Earlier this week, I was introduced to the story of Cambridge, MA librarian Liz Phipps Soeiro, who graciously and thoughtfully declined to accept a box of Dr. Seuss books sent to her by Melania Trump as they were to a number of other high-achieving schools.
I admit my first instincts were mixed — my own feelings about the current administration not withstanding, I thought wow, that was pretty ballsy of her to reject a gift from the First Lady. Maybe she could have just smiled and said thank you…then donated the books to a school more in need.
But on my second (and third) reading of Ms. Soeiro’s incredibly well-considered note, I 100% see why she felt the need to say more.
And I support her.
First of all, she started her letter by describing her school’s great fortune, and how schools with greater financial needs would be better recipients for a gift of books than an award-winning school that’s already got a well-stocked library.
But the crux of her letter was a heartfelt description of what matters to her in children’s literature, which kinds of books her students are actually reading, and why she takes issue with some Dr. Seuss books, as many academics and parents have over the years.
(I know, it sucks when we realize some of our favorite childhood authors were not quite the perfect people we imagined them to be, even if they’ve done some great things too; Google “Willie Wonka racist” and be prepared to fall down an uncomfortable rabbit hole.)
In other words, the same way scientists feel they have an obligation to use their platforms to stand up against science-deniers, and artists and authors of all kinds use their platforms to stand up against censorship and prejudice, so too do librarians use their platforms to advocate for progress in the realm of library science.
Makes sense, right?
Children’s librarians make the most incredible curators and advocates for diversity in children’s literature, in terms of themes, plots, depictions of different kinds of children and families, and and even the diversity of children’s authors and illustrators themselves.
Related: The 18 best children’s books of the year: Editors’ Best
As we have said over and over, the more different children see themselves reflected back in the books they read, the more likely they are to become engaged readers. And as much as we love many Dr. Seuss books (note to Melania: Read The Star-Bellied Sneeches to Barron because I’d love to hear your thoughts on it) they alone will not entirely deliver on what we want from children’s books for our own kids.
And so, Ms. Soeiro used her platform, as advocates and activists do: not just to decline a gift, but do so with the aim of educating and enlightening.
She went so far as to create a second post describing exactly what she values in children’s literature with the hopes that Mrs. Trump (and others) would grow in their vision of the value of books. She wrote:
Mrs. Trump, you sent ten picture books, so I will recommend ten as well — but there are so many more! My wish is that these books will help you see:
-the beautiful resilience of children who stand up to racism and oppression and for social justice and reform;
-children who are trying to connect with parents who are incarcerated simply because of their immigration status;
-children who integrate aspects of their own cultures and countries of origin into their new country;
-children whose parents risked everything to enter the U.S. so they can have a chance at a future free from violence and/or poverty;
-children who challenge society’s social constraints and are accepted and loved as who they say they are.
Okay, so from these points alone, I think I love this woman. Just the kind of librarian you’d love to have in your own school, right?
She then took the time to curate a list of 10 wonderful children’s book options, including some of our own favorites like Red: A Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall, Separate Is Never Equal: Sylvia Mendez & Her Family’s Fight for Desegregation by Duncan Tonatiuh, Drum Dream Girl: How One Girl’s Courage Changed Music by Margarita Engle…well, and seven more.
However this morning, I can’t say I was totally surprised to discover that the story hit the conservative news outlets.
I am also not surprised that they’re running with headlines like “LIBRARIAN SAYS SEUSS IS RACIST.”
Which, wow.
For full context, her original sentence about Dr. Seuss offers links to academic articles supporting her premise, which reads:
Many people are unaware of is that…Dr. Seuss’s illustrations are steeped in racist propaganda, caricatures, and harmful stereotypes.
So, way to take a single line from a very long letter completely out of context for the ultimate in outrage-based clickbait-y clickbaitiness, Fox News.
(And don’t get me started on how evidently a critical analysis of Dr. Seuss’s early illustrations as harmfully stereotypical is a shocking affront to many of the same people who have spent the last few weeks calling Black NFL players engaged in peaceful protest “racist against whites.”)
I’ll be honest here: What I imagine is that, for better or worse, she was somewhat offended by the pat nature of the gift. Sending a respected librarian from a high-achieving school a bunch of Dr. Seuss books is a lot like the clichéd, too-busy-to-care CEO who sends his assistant out to pick out his wife’s anniversary gift.
Nambé ashtray, Sweetheart?
At minimum, if you’re going to send books to a librarian, a teacher, or heck, a parent…cheat! It’s so easy! While Melania Trump has access to the Dr. Carla Hayden, the current Librarian of Congress. the rest of us have the ALA who has done all the work for us!
