In a saga reminiscent of Keystone Cops, a two year pursuit of felony charges against school librarians in Granbury, Texas unfolded like a farcical mission gone awry. Right wing extremists. Scott London embarked on his vendetta and poured over stacks of literature while sporting a bodycam to capture his quest to persecute, I mean, prosecute his target three school librarians allowing miners to check out books at the library, some
deemed op scene. Despite subpoenas and dramatic investigative theatrics, Ultimately the case did fizzle when the disc attorney did decline to indict, citing insufficient evidence. So stick around for the sort of details of Scott London's attempt to stop kids from reading. There's a lot more idiocy to cover the story from NBC News by Mike Hixenburg. It's by Tyler Kincaid, Scott Freeman, and Nava Parks on July twenty third, twenty
twenty four. Now, Cindy, I know there's a lot of talk about deciding what books should and should not be in schools or libraries or things like that. What do you think who should be making those type of decisions. Is it somebody who ultimately runs around with the camera trying to invade privacy or do you think there might be a more mature way to do it.
No, I definitely don't think that suff righteous. As for who has nothing to do with his days, apparently that's not the person who should make those decisions, and he won't because basically he works for two years for nothing because he proposed some charges to be filed and they weren't, so unfortunately, I don't think it will have the effect I wish it had, because I'm pretty sure someone else will try another time. But yeah, I think it should
be the at the federal level. I don't see why a child in Texas should have access to different books than in California. There's no reason for for that. So I don't think UH school boards should exist. I think it should be done by the Ministry of Education, which should be funded accordingly, and not let by people who want to destroy the public system like like it was
for quite a bit. But yeah, it's I think it's symptomatic of a portion of the population who UH cees education as as as a bad thing, you know, uh, and and there are many reasons why, and we can jump into it, but basically, that's that's that's it. It's just a miserable cup who thinks too much of his beliefs and wants to pulls them onto everyone else. That's just what it is.
Yeah, I can't disagree with you there. It's really a case that we're kind of mind boggling me though, that the police were getting involved in books and eli talking about children and books and all of that. You know, the privacy of the children was a something that he took into consideration. Or are we talking about how exactly far did he go with that?
Yeah, he sure didn't consider that. So he even went so far as to gather a list over the past two years of like the names of children in these schools that had checked out these books. And it's ironic to think to see that he thinks this is creating like this is creating a safe environment for children, like this is this is the protection that children need. And you hit a lot of points that I really agree with, Cindy.
He really he is just pushing his personal beliefs. He said in an interview with the same sort back in twenty twenty three. This has nothing to do with the constitution. I don't know what a constitutional constable is, but he said in the interview, this has nothing to do with his job. So he's just like being paid taxpayer money to just do this thing and persecute like librarians under felonies for letting kids read books. And it's just such
a strange Like I'm starting to not believe. I saw somebody say that, like everybody watches America the same way America watched Tiger King, And I really see that, Like that makes a lot of sense to me, And I'm starting to no longer believe that the things that happen here are reality.
You know, I have to say that, it really is a little amazing to think that you're going, it's okay, we're going to punish librarians for this, but really, where is it do you draw the line if you ultimately decided this is a book that's bad, who would you just say? Is it the person who bought the book, Is it the person that put it on a wagon and wheeled it into the front door. Where do you as a physical possession? Is it writing on a piece
of paper? What ultimately decides whose responsibility it is is books in your library. We're going to give you a felony that's absurd all around. What are you gonna do? I mean, that's just absolute absurd. So let me ask you this, Cindy D. Do you think this is a deliberate chilling effect to try to as you mentioned, the people who want to not have education. Is this more in the long along the lines of what we're looking at there just really not wanting it to.
Have I think it is when you look at all the cases where legislators, local legislators are trying to impose this kind of those Benning books. But in this specific case, I don't think Okay is smart enough to go this far. I just think he thinks he's uh, he's just right in his mind. He's just self righteous and and he just wants to impose his views on on on anyone.
