A Brief Examination of
Censorship Advocate Waffling

As I wrote to a twit one time: you can say anything you like but you cannot disguise what you are.

Judge Alan Sadler is full of crap. He is a censorship advocate and all his self-righteous prattling about balance and fair representation is pure, pie-in-the-sky pretext for religious, misohomonist hysteria and book banning.

As mentioned in the 26 Aug 2002 entry in the Chronology, Sadler was instrumental in having It's Perfectly Normal summarily removed from Montgomery County library shelves. By 12 Sep 2002, It's So Amazing had also come under attack. As I also pointed out in the 26 Aug article, the driving force behind this is the fact that the books treat the issue of homosexuality in a factual manner instead of engaging in gay bashing. The books, particularly It's Perfectly Normal, were also vilified as pornography by the Republican Leadership Council, the complaintants, which demanded their removal.

Both of these books are by Robie Harris. Both books deal with sexuality education. Both books have children as the target audience. It's So Amazing targets [1] a 6-10 year old audience, while It's Perfectly Normal targets the 10-14 or so age group. Although I have read neither[6], it is my understanding that the first addresses the question, "where do babies come from?", and the second addresses issues of puberty, along with attendant sexual issues such as orientation and STDs.

So, in the interim between 12 Sep and 24 Oct, a new, local, grassroots, free speech group calling itself Mainstream Montgomery County organized to counter this censorship and extremism by the religio-political militants. And on 24 Oct they button-holed the Commissioners Court and grilled Sadler for two hours. Naturally, Sadler defended his position. He reportedly asserted that the books were removed so the content could be reviewed; that they had not been banned. He also defended the modification to the purchasing review board which now has five citizens along with the original five librarians[2]. Keep in mind, however, that a denial of any attempt at censorship is one of the hallmarks of a censorship movement. Furthermore, in the article about this meeting by Heath Hixson at The Courier, Sadler was quoted as saying, "Homosexuals have rights, just like everybody else in this room. This is not about homosexuality. This is about the inequity of sexual education books available in our libraries. Right now, there is an imbalance of books promoting sexual orientation. I am not condemning the homosexual lifestyle at all, (but) many of the books that talk about the other side are not there."

Now, both of these views strike me as blatant hypocrisy.

First, the books should not have been removed from the shelves pending a review process. They were not in a school library, but a public library. By removing them, the whole of the public is denied access to those works, not just children. Plus, Sadler had to be reined in by the chief librarian on 26 Aug, and convinced to send the books through a review process.

Secondly, if Sadler believes that gays have a right to their orientation, they certainly also have a right to information about homosexuality.

Third, compare Sadler's quoted comments in the 26 Aug article with his statement above. Given the contrast, one of them is a clear and present misrepresentation of his views. His obviously misohomonist attitudes and the complaints of the RLC indicate that this entire movement in Montgomery County is based on content discrimination.

Fourth, his argument that there is an imbalance of material about sexual orientation is both specious and outright stupid. For one thing, it is obvious to this editor that the only information Sadler wants is "information" that supports his narrow-minded and self-righteous prejudices [3]. In short, the kind of information that "proves" that homosexuals are "morally disordered and intrinsically evil" [4].

Fifth, -- and this one addresses the unwarranted assumptions and faulty premises at the heart of so many religio-political rationales -- you cannot promote sexual orientation; it seems to just happen. The material in my quotations files includes a quote from one psychologist who admits that there isn't even a real measure for homosexuality. Of course, religio-political extremists don't care one whit about factual information and certainly won't study such information despite its availability. Indeed, that's what this censorship move is all about.

In point of fact, the assumptions of the religio-political extremists are all a priori; based on prejudice created by biblical interpretation. In such a pseudo-scientific mindset, you formulate a hypothesis, gather your data, and then discard or ignore anything that does not support your hypothesis. No studies based on religio-scientific beliefs are done by reputable scientists or published in peer review journals[5]. So any books which "prove" homosexuality is a bankrupt concept cannot possibly be based on information. Such "information" cannot possibly be factual. Hence, all such works intrinsically violate the principles of free speech in that those principles ensure access to information. Information, by its very nature, must be real and true. In Harmful To Minors, Judith Levine recounts how the misinformation of abstinence education is supplanting the real and true information about human sexuality, and this move by Sadler, et al, is just more of the same. Censorship at a more insidious level.

Sixth, if he was really concerned about this perceived imbalance, he could ask -- not order or direct -- the library purchasing board to see about buying the kind of books he'd rather see in the library. He could even buy them himself, as the Republican Leadership Council could have done, and donate them to the library. Of course, that would make sense. Then too, it would leave the Harris books still on the shelf where children could read them and still get "harmful" ideas about tolerance and respect for the human dignity of those who are "Not one of us!".

Make no mistake about it: there is a recruitment process underway, but it is not a move to recruit adolescents into a gay lifestyle. It is a move to recruit the rational and tolerant into a lifestyle of religious hatred and destruction.

FOOTNOTES:

[01]: "Target audience" is a literary term for the demographic group for which a work is written. An alphabet primer or a Doctor Seuss book, for instance, targets the pre-school group. More recent popular misusage, however, is skewing the term; especially when it is used by anti-whatever groups attempting to create a negative affective connotation. The anti-tobacco and anti-video game lobbies come to mind. The connotation these groups attempt to create is one of a ravening predator zeroing in on children as if they were some kind of snipers with the express purpose of picking off the victim.
Return to place in main text

[02]: I cannot comment too much on this modification to the review board as I have seen no information about the modification. I do not know how these citizens will be selected or what means will be used as a tie breaker. However, I do not believe that this is a good faith move. I'm also pretty sure that a deadlocked issue will end up being brought before Commissioners Court where Sadler can ban anything he doesn't like, although he reportedly maintained staunchly that Commissioners Court would not play a part in the review process. Also, this measure was implemented summarily without public consultation; except with the censors who are attempting to gain control of the library. Those concerns had not been resolved as of the 24 Oct meeting.
Return to place in main text

[03]: For a view of such "information" as well some real facts you can peruse the material about homosexuality in my quotations files.
Return to place in main text

[04]: To borrow a quote: This familiar call for "balance" arises when readers, unable to refute the facts that happen to be the subject of a book, are reduced to demanding different facts.
--Dorothy Bryant, Literary Lynching, chapter seven
Return to place in main text

[05]: In scientific circles, the peer review process is designed to weed out, as much as possible, bad science. A paper submitted to a publication is sent to a number of other scientists in the relevant field, but without any identification, so it can be judged solely on its merits. Those reviewing the paper consider the hypothesis, the methodology, the data, and the soundness of the conclusions. They then return the paper to the publisher with comments, sometimes asking for certain points to be clarified or parts of the experiment to be redone. They can also recommend that the paper be published or rejected. Religio-scientific works, especially those addressing "scientific creationism", are so notoriously flawed that such works are subject to automatic rejection. Because of this, one christian university created its own publishing house where such material can be published without a critical review. This publishing house would reject papers based on real science, of course. A pseudo-scientific paper can often be spotted by the high incidence of references to other works by the same author of that paper. Citing your own work as proof of a point you are making is circular logic.
Return to place in main text

[06]: I have read It's Perfectly Normal since I wrote this essay.
Return to place in main text