow overcome through technology or spirituality. We are embodied beings, people whose existence is inextricably bound up with the bodies we inhabit. That is why Christians believe that when God came to save us, he took on a body. He felt the limitations of mortality: got hungry, felt a backache when he picked up something wrong, even felt the rush of anger when he saw a perceived injustice.

It’s too early for us to know how this will all end, how long it will take for life to return to some semblance of normal. It feels like the news changes every day and a column I write on Monday could easily be obsolete by Wednesday. But when it does end, even as we perhaps continue some of our newfound virtual and online skills, our salvation will be a bodily and physical one.

We’ll walk down Washington Avenue with summer tourists, perhaps no longer annoyed by their presence but grateful that all those bodies create resources and support businesses we love. I know I look forward to sitting on the sidewalk bar at Long Road, enjoying one of their exquisite cocktails as we watch people walk by. I’ll see someone I know and run to give them a hug, not afraid that it might result in the death of one of us.

I’ll walk back into my church building, with all my people. The walls will vibrate with the resounding organ and the joyful voices. We will grip hands tightly at the Peace. We will eat the Body and drink the Blood, understanding better now than we ever had why it is that God gives the church sacraments – outward and physical expressions of inward and spiritual grace. Because we need to experience salvation in our bodies in order for it truly to become real.

And I really hope that we learn something from this, not just a renewed gratitude for physical presence and embodied grace, but a renewed compassion for all the bodies we have ignored, seen as not our responsibility, locked in cages or told were inherently disordered just because of the way God made them or where they were born.

Having had our lives uprooted – just a bit – by this pandemic, I hope we have more grace for those whose lives are entirely destroyed by violence and poverty and famine.

I hope we realize that all bodies are our responsibility. I hope we do better. I’ll try, and I hope you will, too.

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. 

Public Righteousness vs Public Religion

Below is my sermon that I wrote for Ash Wednesday this year. Sickness kept me from the church that day, for the first time in my priestly ministry, but I hope they are still helpful words as you begin your Lenten journey.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

In these final days of Christendom, as the edifice of a Christian empire and the illusion of a Christian nation are finally falling down, as church attendance and membership shrinks across the board, and as few people are anymore terribly interested in what the church has to say about anything… in these days, Christianity can at times resort to jumping up and down and shouting to make its voice heard. Whether it is evangelists on television who promise prosperity if you follow their guides or Christians on social media who trumpet their own righteousness by calling out all those who disagree with them, in all sorts of arenas religion can at times become a rather noisy thing and many of the times we wish there was a mute button—to say nothing of an unbelieving world who finds noisy and showy Christianity devoid of any attraction or draw.

So, when we hear Jesus say in the Gospel reading today, “Beware of practicing your piety before others in order to be seen by them; for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven,” many of us breathe a sigh of relief, grateful that Jesus is telling noisy Christians to quiet down and focus more on practicing their religion than talking about it. He says your gifts of treasure should be done quietly an in secret, that your prayers should be simple and done in the quiet of your room, and that when you fast you should make it impossible for anyone to tell by looking at you that you are fasting. He reminds his listeners that wherever your treasure is, there your heart will be also, and that if your treasure is being seen by others as righteous, your heart will only ever live there… it will be far from the God who desires you.

There is a slight difficulty, though, with the quiet “yay” whispered by the average Episcopalian upon hearing this Gospel text. Don’t get me wrong, Episcopalians love the idea of a quiet religion, one that doesn’t stir anything up. It’s like the old joke, when a Baptist asked an Episcopalian if they had a personal relationship with Jesus and the Episcopalian responded that this seemed like a remarkably private intrusion! 

So, just to make sure we are all on the same page, let’s be clear: Jesus is not telling you in this story that you need to keep your Christianity private and to yourself. If he was, then other verses in this Gospel would make no sense, verses where he sends out his disciples to preach the good news and do public acts of justice and healing. Verses like 10:37, where he tells his followers, “What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops.” Indeed, if this text was about keeping your Christianity private, then the whole great commission at the end would make no sense, where Jesus tells us all to “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” I’m reminded of St. Peter’s advice in First Peter 3:15, “Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and reverence.”

