Banned Books on Religion in US Prisons

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

This is troubling for a few reasons (the bias towards evangelicalism I find especially irksome). But then, since when has this administration actually had to justify anything it does? From yesterday's NY Times.

Prisons Purging Books on Faith from Libraries

Behind the walls of federal prisons nationwide, chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries.

The chaplains were directed by the Bureau of Prisons to clear the shelves of any books, tapes, CDs and videos that are not on a list of approved resources. In some prisons, the chaplains have recently dismantled libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups.

Some inmates are outraged. Two of them, a Christian and an Orthodox Jew, in a federal prison camp in upstate New York, filed a class-action lawsuit last month claiming the bureau’s actions violate their rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons, said the agency was acting in response to a 2004 report by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The report recommended steps that prisons should take, in light of the Sept. 11 attacks, to avoid becoming recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The bureau, an agency of the Justice Department, defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize.â€

Ms. Billingsley said, “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts.â€

But prison chaplains, and groups that minister to prisoners, say that an administration that put stock in religion-based approaches to social problems has effectively blocked prisoners’ access to religious and spiritual materials — all in the name of preventing terrorism.

“It’s swatting a fly with a sledgehammer,†said Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, a Christian group. “There’s no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece of literature that presents extremism.â€

The Bureau of Prisons said it relied on experts to produce lists of up to 150 book titles and 150 multimedia resources for each of 20 religions or religious categories — everything from Bahaism to Yoruba. The lists will be expanded in October, and there will be occasional updates, Ms. Billingsley said. Prayer books and other worship materials are not affected by this process.

The lists are broad, but reveal eccentricities and omissions. There are nine titles by C. S. Lewis, for example, and none from the theologians Reinhold Niebuhr, Karl Barth and Cardinal Avery Dulles, and the influential pastor Robert H. Schuller.

The identities of the bureau’s experts have not been made public, Ms. Billingsley said, but they include chaplains and scholars in seminaries and at the American Academy of Religion. Academy staff members said their organization had met with prison chaplains in the past but was not consulted on this effort, though it is possible that scholars who are academy members were involved.

The bureau has not provided additional money to prisons to buy the books on the lists, so in some prisons, after the shelves were cleared of books not on the lists, few remained.

A chaplain who has worked more than 15 years in the prison system, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he is a bureau employee, said: “At some of the penitentiaries, guys have been studying and reading for 20 years, and now they are told that this material doesn’t meet some kind of criteria. It doesn’t make sense to them. They’re asking, ‘Why are our tapes being taken, why our books being taken?’ â€

Of the lists, he said, “Many of the chaplains I’ve spoken to say these are not the things they would have picked.â€

The effort is unnecessary, the chaplain said, because chaplains routinely reject any materials that incite violence or disparage, and donated materials already had to be approved by prison officials. Prisoners can buy religious books, he added, but few have much money to spend.

Religious groups that work with prisoners have privately been writing letters about their concerns to bureau officials. Would it not be simpler, they asked the bureau, to produce a list of forbidden titles? But the bureau did that last year, when it instructed the prisons to remove all materials by nine publishers — some Muslim, some Christian.

The plan to standardize the libraries first became public in May when several inmates, including a Muslim convert, at the Federal Prison Camp in Otisville, N.Y., about 75 miles northwest of Manhattan, filed a lawsuit acting as their own lawyers. Later, lawyers at the New York firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison took on the case pro bono. They refiled it on Aug. 21 in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York.

“Otisville had a very extensive library of Jewish religious books, many of them donated,†said David Zwiebel, executive vice president for government and public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox Jewish group. “It was decimated. Three-quarters of the Jewish books were taken off the shelves.â€

Mr. Zwiebel asked, “Since when does the government, even with the assistance of chaplains, decide which are the most basic books in terms of religious study and practice?â€

The lawsuit raises serious First Amendment concerns, said Douglas Laycock, a professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, but he added that it was not a slam-dunk case.

“Government does have a legitimate interest to screen out things that tend to incite violence in prisons,†Mr. Laycock said. “But once they say, ‘We’re going to pick 150 good books for your religion, and that’s all you get,’ the criteria has become more than just inciting violence. They’re picking out what is accessible religious teaching for prisoners, and the government can’t do that without a compelling justification. Here the justification is, the government is too busy to look at all the books, so they’re going to make their own preferred list to save a little time, a little money.â€

The lists have not been made public by the bureau, but were made available to The Times by a critic of the bureau’s project. In some cases, the lists indicate their authors’ preferences. For example, more than 80 of the 120 titles on the list for Judaism are from the same Orthodox publishing house. A Catholic scholar and an evangelical Christian scholar who looked over some of the lists were baffled at the selections.

Timothy Larsen, who holds the Carolyn and Fred McManis Chair of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, an evangelical school, looked over lists for “Other Christian†and “General Spirituality.â€

“There are some well-chosen things in here,†Professor Larsen said. “I’m particularly glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is there. If I was in prison I would want to read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.†But he continued, “There’s a lot about it that’s weird.†The lists “show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism,†he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations.