And you know, we we are talking about the the idea of panning books, but we're not talking about the reasons why he says he does it because the content he doesn't like. It's not like there's there's a quote at some point where she says, uh, something like imagine if we got to give maxims on you know, like pornographic material in the hands of kids, and and that's not what's happening, you know. It's it's not like, uh, those books first of all, contain images of actual sexual
depiction or anything like that. It's it's just books of things that make him uncomfortable. And that's just what it is. It's just talking about gender, it's talking about homosexuality, it's about talking about all of this, and that's just make him ikey, and so he just wants to prevent everyone to uh, to read those books. And it's just, yeah, I can't see, and I can't see it's in any other way than just I don't like it, so others can have it.
It's it's not a matter of a matter of right, it's a matter of a feeling of discomfort, loss of entitlement, you know. And and and maybe you're right, maybe it's not his delivered attempt to bring in the idea of a chilling effect. It could just be that, you know, it's it's a it's a feature he didn't even know about in it. This is an added bonus, because yeah, I think at the end of the day, it's really not even I think you probably hit the nail on
the head. Eliah, Where where where did you come from this?
What?
What? What did you get from this?
So it I've said a lot of times that I don't think censoring information is a way to teach kids the right information. I think if if you teach them how to think, not what to think, teach them how to discern correct incorrect, correct from incorrect, true versus from not true, you know, good source from bad source, then
it doesn't matter what they're like. They can see and read and take in whatever they want, and now they have the tools to discern, like, this is something that's helpful to me, and I should hold onto this, and this is something that's not quite so helpful, and I should get rid of this. What makes a kid want to go and seek something out more than anything else. Tell them that they can't have it, and then they're
gonna want to go find it. And it's like, we talked about this on an episode recently, and somebody else on the show on the episode said the same thing. They're going to go get the book on Amazon for like seven bucks. Anyway, as soon as they realize that you took it out of the library, specifically so they wouldn't be able to read it. So it's not doing anything to stop them from accessing this material, and it's just punishing people that are like just trying to educate kids.
There was a person in the video in the article that said the same thing. Nobody should be facing threats of felony charges just for trying to educate people and provide information to the world. That would be like the three of us. If if somebody came to the three of us to say that, you know, we were committing a felony because you know the things we talked about on one of these shows. I think that's it's it's akin to that, and it's it blows my mind.
Yeah, I'd like to to Sorry, just just one point. I'd like to come back to what you just said when you talked about Sorry, I lost it now I go go ahead. Uh, I'm sorry. I forgot my train of thought.
Oh no, it's fine. Uh. I guess that happens to us sometimes. I know I've already forgot. Who are the two of you again, Kelly? Oh that's right, Kelly. I thank thanks for failing in for Eli. Now having said that, you mentioned LGBTQ books. Eli, Uh, what about sending people of color that also seem to draw a share of attention. Now, I wanted both of you to kind of comment on what do you think that was about. Is it just
a it can't be an achy thing. Surely this far in history, we're past achiness when it comes to race like that, are we?
So?
I mean, I was just trying to figure why don't we want to pretend that people of color don't exist when they exist around us. I don't understand that motivation.
I can answer to that, and I can come back to the point I forgot. You said that children they're just going to buy the book on Amazon. The problem is it increases the divide between the education of poor people and people who have the means to go to buy those books. And we know that in the US it's one of the major problems that education is extremely uh related to your revenues. So poor people have much much worse education, and then rich people and even the
middle class. But yeah, there's there's this this idea that not wanting to uh to acknowledge your past because if you look at you know, Rosa Parks and all those pictures you see about black people trying to eat in a restaurant and being attacked by people. I think it's still fresh in the memory, and people are so ashamed of it that they just pushing it away and try
to make it like it it didn't happen. I think that's one of the reasons why so many books talking about race issues in the US are on the list of band books.
So it's a more of a discomfort level than anything else. You know, it's it's you know, and really I think I understand a little better that the end of the day, it's it's. It is a very difference of wanting to stigmatize versus one of the naturalize. And I think that that is fundamentally one of the differences, because so many of the things that he talked about are things that at the end of the day is a so what
you know, who cares move on? And but you know, the unfortunately people like this keep popping up and we keep having to play whack a mole. But you know, do you think that this is a winning argument or is this a losing argument? Is this something that that people are receptive to, or or is this losing something? What do you think you lie.