Absolutely, showy and vapid religion that is all about being seen is far from the Christianity of Christ. However, keeping your religion private, not sharing with those around you the good news of God’s love and grace you have experienced, that is also far from the Christianity of Christ. Each and every one of us must learn how to give our elevator pitch, our brief articulation of how God’s love has touched us. Each of us must learn how to invite others in—because there are many broken people in this unbelieving world who are in need of an experience of grace… people who won’t have that experience unless you get brave and invite them in.

So, no. You cannot use this text as a get out of evangelizing free card. 

After all, what Jesus warns about is not practicing your religion before others in order to be seen by them (after all, he did a lot of public religious acts precisely so people could see and believe). What he warns against is practicing your “piety” before others in order to be seen by them. The Greek word there is “δικαιοσύνην.” This word is usually translated as righteousness, meaning right conduct before God. That is, these are the good acts that you do, the righteous choices you make. It is your righteousness Jesus cautions against flaunting publicly.

Which raises some very interesting questions about the ashes each of you are about to have placed upon your forehead. Because, if these ashes are a symbol of your righteousness, of the fact that you came to church in the middle of a busy week, of the decision you are making to fast and practice a righteous and holy lent… then you might want to consider wiping those ashes off before you exit the doors of this church—because publicly flaunting how righteous you are is precisely what Jesus warns against in this chapter.

But what if these ashes are a symbol of something else? Because when the ashes are blessed, we ask God to make them a sign of our mortality and penitence.  They are a sign of the fact that we know we will all die in the end. They are a sign of the fact not that we are righteous, but that we know we are sinners who have fallen far from the mark. 

And I wonder what it might mean if we took that prayer seriously, if we saw wearing ashes on our forehead as the equivalent of the Scarlet Letter of Nathaniel Hawthorne, a public statement that we have sinned and failed. What if more Christians were public not about how good they are but about the fact that they know they are sinners saved by grace—and that they found that grace here, in the sacraments celebrated in their faith community? What if Christians started being more open about humility, penitence, and contrition? I have a feeling the world might see us differently. 

The problem with self-righteousness, the problem with showy Christianity where you make sure everyone know how right you are and how wrong others are, is that not only does it actually drive people away from the church, but it also disconnects you from God. As one author notes, “It is so easy to back away from that precipitous edge of longing for God and settle into being satisfied with being religious.” Being religious is important, acts of righteousness and discipline are what help draw us closer to God… but it is easy to substitute self-righteousness and contentment with our religious acts for true pursuit of God. 

The humility and penitence of Lent, however, are a sharp sword meant to cut our selfishness and sin away so that we can move ever closer to love of God and love of neighbor. And it is when people see someone who lives a life of true humility, someone who is quick to forgive when someone fails and quick to repent when sin overcomes, when people see that… then they begin to want to know about the salvation you have found, a salvation which is clearly much more about God’s love than it is about your righteousness. 

What will these ashes mean to you? What will this holy season of Lent mean to you

Will it be some simple religious actions to distract you from the real sin in your life, from your true need to turn back from God?

Or will this Lent be about an honest giving up of yourself, a true turning from sin, and a willingness perhaps even to start being a little more public with your humility, a little more willing to be vulnerable and invite someone into this place where you find God’s grace?

Because if your treasure is in heaven, if your heart is set upon the blessed vision of God and the restoration of all creation, your life should look like it. Amen. 

On Banning Books: Remarks to the GHAPS Board of Education

Below are the remarks I gave at the public comment portion of the Grand Haven Area Public Schools Board of Education meeting tonight.

Thank you, Board of Education, for the opportunity to share a few thoughts with you. 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. In just a couple years I look forward to enrolling my young daughter at Rosy Mound elementary school.

