A Publishing Giant’s Risky Fight Against Book Bans

From The Wall Street Journal:

When Penguin Random House held a board meeting in May, book banning was one of several topics on the agenda. It was supposed to be a routine discussion. The company had mostly kept a low profile on the issue.

Then Skip Dye spoke up. 

Dye, who oversees U.S. library sales for the global book-publishing giant, launched into an impassioned speech about the company’s handling of the issue, saying the publisher wasn’t doing enough to oppose the removal of hundreds of books from public school libraries and classrooms across the country.

While backers of the book bans believed they were targeting titles that were pornographic or otherwise inappropriate for young people, Dye saw an assault on free speech and on the publisher’s authors. 

Novels such as “The Bluest Eye,” written by Nobel Prize winner Toni Morrison, and Malinda Lo’s National Book Award winner “Last Night at the Telegraph Club,” about a young Chinese American lesbian, had been taken off school shelves. 

Penguin Random House had previously kept its actions to writing checks for an industry group challenging the bans, and creating a website with information about them. Its peers in publishing had similarly been reticent on the issue.  

Dye called for more aggressive action. “I said we needed to do more than support online hashtag campaigns and augment other voices—that we needed to be a voice,” Dye said in an interview, noting that he “apologized for becoming impassioned.”

Penguin Random House chief Nihar Malaviya found his call-to-action persuasive and moving. By the end of the meeting Malaviya had created an “Intellectual Freedom” task force to explore the actions the company could take. He put Dye in charge. 

That one high-intensity boardroom exchange ignited the company. It now fully embraces the fight against book bans, entering a sensitive debate that is playing out in school boards and state houses across the country. 

At risk: potentially alienating a large chunk of customers on an issue at the crux of culture wars that have polarized the nation in ways not seen in decades.

Two weeks after the board meeting, the company became the only major U.S. publisher to join a federal suit in Florida that challenges bans in public school libraries on First Amendment grounds. In November, Penguin Random House filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block school book banning in Iowa. 

“We don’t want a small group of parents deciding on who should have access to which books in the entire community,” said Malaviya, 49, in an interview. The publisher’s stance is that teachers, librarians and school administrators, as expert educators, already make decisions about what is appropriate for young readers, and should be left to do their jobs.

Despite the risks, Penguin Random House’s leadership said that failing to act had moral and financial costs.

An internal company report showed that the sales of some banned titles subsequently declined, one by 91%, between 2022 and 2023. That’s been damaging for the company as well as for authors trying to establish their literary careers.

“We have two missions: a cultural mission and a commercial mission,” Malaviya said. 

Growing bans

Penguin Random House has started hosting anti-book-banning events, giving away several thousand copies of its most frequently banned titles, and has orchestrated a letter-writing campaign targeting local and school board officials. 

School boards and school districts removed more than 1,500 book titles from an assortment of publishers from public school classrooms and libraries in the 12 months through June 2023, according to a recent study by PEN America, a literary and free-speech organization that has been vocal in opposing bans. 

There were 3,362 cases of banned books nationwide, a 33% year-over-year increase. More than 1,400 book bans took place in Florida, followed by 625 bans in Texas. 

Parents have expressed concerns about picture books for elementary school students that they said included inappropriate content related to sex and gender. 

Lindsey Smith, a parent at Woodfield Elementary School in Gaithersburg, Md., said a picture book called “Pride Puppy” caught her attention. The book, about a lost dog at a Pride parade, includes an illustration of a person holding a sign that reads “The Future is Intersectional” and a wagon filled with vegetables labeled “Queer Farmers.” Smith, a mother of four who founded a local chapter of Moms for Liberty, described the book as “full of political agendas.”

A spokesman for the school district said books deemed “welcoming and inclusive” were supplemental and “not required.”

Andrew Wooldridge, publisher at Orca Book Publishers, said “Pride Puppy” is intended for children ages 3 to 5. When asked how he responds when parents raise concerns that “Pride Puppy” is inappropriate for young readers, Wooldridge said, “My usual reaction is: have you read the book?”

The U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1982 decision, Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, found that the First Amendment provided some protection against school board officials removing books from school libraries.