I think that hopefully fewer than I think, but probably more than I think, people are are receptive to book banning. I think that most people probably think they're restricting information
is the right way. And to your point, Cindy, which is a very good point, for those people who don't have the income resources to get that education outside of the school, if the school is now banned from providing it, they're just out of luck, and that's just another hurdle they have to overcome in order to have the same opportunity or even a similar equitable opportunity as anyone else.
And I think what happens is that when you look at historically the people that are likely to ban books, they're historically Christian or religious at least, and I think in most cases Christian at least. The ones that we've talked about, I think it's more likely to be white. I think they're more likely to be heterosexual or heteronormative.
And I think it's also really common for everybody, regardless of any type of background, for somebody in power to feel defensive when things that they have done that are not that great are brought to light. And that happens a lot to white people and to hetero int strate people and to sist people, because there's a lot of examples of white and cysts and straight people causing harm.
So when books like The Bluest Eye, which was one of the ones specifically mentioned in the article and was on the ten top ten most challenged books in the United States in twenty twenty three and was only one of one of only a few books on that list that was not about lgbt q I A plus issues, but also one of only a few that was written by a person of color. And it's because these books are challenging the white normativity, in the hetero normativity, and
that's what they don't like. And I think until it becomes clear that the perceived majority in society and in culture that you know that white sis hetero people perceive, sorry, until it is understood that perceived majority isn't as strong as it is perceived to be, that's going to continue to be the case where they the majority of people feel like this is the right thing to do and.
Sending any thoughts or any any comments.
Yeah, I think there's one of the biggest fuels of the conservative movement in the US is the amount of shame they have to overcome to be part of the current society because the conservatives they are against, they still have some racist ideas, they still have homophobic ideas, they still have all those wrong ideas that have been proven false like fifty years ago, but they still have it because they grew up with those ideas and since they are no longer accepted in this society and we are
tribal creatures, we want to belong to our society. And the response to to this exciting. I would say, like like they're pushed on the side is trying to either prevent this information uh that they're different from reaching the kids, or trying to impose their views on everyone. And so you have those two, uh, two movements in the conservative movement.
You have one where they're trying to impose their views on everyone, like parieting abortion, like preventing gay marriage, like all this, and at the same time you have this, uh, let's make sure that our kids are not educated as they need to be in order to understand the society and stay with our ideas.
Yeah, I would also I would also have to say that in many ways the books are symbolic because it's a it's a it's a notation of a lack of acceptance that obviously goes so much further than books. This is as you, as we mentioned earlier, stigmatized, this is to exclude this is this feels beyond just icky. This feels like, you know, the censorship that goes far beyond. But we but it's it's what's it's what's happening now, Eli, did you have any other thoughts on this, Nothing in.
Particular, I'd say, yeah, it does go beyond the ikey, it goes it's it's I mean, it's it's not just like it's I don't like this, and I don't want I mean a lot like I was saying a minute ago, I don't want, you know, the my children to feel responsible, to feel guilt, to feel shamed for the actions of my you know, of of people in the past, which I can't say is unreasonable. But I don't think anybody wants your children to feel ashamed for the actions of people in the past.
It doesn't serve a purpose.
Right exactly, And and I don't think anybody wants that. I think it's just that these things need to be acknowledged so that we understand what did happen. Why it is important to make sure that everybody has equality and everybody is treated the same, regardless of their background. And when you continue to remove the examples of that not happening and the results of that not happening, then you remove the motives or the incentives to make sure it doesn't happen anymore.
Sending you a final thought, Yeah, I'd like to point out that in order to be educated on what your previous generations did and not feel guilty, that's possible that everyone else does it, but you need education for that. You need properly trained educators. And if you defend the education system, then it doesn't happen. And it's you know, it's it's it's a chestrangity too. You cannot solve this problem if you don't manage to find a way to
teach that. Yes, your grandparents did some horrific things, but it was a different time, they grew up in a different way. And although we do understand now that it's not acceptable and we're trying to change it, we don't feel guilty because we didn't do anything wrong. We are not our grandparents. No.
As a parent, my youngest being fourteen we had talked earlier about Amazon and what you could find on Amazon and the reality. So yeah, I just accept a certain reality, but it doesn't change the reality. Also, as you mentioned, the income disparity and also the exclusion that comes along with all of this, So all these things being very important, I'm glad that both of you brought these up.