Book bans are about something other than books
Happy Banned Books Week (October 1 – 7).
Alex Gino's debut novel "Melissa" — about a fictional fourth-grade transgender girl named Melissa — was No. 1 on the American Library Association's Most Challenged List for three years in a row from 2018-20. The book also earned a spot on the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa's challenged book list. The Des Moines Register noted that some critics took issue with the bath scene in the novel. The New York Post highlighted another scene in the novel. The Blaze, as usual, went deep into hyperbole.
Reasons (from the ALA): challenged, banned, restricted, and hidden to avoid controversy; for LGBTQIA+ content and a transgender character; because schools and libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion”; for sexual references; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint and “traditional family structure”
I bring this up not because of the book, but because of the underlying issues for the argument against it. When you dive into these articles, you’ll find a common theme - parental rights. What’s missing from all of them is the agency of young people. What the parents argue, essentially, is that children are the property of the parents and that schools and libraries infringe upon their property rights when they present the children with books and themes the parents find objectionable. Not present in any of the stories linked above is any sort of survey about if the students actually sought out the book on their own. In other words, none of the stories speak to student agency.
What rights to kids have?
The conception of children as the property of their parents under traditional legal systems stands in stark opposition to the framework for children's rights established by the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Whereas children were once seen as under the absolute authority and control of fathers (e.g., patriarchy), modern children's rights treaties like the CRC recognize children as rights-bearing individuals with evolving capacities for autonomy. This shifting perspective is evident through comparing core elements of the traditional property view of children and the CRC's vision. Most critically, the property view assumed parental authority served the interests of children, whereas the CRC makes upholding the best interests and rights of the child the guiding principle. By contrasting these divergent orientations across factors like agency, development, protection, and civil rights, the profound evolution in how children are conceived legally and socially becomes clear. Fundamentally, the CRC's purpose is to promote children's welfare and emerging personhood rather than reinforce parental ownership.
Agency
Under the traditional property rights framework, children were constructed as passive objects under the nearly absolute authority and dominion of their fathers. Legally and socially, children were afforded virtually no independent personhood or capacity to make choices about their own lives and upbringing. Their role was to provide obedient service within the household and submit to paternal control. In this worldview, upholding paternal authority and rights over children was synonymous with promoting child welfare.
In stark contrast, the CRC articulates a radically re-conceived vision of children as rights-bearing individuals and active participants in society. Article 12 asserts children's right to form and express opinions freely about matters concerning them, with due weight given based on age and maturity. This directly challenges the traditional assumption of children's passivity and total submission to parental prerogatives. Relatedly, Articles 5 and 14 obligate legal guardians and states to provide direction and guidance to children in accordance with their evolving capacities in exercising rights under the Convention. This recognizes children's development occurs along a spectrum, with their autonomy and maturity expanding over time. Overall, the CRC establishes children as subjects endowed with growing agency, rather than inert objects of parental ownership and control. Its child-centered framework aims to nurture children's participatory capabilities and pursue their best interests.
The best interests of the child
As noted previously, the traditional property view presupposed that vesting fathers with near absolute paternal rights and authority over children was inherently in the child's best interests. This flowed from the conception of the father as master of the household. The father's exercise of prerogatives like physical discipline, arranging marriages, and determining education or labour were seen as natural extensions of his protective stewardship. There was little conception of potential tension between parental authority and a child's welfare.
Conversely, the foundational principle underlying the CRC framework is that in all actions and decisions concerning children, upholding the best interests of the child must be the decisive, if not sole, consideration. This includes a responsibility to ensure parental care does not lapse into abuse, neglect, or other maltreatment jeopardizing a child's well-being. The CRC also obligates states to provide protections and alternative care arrangements when needed to safeguard children's best interests. Moreover, the CRC's substantive rights provisions—such as those related to education, health, protection from exploitation, and leisure—delineate specific domains central to nurturing a child's full potential.
In essence, whereas the property view conflated paternal authority itself with promoting child welfare, the CRC approach substantively defines and prioritizes children's best interests across various dimensions of their lives. It establishes safeguards to limit parental rights when these imperil children's rights and development. This reflects a profoundly evolved understanding of how to uphold child well-being.
Development
Within the traditional property rights framework, children's primary function was to provide economic value to their family. Children were seen foremost as extra hands to carry out labour critical to the household's financial sustenance and maintenance, such as working family farms, mines, or businesses. The education of children was minimal, focused mainly on job training for their future economic roles. Childhood itself was not socially constructed as a distinct developmental stage deserving specialized nurturing.
In contrast, the CRC articulates a comprehensive vision of children's rights to provisioning that enables their full cognitive, emotional, social and physical development. Articles 6, 24, 27, 28 and 29 assert children's inherent rights to life, adequate healthcare, nutrition, shelter, education, play, recreation, and culture. Education is elevated as a means of developing children's abilities and talents to their fullest potential. The CRC emphasizes that child development should not be reduced to narrow economic ends. Rather, upholding children's evolving capacities and their holistic well-being are vital. The CRC's substantive articles thus create binding legal obligations to invest in nurturing children's development across its multifaceted dimensions, from healthcare to socialization through play (note: the US has signed the Convention, but has not ratified it). This represents a dramatic departure from the property view's confined notion of child rearing for economic gain alone.
Protecting children from abuse
The traditional property view of children granted fathers, in particular, broad license over their children's upbringing and treatment, with little recognition of the need to protect children from parental abuse or neglect. Paternal authority was assumed to be inherently exercised in the child's welfare. Children had virtually no independent legal rights or means of recourse against maltreatment by their fathers (or parents).