The current book-banning push has proved a potent political issue and has galvanized intense opposition in some states. In November, about a third of candidates endorsed by the conservative group Moms for Liberty were elected, down from around 45% in prior races.

Those results reflect a survey taken on behalf of the American Library Association in early March 2022 that found a majority of parents believed “school librarians in their district generally listen to the concerns of parents and try to work with them if they have concerns.”

‘Other worlds’

The issue is personal for both Dye and Malaviya. Dye, 61, grew up in a poor household in eastern Tennessee. Access to a school library set him on a different road than the one his parents traveled. He remembers thumbing through “The Boxcar Children” series, books about orphaned children who made a boxcar in the woods into a home, and “Mr. Rabbit and the Lovely Present,” about a rabbit who helps a girl find a gift for her mom.

“I was very dependent on libraries, particularly my school library,” said Dye. “We had a reading teacher who introduced me to books and other worlds.”

Malaviya immigrated to the U.S. from India as a 13-year-old, knowing little about American history. Eager to learn, he would eat his lunch quickly and then head to the school library to read. 

“Having any book that I wanted to read readily available in my high school library was so beneficial to me,” Malaviya wrote in an internal note to staff last fall. “Not every book we publish will resonate equally with everyone, but each of our books deserves the right to be discovered, read, discussed and debated.”

Penguin Random House, he said, had more books on banned lists than any other publisher, and many targeted books were written by underrepresented authors and covered LGBTQ themes. “Book-banning activities have a disproportionate impact on certain books and authors,” Malaviya said in an interview. “We didn’t think it was right.”

The company began to hear from some of its top authors on the issue last year. Jodi Picoult, a bestselling fiction writer whose works have been widely banned across the U.S., privately voiced her concerns last March to Barbara Marcus, president of Random House Children’s Books, at an industry gala, the author said.

“It feels terrible and scary because it’s happening with greater and greater frequency,” Picoult said in an interview. Her banned novels include “Nineteen Minutes,” about a school shooting and its aftermath, and “The Tenth Circle,” which deals with a high school date-rape case. In Iowa, Picoult’s books have been banned in more than 30 school districts, according to a database created by the Des Moines Register.

In his role selling books to school libraries, Dye has heard from librarians like Lindsey Kimery who are on the front lines of the fight, facing parents angry about the books available to their kids. Kimery, the coordinator of library services for Metro Nashville Public Schools, said she became involved in the issue in 2022, when Tennessee began to consider legislation that would ban certain titles.

The backlash she faced for opposing bans took an emotional toll. “I’d come home from work, and then work in the evenings, advocating for public school libraries,” said Kimery. “My hair started falling out. Who hates libraries and librarians?”

Penguin Random House’s board meeting last year was a turning point. Malaviya had been promoted to interim CEO after his predecessor, Markus Dohle, resigned in December 2022 following the company’s failed bid to acquire rival Simon & Schuster. Dohle was a demonstrative leader, comfortable on stage, where he often flashed a thumbs-up.

By contrast, Malaviya, a data expert and technologist, was humble in demeanor and presentation, more comfortable focusing on others and confident that his calm, analytical approach to problem-solving would lead to good outcomes. His style was to lead by listening.

. . . .

Cases in Florida and Iowa

Suing to stop book bans was a major goal for the new task force. The publisher felt targeting individual school districts would be too limiting, so the idea was to focus on states.

“It’s easy to put out a statement saying we deplore censorship, but if we are deploying the assets of the company, we are using time, energy and resources and that investment has to be maximized,” said Novack, who is part of the task force.

When Novack learned the law firm Ballard Spahr was working on a book-banning lawsuit against Escambia County School District in the state of Florida with PEN America, he called an attorney there and asked, “Can we get in?”

Escambia County seemed like the perfect venue for such a fight because its restrictions on public school libraries were, in the publisher’s view, so extreme. The county lets individuals challenge books on grounds they are pornographic or contain depictions of sex, and says those titles should be removed from circulation pending review. The county also restricted access to books by or about the LGBTQ community and books that discuss racism, said Novack.

In an early victory, a federal judge ruled the plaintiffs in the Florida case can pursue their lawsuit on First Amendment grounds. In addition to Penguin Random House, plaintiffs include PEN America, authors and parents of local students.