The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame (who edited “The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,†which did make the list), said the Catholic list had some glaring omissions, few spiritual classics and many authors he had never heard of.

“I would be completely sympathetic with Catholic chaplains in federal prisons if they’re complaining that this list is inhibiting,†he said, “because I know they have useful books that are not on this list.â€

[Birdy]

Ms. Billingsley said, “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts.â€

oh. my. god.

I'm holding back vomit here.

[Birdy]

UGH! I just reread this and my outrage is still there. I thought maybe i was just particularly feisty in the early morning hours...

Doesn't anyone else find this absolutely outrageous!?

[ollie]

Don't do the crime if you can't pay the time!

[Kanada Kev]

Just DO the crime, them give yourself to Jesus because HE will forgive and you will go to heaven. Then, if you do it again ... just give yourself to Jesus again and all is forgiven. Who needs books?

[Birdy]

Crime, shmime.

I can't help but think this is a safe baby step towards complete censorship in the name of security against terrorism. The stuff governments can get away with these days is SCAAAAARY! What's even scarier is that they've convinced a large portion of the public that such censorship is NECESSARY and a good thing!

[phishtaper]

its not?

[color:gray]shhhhhhhhhhhh, they're coming

[ollie]

We need BradM to clear up the meaning of censorship once again.

[Birdy]

pourquoi?

a quick search finds a censor as someone who

examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

[d_rawk]

The stuff governments can get away with these days is SCAAAAARY!

Well, I suspect it would be worse with a private company running the prison, who would likely use terrorism hysteria as an opportunity to divert resources away from prisoner-valuable-but-unhealthy-for-the-bottom-line 'inefficiencies' such as a rich library of books.

But I totally do think it is unfortunate and misguided. I can see how they got to this point, wanting to create some sort of consistency and fair coverage and standardization across the prisons, but there are clearly issues with trying to mandate an official list that they weren't prepared for or didn't anticipate. It seems like there would be all sorts of issues that would crop up with a project like that that wouldn't be immediately evident even if the intent were benign -- ie., standardizing public school libraries to ensure that all children had equal access to the same material might sound appealing, but would be fraught with controversy not to mention problems owing to the scarcity of some books. (do you remove quality material just because it is rare and therefore one school might be fortunate enough to have access to it, but the others are not?)

[Birdy]

Do we close doors of opportunity open to some because others may not be that fortunate? When is the line drawn and who decides to draw it? I just can't come to grips with said "appealing" nature of standardization. Close your minds children and let the others catch up. No thanks.

Regardless of benign intent or not, banning books is banning books. It is telling a person that he or she is not allowed to gain that knowledge. Fundamental freedoms? pfft.. they're so yesterday.

[d_rawk]

Do we close doors of opportunity open to some because others may not be that fortunate? When is the line drawn and who decides to draw it?

Yeah, I agree with you on this. That's what I mean .. it can sound like a good idea, until you think it through to the end.

Fundamental freedoms? pfft.. they're so yesterday.

Well, nobody expects that a prisoner is free, and I don't think prisoners are guaranteed choice of available literature. That said though, I'm all for fair treatment of prisoners, and all for providing them the widest range of materials for personal/intellectual/character enrichment. 'specially when it was already there to begin with.

I'm with you on this one, I think it's ugly.

[Birdy]

Cool. Sorry, i saw "i can see" and "standardization" in the same sentence.

I was just thinking how crazy it is that simply changing the motive behind an act can change it from being socialist to being fascist in nature.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I don't know if anything's operating here on the level of those ideologies per se - at least, in any analytically useful ways.

What does trouble me is this -

Timothy Larsen, who holds the Carolyn and Fred McManis Chair of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, an evangelical school, looked over lists for “Other Christian†and “General Spirituality.â€

“There are some well-chosen things in here,†Professor Larsen said. “I’m particularly glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is there. If I was in prison I would want to read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.†But he continued, “There’s a lot about it that’s weird.†The lists “show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism,†he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations.

When you have a theologian at an evangelical school pointing out an evangelical bias in the list, something's definitely wrong. Here is a real violation of the boundary between politics and religion.

And suppose that a Calvinistic theology would end up making criminals even more hardened, if they felt that there was no chance for change. As far as theological streams go, I see Calvinism as more capable than many others of justifying violence.

[ollie]

pourquoi?

a quick search finds a censor as someone who

examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

I'm surprised he hasn't answered yet. This must be the only forum he doesn't lurk in.

[bradm]

I'm surprised he hasn't answered yet.

Hey, I occasionally have something resembling a life, doncha know...

