Press Release

Freedom Fighter

This article describes Gene Lanier's fight to end censorship. This and other articles may be found in the University Archives.
Citation for this article is: Lanier, Gene. "Freedom Fighter," ECU Magazine, Winter 86/87, Volume 1, No. 1.

I love being associated with the First Amendment, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence.As a professor, a librarian, an educator, a taxpayer, I treasure the words in these documents.Terrific works -- precise; impeccable -- I love them.
And the First Amendment itself:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
I am a fool for these words.I am a fool for the concept. To me, the words of the First Amendment are absolute.
Our generation has been offered the dreadful burden of choice.In the marketplace of ideas, we stand both united and divided. Caste and class, pride and prejudice, intolerance and bigotry -- these are our bonds and our chains.
What is free choice to one is oppression to another.Our knowledge separates as well as unites; our arts bring us together and set us apart.An artist's, a musician's, or an author's collective works and a reader's philosphy cannot rise to a higher level than his or her personal values.
After much soul-searching, I guess I am what you might call a First Amendment purist. When I served as a counterintelligence agent in Western Europe several years ago, I talked with people who remembered or had heard stories about Hitler's German and the book burnings.
It occured to me how simple it is for something similar to happen in a nation where people tend to take their rights for granted and apathetic about the governmental process. The majority of our citizens are not aware of most public issues nor are they concerned about them.
As a nation we are confronted with crises. We tend to be disoriented. Faced with insoluble problems, we feel helpless and unrepresented. While in this frame of mind, there are individuals and groups in our midst who have arisen with what they say are all the answers to these problems. They are doing this in the name of God, the family unit, the flag and patriotism.
Because we feel lost, many of our citizens are turning to these philosphies in the hope of finding some stability in life with all its trials. In the process, we are giving up many of the basic freedoms such as the freedoms to read, view and listen, which we have held dear and which are truly unique in the world.
Since 1980, I have served as chairman of the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the North Carolina Library Association and more recently on similar committees in the Southeastern Library Association and the American Library Association.Our state committee serves as a clearing house for reported incidents of censorship attempts on library and classroom materials.
During this period, our committee has responded to over 200 requests from librarians across the state who were in the midst of censorship attempt or were anticipating an attack.Keeping watch over what our citizens read -- as well as what they write, view, and think -- has for many become a national pasttime.
In the past year, there were attempts to remove, alter, or restrict students' access to wide variety of sources:parents, teachers, school officials, school board members, librarians, civic groups, publishers, local clergy and church groups.
Librarians operate under what is known as the Library Bill of Rights.We are under a professional obligation to provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues.
Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. Materials are not chosen at random.
Librarians follow definite criteria as indicated in their written, approved selection policy in building library collections. Due to this, most unsavory titles never reach the shelves.
The problem arises with individual interpretation of what is appropriate, what is obscene, what is pornographic, and what helps an institution meet its overall and curricular goals and objectives.
I feel these attempts at censorship belie the insecurities of some of these groups who would limit the freedom to learn.You see, a book is easier to burn than explain.
They do not respect the idea that our youth have minds of their own and should be aware of the alternatives and differing points of view in order for them to make up their own minds -- with parental guidance.
Censorship activity is not confined to any geographic area, nor is it limited to either end of the political spectrum. The urge to censor -- today, as in the past -- affects every race, color, creed and nationality.
Whatever the euphemism used to initiate censorship, the effects are the same.Censorship -- whatever its label -- limits the diversity of ideas, opinions, and points of view to which our citizens and students should be exposed -- and which public schools and libraries in the free society have an obligation not only to provide, but to encourage.
Although a large percentage of reported censorship incidents appears to have been initiated by an individual, the reasons cited for these attempts consistently follow the philosophy of nationally organized pressure groups.
The educational philosophy of such groups is succinct: Children should be exposed to a slanted st of facts that in no way conflicts with the censor's point of view of history or visions of the future. They say, "A concept will never do anyone as much good as a fact."
Not only have we found this in North Carolina but in other states as well.Receiving much media coveage are the cases in Greenville, Tenn., and Mobile, Ala.
The North Carolina Intellectual Freedom Committee has come head-to-head with such groups as the Moral Majority (now the Liberty Foundation), Phyllis Schlafly and Eagle Forum, the John Birch Society, and the National Council for Better Education.
The newly revised North Carolina obscenity statutes and the Meese Commission Report on Pornography have also had a chilling effect not only on librarians, but professors and classroom teachers as well.Through intimidation and emotionalism, they have been successful in limiting the access to information and ideas on a number of topics.
It makes me think of Reinhold Niebuhr's allegory of life in Nazi Germany.When they came and took away the Jews, he said, "I was unconcerned because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the union leaders, and I felt the same way. Next they tok the farmer and the merchant, but this didn't bother me either because I was neither of these. Then they came for the intellectual, the scholar, and I cried STOP, but I looked around, and there was no one left to hear me."
This parallel can be drawn with our library collections once the censor's foot is in the door. Where will we draw the line?What ideas, what philosophies, what thoughts will never reach our readers for their consideration?
I am not paranoid, but I have seen how many of these people operate. They now feel their actions are condoned not only by the church but by the state, and they have the license to remove anything to which they object. They feel they can do this whether the materials meet the criteria for selection or whether they meet the legal definition of obscenity, etc.
I love living in a country where I can speak out. I like the First Amendment. I like the flag. I believe in God. It is time, though, that we take the flag -- because it is my flag, too -- from those people who have been wrapping themselves in it and banning books.
Yes, the flag flies with "the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air" -- but it also flies over our libraries and our schools, legislatures, and our courts.
Patriotism can be the last refuge of the scoundrel, but it can also be the first refuge of the individual who isn't afraid of the individual who isn't afraid of the cynicism of our time to say, I love my country.
And I do love it. We all do. It is critical that Americans recognize that this country is unique in the world. We can no longer take our basic freedoms for granted and gradually allow individuals and groups to usurp our rights.
As we near the birthday or our Constitution we must put aside our apathy and take part in the democratic process and vocalize our feelings to our governments at every level. We must acknowledge we have complex problems but realize that simplistic solutions offered by some of these groups are misleading and wrong.
We must acknowledge that ambiguities abound -- not only within the positions of those with whom we disagree, but within our own positions as well. So let's cut the lunacy and get on with it.

Biographical Sketch
Dr. Gene D. Lanier is a professor in the Department of Library and Information Studies at ECU. SInce 1980 he has made over 75 speeches and presentations on intellectual freedom to civic and professional groups. He has also testified in Senate and House Committees of the North Carolina General Assembly regarding legislation affecting libraries and intellectual freedom.
His national awards include the 1982 Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award in Education from the Playboy Foundation and the John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award for Intellectual Freedom in 1984 from the American Library Association.
Lanier is a 1955 graduate of ECU and has worked at the university since 1959. He received his master's and doctorate degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.