In Iowa, Penguin Random House is challenging a state education law that bans from classrooms and school libraries books that depict sex acts up to grade 12 or address sexual orientation and gender for kids up to sixth grade.

Link to the rest at The Wall Street Journal (Sorry if you encounter a paywall)

New York City values vs. Oakley, Kansas (population 2,026) values?

New York City values vs. Dickinson, North Dakota (population 25,167) values?

New York City values vs. Brevard, North Carolina (population 7,700) values?

New York City values vs. Chama, New Mexico (population 920) values?

New York City values vs. Redwood Falls, Minnesota (population 5,095) values?

Who decides what is taught to elementary school children and teenagers in these and tens of thousands of other similar places?

Federal Judges vs. State Judges

Since New York City plaintiffs are allowed to sue local school district boards and board members in federal court under Article III, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, all the lawsuits filed by New York publishers that PG has read about have been filed in federal vs. state courts.

Explanation: In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be “diversity of citizenship” between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit’s “amount in controversy” must be more than $75,000.

Practicalities: Attorneys or state judges who want to become Federal District Judges (who are the federal judges who try cases instead of hearing appeals of tried cases like appellate judges do) are nominated by the President of the United States and approved by the U.S. Senate. Federal judges serve until they die or voluntarily retire by usually taking “Senior Status”. (More than a few federal judges are very old because they can only be forced out of office by impeachment proceedings involving both houses of Congress like the impeachment of a United States President.)

In point of fact, a federal judge has to display exceedingly poor behavior or issue excessively bizarre rulings to be forced from office.

Results: Some federal judges become very arrogant in their treatment of counsel who appear before them. Attorneys who are members of prestigious law firms who may well have appeared before a judge on many prior occasions may find themselves treated with more respect than Joe-bag-of-donuts general practitioners who spend most of their court time in local and state courts representing ordinary people who don’t have a lot of money.

Therefore: While a given federal judge may feel a sense of noblesse oblige towards groups of small-town parents who object to contemporary New York City standards reflected in textbooks created and sold by well-known publishers represented by expensive law firms, in PG’s experience, there may be a tendency to discount the concerns of ignorant locals and the school boards they elect in New York City v. Hicksville disputes.

7 thoughts on “A Publishing Giant’s Risky Fight Against Book Bans”

  1. The difficulty here is that the parents are delegating some parental duties to others, and getting irritated when the delegated duties aren’t being done exactly as those parents would have done them. (Hint: No matter what is being delegated, this is a constant problem. Try being a junior officer some time…) The real problem with censorship movements is that they in fact do have a tendency to sweep 1984, Brave New World, and Gender Queer into the same black-box evaluation system, and stamp the “Unmutual!” label on all of them.

    If you’re not going to keep your delicate snowflake-offspring wrapped in cotton wool, in the back upstairs bedroom (creepy echoes of V.C. Andrews entirely intentional), they are going to encounter Stuff. Just stop and think for a moment, when proclaiming “But my taxes shouldn’t pay for it!”, about what wasn’t in Caroline County, Virginia public and school libraries in 1959 because it would have protrayed illegality — leading to one of the most unintentionally ironically named cases in Supreme Court history: Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). One hopes that Guess Who’s Coming to Story Hour? will never need be made; the problem is that in a nation this large, the law of large numbers indicates that there will always be loudmouths who demand that the entire population must bow to their preferences, while never contemplating in the bowels of Christ that they might be mistaken.

    • the problem is that in a nation this large, the law of large numbers indicates that there will always be loudmouths who demand that the entire population must bow to their preferences, while never contemplating in the bowels of Christ that they might be mistaken.

      Of course there are. Most of the time those people are, as you say, overly protective parents. Sometimes those people are librarians or school administrators.

    • The tenth amendment was added for a reason.
      Ditto the electoral college.
      The US was never intended to be a monolithic monoculture but a federation of barely tolerated neighbors but modern mass media and the internet have let too many deluded absolutists believe their echo chamber is all that exists or should be allowed to exist.
      Conceited idiots, the lot of ’em.

  2. In his role selling books to school libraries, Dye has heard from librarians like Lindsey Kimery who are on the front lines of the fight, facing parents angry about the books available to their kids. Kimery, the coordinator of library services for Metro Nashville Public Schools, said she became involved in the issue in 2022, when Tennessee began to consider legislation that would ban certain titles.