I’d like to start by sharing a story with you. When I was a child, probably no more than eight years old, I decided I would read through the Bible from cover to cover. Much of it was familiar. I read through the familiar creation stories, Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah’s ark and the great flood, Abraham and Sarah… But then I came across a story I hadn’t heard in Sunday School. I read how after Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham’s nephew, Lot, went to live in a cave with his daughters. His daughters thought they would never have children and so both of them got their father intoxicated and then slept with him, trying to get pregnant.

I came into the kitchen and told my mom about this strange story had I just read in the Bible. She said, “That’s not in the Bible.” I handed her my paperback New International Version and she read the story herself, her face flushing. She then told me that maybe I should wait until I’m a little older before I read Scripture for myself.

I share this story to underline two key points. The first is that there is a good amount of literature that has some sexual content—including some much more graphic content in the Bible, as I later discovered!—and only reading a few lines of any work does not give you a sense of context, of how those lines function in the larger narrative arc. Yes, the Bible contains some content which is the garbage of humanity… But it also tells the story of how God can always redeem even the garbage of this world. Second, my mother did what any parent should do: she took an active interest in what I was reading and, when she thought I was reading something beyond my years, she made a decision for me, her child.

I was distraught a few weeks ago to receive screenshots of posts from a Facebook Group called “Grand Haven Conservative Parents.” One of the leaders of that group posted on December 20, 2019, how someone went through the school library catalogs to come up with a full list of LGBTQ-themed books at every school in our district. From that list, some books were pulled out which have some more explicit portions and those books are now being used to argue for censorship and restrictions over literature in our district libraries.

A few things I would encourage the Board to pay attention to. Note where this began—with a concern about LGBTQ content. This began with a list of books that included something as simple as a child having two dads—a story a kid in our district who might happen to have two dads deserves to read in their school library. The book by Michael Barakiva from which selections have been read is not the smut it has been made out to be through the quotation of a few sections. it is a book that has been praised by numerous serious reviewers of young adult literature. Would the content be appropriate for all ages of children? Of course not. Children mature at different rates. For teenagers who are trying to understand who they are as a gay person, though, it has been reviewed as a deeply meaningful book.

There is already a professional organization who helps parents and librarians determine the appropriate age for children and young adult literature. It’s called the Children’s and Young Adults’ Cataloging Program (CYAC) at the Library of Congress. They use experts in the field of children’s literature and evaluate many aspects of that literature to help with cataloguing, including identifying the proper age of the audience. Our school librarians are also trained in knowing what literature is appropriate for which age group. We need to trust our professionals.

I want to applaud the options being offered by the district at this meeting, where parents can see any books their child has checked out, either through a weekly email or logging into their account. Parents can give a list of books they don’t want their child to checkout. All of these underscore what is truly essential—parents must take responsibility for engaging with their own kids (just like my mother did with me). They should talk with their kids about the books they read, what is in them and what their kids think about it. Lord knows, when my daughter is older, I would much rather she goes to the library to read literature with sexual content than some of the other options out there. Banning books from curious teens only sends them to other darker places.

But most importantly, a small group of parents must not be allowed to make these decisions for other children and teenagers by insisting that their standards should supersede those of library professionals. No group of parents should have the ability to say that stories that feature LGBTQ characters making out are somehow dangerous to teenagers—particularly when those books can be a lifeline to a queer teenager who feels alone and marginalized.

Furthermore, even though it might raise a few eyebrows, we need to be clear that sexual content in young adult literature—gay or straight—helps adolescents form a healthy and positive sense of their sexual identity. Judy Blume, for example, has been named one of the most frequently challenged authors of the 21st century by the American Library Association for their inclusion of content including menstruation, wearing a bra for the first time, and masturbation... and yet her books have meant the world to young adolescents. Authentic portrayals that teens can relate to when it comes to healthy sexuality as an adolescent are already hard to find. We shouldn’t make it worse.

I hope the school board will continue to empower our librarians. And I hope that parents that are concerned won’t take the path of banning books—even for their own kids. Instead, I hope they’ll focus on engaging more deeply with their own kids as they grow and develop. Thank you.