Just take a look at the Newbery, Caldecott, or Coretta Scott King winners of recent years, gather those books together and send them out. They will be appreciated.
The ultimate list of the lists of the best children’s books of 2015
So where does this leave us?
For the immediate future, I’m not encouraged. There is a well-intended children’s librarian in Massachusetts who is going to have to endure an unreasonable amount of cruelty, personal attacks and threats over her opinion and the way it’s being spun in the conservative media. It’s awful. It hurts me to think about it.
So I hope that those of you who understand her perspective — or even disagree, but support her right to speak her mind — will find your own way to support or defend her. She’s going to need it.
I also hope that some greater good will come out of that; that she will have opened more people’s eyes — whether those people live in the White House or not — as to what’s important to children to get them excited about reading.
But in the long term, I think there’s an larger issue that’s totally overlooked here.
What’s more important than any one children’s book choice, is this thought that Liz Phipps Soeiro chose to include in her letter to Mrs. Trump:
Cities like Philadelphia, Chicago, and Detroit are suffering through expansion, privatization, and school “choice” with no interest in outcomes of children, their families, their teachers, and their schools. Are those kids any less deserving of books simply because of circumstances beyond their control? Why not go out of your way to gift books to underfunded and underprivileged communities that continue to be marginalized and maligned by policies put in place by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos?
Of course if Melania were to choose the least fortunate school districts for her kind gift of books, that would require an acknowledgment that public schools in this country are being decimated and require more support from the administration. I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon, from what I’ve seen.
It’s evident to me that Ms. Soeiro is not some Soros-funded (heavy sarcasm here) activist; but an educator and library scientist who is simply using her direct line to the White House to advocate for policies that reflect the values of her chosen profession: caring deeply about children, education, reading, and opportunity for all.
As should we all.
Top photo: Robyn Budlender on Unsplash
Appreciate you writing this. As I clicked on the link on FB to show the posts that were talking about this story, practically every single one was either from Fox News or “ConservativeFiringLine.com”. Nice to see that someone can get the ACTUAL story across. Hope more people read this, but the right people probably won’t. *sigh*
Thanks so much, RWHH. (Hilarious name btw!) And hey, more people can read it…feel free to share.
[ I am not able to disagree respectfully and resort to ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies. Because this violates the spirit of this website, my comment has been deleted]
My husband came home, told me the Fox News filtered version of the story that he heard at work, and then said, “that librarian sure made liberals look bad.” Sigh. *
Thank you for amplifying this smart, courageous, librarian’s voice and sharing the message as intended. Her points are valid, well reasoned, and thoughtfully presented. As much as I can, I stand with her sentiments.
*for the record I set him straight using this post. ?
I completely agree with you, but let’s not forget to point out that Mrs. Trump likely had nothing at all to do with choosing either the books or the schools to which they were delivered.
Just as we do not have a President, neither do we have a First Lady.
Yes, by all means – let this librarian censor reading material based on her own personal values and tastes [ed: She did not censor reading material; she donated it to another library which is the opposite of censorship, it’s spreading knowledge] completely disregarding the fact that MANY children – and parents – would disagree with her histrionically priggish interpretation of the ‘hidden meanings’ contained in the works of the dastardly Dr. Seuss. [ed: Histrionic is a term rooted in sexism, used to denigrate women’s views as being borne of emotions or hysterics, and not logic or reason; it’s inappropriately used here considering the author researched and linked to reputable articles as the source of her suggestion.] After all, librarians are in a great position to be the eyes, ears, and finger-waggers of [derogatory term about progressive values redacted]; fortunately, the vast majority have way too much graciousness – not to mention integrity – to foist divisiveness and bigotry [ed: Arguably, the strong advocacy for diverse books that reflect a diverse student body is not a foisting of bigotry] not foisting it on the people who pay their salaries for the sake of their own pathetic personal gratification.
Ed: Thank you for your comment. Have a great day.
Needless to say, I disagree with you. But hey, that’s okay; I firmly believe that people have the right to their own opinions. It’s unfortunate this librarian feels the need to impose her biases (and we all have them) on the people she is supposed to be serving. She took it upon herself to intercept a gift and refuse it, disregarding the possibility of differing opinions of the people she is supposed to be serving for whom the gift was intended. If, as you say, it’s not censorship, then it’s just inappropriate and rude. You point out that she donated the books to another school; how paternally elitist of her. These books aren’t acceptable to her, so she’ll give them to some disenfranchised kids. Wow. And if you doubt the histrionic motivation of her actions, that’s fine. The intrinsic drama of her words and actions, combined with the photos accompanying the heroic story of her resistance that she made sure to let everyone know about tells its own tale. BTW, the word ‘histrionic’ in modern times can refer to men or women equally. I assure you the DSM makes no distinction.