    The backlash she faced for opposing bans took an emotional toll. “I’d come home from work, and then work in the evenings, advocating for public school libraries,” said Kimery. “My hair started falling out. Who hates libraries and librarians?”

    Ahh, the return of the Missing Missing Reasons. The link describes a certain pattern of storytelling you get from a certain kind of person. I was grateful to the site because it cracked the code about old cases I used to have, where I couldn’t put my finger on how I knew someone was lying.

    The pattern is this: 1) Vague claims of abusive and insults, e.g., “Who hates librarians?”

    Oh? Did the protestors not say words when they confronted her? Are we to believe the patrons directed an unrelenting stream of wordless screams at her? How strange! Nah: people said something to Kimery, but she will not quote them, because she doesn’t want to answer the obvious follow up questions: are your accusers telling the truth? Do the parents have a point? Can you show me the books they’re complaining about, and compare what’s there against what the parents say is there?

    Why is it that Kimmery et al don’t want to “start a dialogue”? Is it because it would require them to listen when parents explain to them their reasonable objections?

    The parents are telling Kimery why they’re angry, and Kimery is pretending those parents are like the adults in all those “Peanuts” cartoons who only say “wah-wah-wah” instead of intelligible words. She will never repeat what the parents said, which is a tell against her.

    2) Second part of the pattern: On the rare occasion a poor, besieged librarian reveals what an angry parent said, it will be “paraphrased heavily, choosing the most trivial offenses and trimming away all context.” Like this statement in the OP: The county also restricted access to books by or about the LGBTQ community and books that discuss racism, said Novack.

    As if the books in question aren’t books illustrating sex acts on minors. We’re just supposed to believe that the restricted books are wholly innocent and are targeted for no reason at all, except wickedness on the part of those who restrict them. You don’t think it’s interesting that those who object to those books aren’t quoted? The reasons are, curiously enough, missing.

    Note this: Titles that have been removed in some Iowa school districts since the law passed include George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World,” as well as Maia Kobabe’s “Gender Queer,” a memoir about the author’s exploration of gender identity that includes some sexually explicit images and is recommended for readers at least 18 years old</strong.***

    Emphasis mine. I don’t know how schools work in Iowa, but in Michigan K-12 maxes out at age 18. You’re expected to be 17 or 18 by the end of grade 12. If you screwed up and had to repeat a year, you get kicked out if you’re 19. In other words, what’s the problem with not having a book meant for ages 18 and up — aka adults — in a school district library? Why is this a problem? Which students are “hurt” by the absence of these books in their school library? You can’t show an R-rated movie in schools– especially not without clearing it with parents — but an R-rated book is a necessity? If Kobabe doesn’t intend for young kids to read her book, why is there any fuss about it not being in a school library? Shouldn’t she side with the parents and fight tooth and nail to keep her books out of schools, if kids aren’t her target audience?

    And why is Penguin challenging a state education law that bans from classrooms and school libraries books that depict sex acts up to grade 12 or address sexual orientation and gender for kids up to sixth grade? Curious if Penguin wants “Fifty Shades of Grey” to be on school reading lists, too? And then show the movies in class?

    Oh, and this one’s a beauty: “We don’t want a small group of parents deciding on who should have access to which books in the entire community,” said Malaviya, 49, in an interview. The publisher’s stance is that teachers, librarians and school administrators, as expert educators, already make decisions about what is appropriate for young readers, and should be left to do their jobs.

    No, dear. That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. Try again. Malaviya has the excuse of not being American to account for the error in his thought process, but what excuse do the others have for thinking government officials aren’t answerable to the citizens they work for?

    ***TV tropes would call this list “Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick,” the reverse of the trope of “Murder, arson, and jaywalking.” I promise you “1984” does not have graphic depictions of teens fellating each other, but including it in the list is supposed to imply that the “book banners” are double-plus ungood.

    • One problem with simply listing “contentious” books is they don’t specify *who* asked for a specific title to be removed or why.
      For example, 1984 may have been written as a cautionary tale but in sime circles it is used as an operations manual. 😉

Comments are closed.