Against Those Who Would Harm LGBTQ Students in Grand Haven

Below is my column in today's Grand Haven Tribune, available at their website online here. It is also reprinted below.

There is a quiet parents’ movement afoot in Grand Haven right now—and it is one that could do irreparable harm to our kids.

A small group of parents who goes by “Grand Haven Conservative Parents” has quietly been working to formulate a plan to get any books which engage with LGBTQ characters, themes, or issues to be removed from school libraries or kept behind a desk with the requirement of a parent’s note to be checked out. One of those parents has now approached the Grand Haven Area Public School Board at a recent meeting to make this request formally and publicly. The School Board has not made a decision and is taking the time to research the issue.

First, we need to be very clear that this movement is not just about some books that some parents might find objectionable. This movement is an attempt to erase the reality of the LGBTQ students who attend Grand Haven schools. As Vanessa Perez, a part of the National Council of Teachers of English LGBTQ advisory committee, makes clear, “Declaring a book with LGBTQ characters inappropriate for school is the same as declaring LGBTQ students and families inappropriate for school. It sends the message, ‘You don’t belong here. We’ll remove this book and we’ll try to remove you, too.’”

Last year, the Journal of Adolescent Health published a study that found that 24% of suicides between the ages of 12 and 14 were completed by LGBTQ kids. Data from the United States Department of Health and Human Services indicates that LGBTQ youth seriously contemplate suicide at almost three times the rate of heterosexual youth. Another study from the National Center for Transgender Equity found that LGBTQ youth are almost five times more likely to have actually attempted suicide. A study published in Pediatrics found that 40% of transgender adults have reported attempting suicide with 92% of those adults attempting before the age of 25.

And, for a conservative area like our own, it is important to note that LGBTQ youth who come from families that reject their sexual or gender identity are 8.4 more times likely to attempt suicide than their LGBTQ peers who report low or no level of family rejection. That data also comes from the United States Department of Health and Human Services. For all LGBTQ students—and particularly those who do not come from supportive families—easy access to these books are essential.

When LGBTQ students have access to positive and realistic portrayals—both in fiction and in nonfiction—of characters who resemble them, it helps to work against the cultural shame and provide a pathway to self-acceptance and understanding. Finally, they see someone whose thoughts, feelings, and identity resonate with their own. They can begin to develop a health understanding. And just as middle school libraries contain books that help adolescent straight and cis-gender students understand their own sexuality, there must be resources for LGBTQ adolescents as well.

Ingrid Conley-Adams, a librarian who helps schools serve their LGBTQ population, insists upon the importance of keeping these books in the library. “Left to their own devices,” she says, “Students and young people (queer or otherwise) may interact with information that can be incorrect or even toxic.” A study by GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) found that when LGBTQ students receive exposure to these themes, they have higher attendance, GPAs, and a stronger sense of safety in the classroom. That means, not only do rates of suicidality decrease but they actually thrive in school.

The plan of these parents to segregate these books to behind a desk and require parental permission will be damaging to an already at-risk population because it sends a message that who they are as a LGBTQ teenager is not fit for public knowledge, that it must be hidden away. It exacerbates shame and will certainly increase the risk of suicidality. To require a parent’s permission will have a tremendously negative impact upon the questioning teen whose parents are not supportive of their identity.

For over a hundred years, there have been movements to ban or limit access to certain books. Everything from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn to Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird to the novels of Judy Blume have been deemed by some to be inappropriate for students. That is why, since 1982, the American Library Association has promoted “Banned Book Weeks” a campaign which “stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”

Let’s not marginalize our children or teenagers simply because their gender or sexuality doesn’t line up with the established views of a certain segment of society. Let’s keep information full and open. Let’s trust our librarians to curate books appropriately. And let’s send a message to all the children and teenagers in Grand Haven that no matter who you are, no matter your gender identity or sexuality, you will not be shamed out of our community. And you certainly must not be shamed out of your own school library.