Note: I authored this post for The Banned Bookshelf, a now defunct website – this is my writing.
Early in 1953, Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin was conducting a sweeping congressional investigation to find communists among the American “elite.” During this time, books by Communists were targeted for removal from State libraries, among others. Once again, Americans are trying to ban books as part of an elaborate political theater. Two 1953 newspaper editorials from the time of McCarthyism contain lessons that add to the discourse we hold today regarding book challenges.
Today, we call these investigations the “red scare” or “McCarthyism.” They’re taught as a cautionary tale about mob mentality, civil rights violations, and ruining people’s reputations for political gain.
“McCarthyism was the practice of investigating and accusing persons in positions of power or influence of disloyalty, subversion. . . or treason, . . . without evidence.”
Michael Barnes, The Cold War Home Front: McCarthyism
Most people are aware the McCarthy focused on Hollywood elites and other left-wing individuals. Accusations of being a socialist are still common among right-wing politicians, and it’s because these accusations are very effective at their intended goal: motivating voters. In 1953, both Senator McCarthy and Senator Richard Nixon used their subpoena power to accuse many of their political opponents of being secret Communists.
On February 3, 1953, the State Department issued a directive that books by Communists, pro-Communists, and “controversial persons” be banned from its libraries. At the time of the directive, the state department had 188 overseas libraries with over 2 million volumes. Dwight Eisenhower was president, and McCarthy pointed out that it wasn’t him that banned any books – it was the President’s administration. When asked, Eisenhower agreed that he didn’t want any pro-communist books in any state libraries. He said he’d be fine with books that were anti-communist in libraries, and books by communist authors were “something else.” After all, these libraries were meant to provide information to citizens of countries that were not yet democracies.
In wartime, the special demands for information about the U.S. led to the establishment of new “information centers.” Their role was to provide “information with a purpose.” The purpose was to provide a “full and fair” picture of the United States. Non-conformity was still emphasized to citizens overseas who aspired to build their nations in our image. When the American Military Government opened its libraries in Germany, Austria, Japan, Korea, and Trieste, its directive laid special emphasis on providing books by writers banned under the dictatorships we had fought a great war to defeat.
New Republic
1953 Editorial by Walter H. Waggoner
1953 Editorial by Mary McGrory
The Washington Evening Star published this editorial by Mary McGrory – a famous political columnist – on December 6, 1953. Her sentiments echo today’s freedom of information advocates. This editorial can be found in the Library of Congress online Newspaper Archives for free, and I’ve included screenshots of the original article below.
Texas Legislature: 1953
In 1953, the state of Texas passed a law that said an author must take an oath that they are not a communist before their books can be adopted or purchased as textbooks. If the author was inaccessible, or dead, the publisher had to make the oath that, if the author were alive, he or she would definitely never have been a member of the Communist party or any other “subversive” groups.
Book Bans are a Political Tool
These days, people want to ban books because they discuss all manner of things that get their political base all riled up. Race riles up the racists; Feminism riles up the sexists; LGBTQ books rile up the homophobes. They’re all missing the point. They can write books from their own viewpoint, and they often do! There’s an entire cottage industry of conservative writers who put out a book every few years and they all make their arguments. These books belong in libraries, too.
The Constitution of the United States guarantees that government cannot determine which ideas we can write or read about. The government shouldn’t condemn books that disagree with their personal beliefs. Politicians will use books to rile up their base from time to time, but nothing is more American than freedom of speech. I believe that people that oppose certain subjects in books can express their displeasure. They can determine which content is appropriate for their own reading, but they cannot block other Americans who choose to read this content.
Vote against ANY politician that advocates against our First Amendment right to free speech. We will not have America resemble dictatorships where content is pre-approved by government officials before it’s released to the public.