In contrast, the CRC codifies robust protections against all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, sexual harassment, exploitation, and neglect of children. Articles 19, 32, 33, 34, and 36 directly obligate states to enact all legislative, administrative, social and educational measures needed to safeguard children from such harms, including within the family context. This places legal limits on parental conduct and discretion that crosses into abuse, cruelty or neglect. The CRC also requires states to provide supports for maltreated children's recovery and social reintegration. Overall, the CRC makes clear children’s entitlement to freedom from violence is imperative, not subordinate to parental authority. In this way, it diverges dramatically from the property view's lack of checks on paternal prerogatives that opened the door to abuse behind the guise of acceptable child-rearing.
Evolving capacities
The traditional property view espoused a static conception of children as perennially dependent, incompetent, and subject to parental authority throughout their minority. There was little acknowledgement of children's cognitive maturation and emerging capabilities over the course of childhood that would enable greater self-direction and participatory rights. Paternal power was conceived as absolute until a child reached legal majority.
In contrast, the CRC framework recognizes children's abilities and need for autonomy expand incrementally as they grow older and more mature. Article 5 obligates legal guardians to provide direction and guidance in line with the child's evolving capacities. Article 12 grants children the right to express views freely about matters affecting them, with weight given based on age and maturity. Article 14 protects children's freedom of thought, conscience and religion, with parents providing guidance in a manner consistent with the child’s evolving abilities. This orientation sees developing children’s competencies and exercising agency as intrinsic to their socialization and human rights.
Overall, the CRC’s stance again contrasts sharply with the property view’s static notion of childhood as necessitating comprehensive parental control. By embracing children’s dynamic maturation, the CRC aligns authority structures within families more flexibly with children’s growing capabilities and interests. This empowers children as active participants in their own development.
Civil Rights
Under the traditional property view, children possessed virtually no legal personhood or entitlements independent of their fathers. They had no recognized civil, political, economic or cultural rights as distinct individuals. Again, children were wholly subject to paternal authority across all domains of their lives from residence, schooling and marriage to employment, discipline, and inheritance.
In stark contrast, the CRC articulates a sweeping spectrum of substantive civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights that all states must guarantee to every child without discrimination. These include rights to freedom of expression, conscience, and religion; access to information and privacy; freedom of association; health and education; adequate living standards; recreation and play; and participation in cultural life. The Convention's rights establish children as full-fledged bearers of fundamental freedoms and entitlements, not just passive dependents under parental, specifically paternal, dominion. The CRC also grants procedural rights such as those related to legal recourse and remedies ensuring children's voices are heard and rights upheld.
This amounts to a dramatic reconceptualization of children as rights-bearing persons entitled to State protection of their autonomous personhood and flourishing across all dimensions of their lives. By extending the spectrum of human rights to children, the CRC therefore repudiates the property view's stance that children should have no legal personhood apart from their fathers.
Conclusion
The evolution from the traditional property rights framework to the CRC's child rights-based model reflects a profound shift in conceiving the legal personhood and developmental needs of young people. Where children were once viewed as passive economic assets under paternal authority, they are now recognized as active subjects entitled to provisioning that enables their holistic wellbeing and emerging autonomy.
At the core of this change is a redefined understanding of the purpose of child-rearing. Rather than children existing to provide parents economic benefit and obedience, the CRC articulates an array of rights and developmental needs that legal systems must robustly protect. These span from healthcare and education to protection from violence and the freedom to express views. Upholding children's best interests is established as the paramount concern.
Of course, the CRC continues to emphasize parental guidance. But it balances this role against obligations to empower children and limit parental authority when it crosses into abuse or exploitation. Parents are positioned as stewards who enable children to flourish, not as owners of child property.
However, the CRC's child-centered vision remains controversial. As the last UN member to refrain from ratifying the treaty, the United States is reluctant to accept constraints on parental rights and state sovereignty over family law. But the CRC nonetheless signals a profound global reorientation towards recognizing children as fully-fledged bearers of human rights.
The lack of US ratification of the CRC is especially detrimental for vulnerable youth populations, including transgender and autistic children. These children face heightened risks of discrimination, abuse, and violations of their rights and wellbeing without the protections of the CRC's framework.
Transgender youth not protected explicitly by the CRC's prohibition of discrimination on the basis of gender identity may face abusive conversion therapy practices, restricted bathroom access, bans from school sports, and other policies that impair their development. Autistic youth lack recourse to provisions like the right to inclusive education that accommodates their learning differences.
More broadly, the CRC establishes children’s evolving capacities as a guiding principle for parental direction and social supports. This provides a critical rights foundation as transgender and autistic youth navigate complex processes of self-discovery and identity formation related to gender and neurodiversity.
Ratification would strengthen US accountability to uphold the rights and best interests of all children, regardless of parental disapproval. This is vital given research shows transgender and autistic youth suffer higher rates of attempted suicide and depression often stemming from family rejection.
In essence, without embracing the CRC’s child-centric framework, the US enables the marginalization of youth who diverge from cisgender or neurotypical identities. Ratification would affirm these children’s dignity and entitlements during their most critical years of growth.
Reading about the adventures of a trans kid is no more likely to “turn one’s kid trans” than reading Charlotte’s Web will turn them into Spiderman. Thus the book bans aren’t the issue. Affirming the agency and validity of marginalized groups - or not wanting to - is The Issue.