Cheers.
Ed: Thanks for a lively discussion. I just have to say I take issue with your “paternally elitist” characterization because this is the crux of the misunderstanding and mischaracterization of this entire issue — the librarian never once said the books were unacceptable or not good enough for her district; they already have a full collection of popular Seuss books.
That is a meme that’s been circulated to disparage her, and it’s combining two separate and fairly unrelated points in her letter.
She made it exceptionally clear (perhaps reread her letter?) that she was donating books for reasons of altruism alone, and to make a statement in support of students in need who could benefit from them more than her own students.
In other words, there is no correlation between “forwarding books onto another district” and her feelings about the history of Dr. Seuss.
Now we can disagree whether that was rude; and we can debate that arguably her description of Dr. Seuss was an unnecessary tangent in what was overall a letter about supporting schools in need. But it seems to us that she is an advocate, as most library science professionals are, of the #WeNeedDiverseBooks initiative and as such, she made the choice to educate and enlighten with her letter and discuss the challenges with some of his books (something a lot of people don’t know and have never considered), and make the point that a collection of different books from different authors, about all different themes would in the future be a much appreciated gift for many schools.
So, maybe it’s rude. Maybe it’s a pointed way to advocate for change. Maybe sometimes pushing for change needs to be rude. But that’s another discussion.
Cheers.
I suppose for me the heart of the matter is that the books were a gift to someone else that she intercepted and for whatever reason chose to refuse. If I worked at a company and everyone at the company received a gift that it was my job to make available to them but I refused, that would be wrong.
It would be especiall wrong if I did so because I felt I was in a better position to pass judgement on the sender, whom I didn’t like. I find it difficult to believe this woman would have refused such a gift from Hillary Clinton. I cannot help but think that the refusal sprang from her own personal biases, a situation I find inappropriate and, yes, paternalistic. I say ‘paternalistic’ because she felt she knew better than the people she serves and ignored the conventions of appropriate behaviour when someone else receives a gift that it is your responsibility to deliver. In this instance I do not believe it was her place to decide to refuse on behalf of everyone for whom the gift was intended.
Anyway, though we disagree, I respect your opinion. I guess that, as an older woman who has lived through times when paternalism was far more prevalent and acceptable than it is now, it just raises my hackles when someone takes it upon themselves to make decisions for large groups of people based solely on their own personal agendas or biases. Paternalism obviously used to be the purview of men who viewed themselves as superior and qualified to make decisions for those they viewed as lesser beings. Nowadays it seems that people from both the far right and far left, regardless of gender, seem to be making the same mistake, which I find profoundly sad.
Librarians are teachers. This librarian was teaching. If someone doesn’t like the teaching style, move along. Those who say she could have simply accepted the books and quietly given them to another school, probably also dictate the proper and polite way to protest police brutality, voter suppression, and the loss of reproductive autonomy.
I have to wonder if you’d say the same if she was a conservative librarian who refused a gift from Hillary Clinton.
I teach my children to always be gracious when excepting a gift, even if they do not like it or need it.
Overall that’s a great tactic for kids, until they’re old enough to know where and when it’s appropriate to educate instead of just accept. Say…a 10-year-old girl receives a t-shirt from her weird uncle who thinks he’s hilarious, and it says, “FUTURE GOLDDIGGER” and that offends her. Would there be a time and place to say, “thank you…but I’m uncomfortable with this and I want you to know why?”
Or how about adults? How about when the gift was sent as a PR move with the intent of gaining good press? Is it also important to “be polite” and give them the good press they hope for? Or are there occasions in which you might want to stand up and say, “I think we can do better than this?”
It’s a good socratic discussion to have.
Do I support the librarian’s right not to like Dr. Seuss and to speak against his books? Yes. However, that’s not the issue. Is her refusal of the gifts an indication that she also bans and removes Dr. Seuss books from the library? I don’t know. But if she bans and removes Dr. Seuss books from the public school library then she is advocating censorship, and it’s her job to fight against censorship, even if they are books she disagrees with.
Ed: She did not “ban” or “remove” Dr. Seuss books from the library. She has a full collection already. And so she donated the ones she received to a school in need.
As a separate note, she indicated that not all Dr. Seuss book are equal, and that some of the older books include racist depictions that are hurtful to children, something the gift giver doesn’t seem to be aware of.
I just think it’s important not to conflate these two separate issues if you’re thinking it over. Criticism isn’t censorship.