As a writer, I inevitably love books. The 18^th Century English critic Samuel Johnson once said, “The greatest part of a writer’s time is spent in reading, in order to write; a man will turn over half a library to make one book”. If the pen and paper are the medium by which I channel my art, then reading books is the fuel that keeps it going. They boost my imagination, creativity, and skill in every regard. After all, how am I supposed to write if I don’t know how other people write?

As such, it’s extremely disconcerting when I hear of things such as this: a school district in Virginia has temporarily banned both the classics To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain.

Obviously, this is not new news. Book bans and blacklisting have been common throughout all periods of history, all strata of society, and all different nations on Earth. That America is a democratic nation with a guaranteed and codified right to free speech and freedom of the press means little I suppose when it comes to literature that dares to discuss the status of race in the country 50 and 130 years ago, respectively.

The cause behind the book ban comes from the complaint of a single parent (as free speech gags often do in the modern day) who claims that her biracial son was uncomfortable reading certain parts of both books, especially in regards to the use of the word “nigger” in certain instances.

If her son is having difficulty dealing with this coarse and vulgar language, then I sincerely pity both the quality of his education and the prospects of his continued survival in a world that has grown incredibly coarse and vulgar.

To my first point: either this boy is not listening to the lessons his English teachers are providing him, or is being thoroughly mis-educated. I have read both To Kill a Mockingbird (freshman year of high school) and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (junior year of high school) and have had both taught to me in a formal, English, classroom setting. And if this child has come to the conclusion that either of these books is purporting a racist message, or that (in certain in-text cases) offensive slurs such as “nigger” are being used any way other than ironically or colloquially, then he is very, very wrong. Dangerously wrong.

The former directly confronts the racism present in the pre-Civil Rights Movement South via a trumped-up trial where a black man is wrongly (and where it is clearly delineated that it is the wrong decision) convicted of the rape of a white woman. The latter refers to racism and racial inequality in an antebellum South in which a young white boy and an escaped black slave become close friends as they travel down the Mississippi River, both eventually confronting their prejudices about the other and coming to terms with their shared humanity.

How such messages could be manipulated to be racist derives from only two sources: willful neglect or idiocy. The use of terms such as nigger and likewise in these books are not to insult, offend, or accost any real-world person, rather to do the exact opposite, displaying their hurtfulness and staking the argument that they have no place in polite society. The use of such terminology must also be viewed in a historical context: Mockingbird was written in 1960, Huckleberry Finn in 1884. These terms were in many cases not even considered offensive at the time, or at least not to the degree we see them today. If 100 years from now, the use of the word “black” is considered egregious in lieu of the more precise “African-American” I pray that our descendants do not chastise and scold us for its use, ignoring our message and suppressing our work in the name of ever nebulous racism.

Which brings me to my second point: how can this kid, or any kid, biracial or otherwise, hope to survive in a modern context if they don’t hear something offensive once and a while? While I contend that we should strive for civility and politeness whenever possible, there do come certain instances where being unpolite is the only way to achieve a worthy goal (think, and not unironically, of lunch counter sit-ins and freedom riding).

Aside from that, this woman who is contending for the ban and the school district enacting it, they do realize who we just elected president, yes? For better or for worse, America has selected one of its most lewd, loud, and vulgar individuals to fill its highest office. How is this kid supposed to survive four years of Donald Trump saying the phrases “radical Islam” and “illegal immigrant” if he can’t handle the word “nigger” in a historical and educational context?

I frankly am appalled by the actions of the Accomack County Public Schools. By banning these books from their libraries, they are not only depriving children of a necessary message, but also feeding into the larger culture of speech suppression and punishment in America today.

Immediately before lighting on the newscast about the ban I read a piece from the New York Observer about the institution of so-called “Bias Response Teams” cropping up on college campuses across the country. These teams apparently react to complaints, typically by individuals, and “investigate” the potential use of hurtful language or bias that may be present in the individual or group of individuals in question.

In the wake of the Mizzou fiasco last year that resulted in the resignation of Tim Wolfe, president of the entire University of Missouri system, and subsequent action taken by activist extremists at other institutions of higher learning (Dartmouth, Yale, etc.) this formulation of Bias Response Teams is hardly surprising. It is, however, quite disturbing, and (as reluctant as I am to dredge this back up) remains one of the reasons that Donald Trump was elected in the first place.

Donald Trump represented the ultimate middle finger to political correctness. The man doesn’t care what he says or whose toes he steps on when he does. In some cases, this is refreshing (his language against ISIS is particularly heartening), while in others it is grossly misused (disparaging an American veteran and hero simply because he and his family are Muslims). Yet despite the bad that Trump’s speech purports, it also advances a whole lot more honest conversation which is exactly why the First Amendment was written in the first place.

How are we supposed to address issues of racism if we can’t talk about (and ultimately say) racial slurs? How are we supposed to address the abortion debate if we are forced to recharacterize it as a divide between being pro- and anti-women? As someone who works with speech on the daily and hopes to eventually get paid for working with speech on the daily, I relish that in the United States of America I can say, write, and advance any thought, word, or deed I damn well please. It makes it easier for me to shoot down the truly lunatic ideas and support the truly brilliant ones. How is anyone supposed to do that, left or right, if we all have to talk in the same monochrome shade of political correctness?

Books are powerful things. Words too. Banning them is a travesty and an indecent act that should be fought against wherever possible. It is encouraging that as a part of the newscast, while one individual interviewed supported the ban, two others (one an older African-American man) were strongly against it. If words and the recording of words start to be banned in one context how long until they are in another? If we can’t criticize one aspect of our society, how long until we can’t criticize any? And if we stop having discourse, meaningful discourse, about any subject, because one person was offended by a singular word or phrase, how long until we lose our humanity altogether?

As Ray Bradbury, perhaps the preeminent authority on the dereliction of books, once said, “You don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them”.