I agree with those who say this is a Very Bad Idea (both itself, and as a way to achieve what's desired), but I don't think it's censorship, largely because nobody (i.e., no publisher) is being prevented from publishing the material (nor is any free citizen being prevented from reading it), it's just that one particular authority (the Dept. of Corrections) has come down with a (bad) change in the guidelines as to what material will (or won't) be stocked in the libraries used by the people over which it has authority. (And I think that's key: the DoC already has the state-given authority to decide what goes into the library, so it's not a question of whether they're allowed to include or exclude material [they are], it's a question of where [and how] the dividing line between included and excluded material gets drawn. Going further, any library [including public libraries] decides what material is and isn't included in its collection; if, say, the Toronto Public Library decided to reduce the amount of material in a particular language that it was buying this year [based on having to trim its budget, using project demographics as a guideline, say], is that censorship? I don't think it is.)

As to this being a/the first step towards having no material available at all, IIRC, there was a Supreme Court case about inmates' right to access legal material (case law books, precedents, etc.), and it was ruled that inmates have the right to access such material, so if everything else goes, they'll at least be able to read that stuff...

Aloha,

BRAD (Books Really Aren't Dangerous)

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

As to this being a/the first step towards having no material available at all, IIRC, there was a Supreme Court case about inmates' right to access legal material (case law books, precedents, etc.), and it was ruled that inmates have the right to access such material, so if everything else goes, they'll at least be able to read that stuff...

Cool! Then there'll be a new breed of super-lawyers graduating from US prisons . Maybe they'll be as motivated as Malcolm X (who kept himself busy in prison by copying out an entire dictionary word-for-word).

I keep shaking my head over how this process must have gone down. I've been a member of the academic organisation referenced in the article - the American Academy of Religion - and know that whenever government "partners" with them (e.g., around New Religious Movements after Waco, North American Islam after 9/11, or what have you), what it tends to mean is that they ask a bunch of questions, and that's pretty much the end of the "dialogue" till the next year's meetings; they walk away and don't answer any questions themselves, let alone try to develop anything together. It would be nice if they let themselves be informed by specialists and try to work out some rationally defensible policy together.

In the end, it's the getting rid of books, too, that strikes me as particularly suspect.

[Birdy]

Going further, any library [including public libraries] decides what material is and isn't included in its collection; if, say, the Toronto Public Library decided to reduce the amount of material in a particular language that it was buying this year [based on having to trim its budget, using project demographics as a guideline, say], is that censorship? I don't think it is.)

True, but when any type of library admits a book as unworthy because of what it's contents could possibly entice in it's reader, that's censorship. It's all in the motive.

I have a problem adjusting to all of this talk insinuating prisoners aren't "free". The word really implies too much to reduce it to simple incarceration. The rights of prisoners need to be protected and fundamental freedoms should be guaranteed. If a person is incarcerated and if we really believe in rehabilitation, we should grant them this. Denying them of these things, even on a small scale, doesn't make us any better than the shmucks running Gitmo. They're just taking things further down the same road.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

If a person is incarcerated and if we really believe in rehabilitation

Hahahahahahahaha !

They - I won't speak for we - don't. Rehabilitation is how liberals conceive of prisons.

[d_rawk]

I think incarceration by its nature suggests a loss of freedom of the general sort, but you're right too that there are legally guaranteed fundamental freedoms as well that aren't to be wrestled from anyone. One of the reasons that, say, people who get all pissed off at prisoners exercising their right to vote piss me off.

I still don't know how that plays out in terms of library material though. Certainly, if a book was privately procured, it would be a very different thing to take that away then it would be to simply not have it made available given a fixed set of resources and a need to determine - one way or the other - how those resources are spent. I say that while still thinking the entire thing particularly icky. But I don't have the 'freedom' to tell my local library what to keep in stock, either. The best I can do is badger them and try to influence them with my very limited charms. Those incarcerated can probably exercise those same options. (Most likely with the same woefully pathetic rate of success)

Bradm, that was a really refreshing reminder of what does and doesn't constitute censorship! I'm glad you chimed in. The only reservation I would have is that your example about a local library isn't exactly the same as what is being discussed, because the larger issue seems to be a decree from on high that affects all those under its influence. ie., the corollary would be if the provincial government made a mandate regarding what books would be kept on the shelves of all public libraries in the province, removing local control and discounting the different needs and the value of the differing judgments of various self-contained communities .. which seems to me the really sinister thing about all of this.

But I did almost fall prey to the siren song of being able to cry censorship even where there is none. You rule.

Re: rehabilitation - we don't even pretend at that, collectively. The fortunate thing is that many people, having hit true bottom, do find a way out and up on their own, the system itself long having giving up on participating in the process. Funnily enough, that process of self-improvement, when face down in the dirt, so often seems to begin with religious curiosity ..

[Birdy]

Ugh.. collective thought! Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes is our preconcieved notions of what one another are thinking, getting wrapped up in that, losing ourselves in it and giving up on what we think, individually.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Re: rehabilitation - we don't even pretend at that, collectively.

Quite true - I was, I won't deny, being facetious.

The fortunate thing is that many people, having hit true bottom, do find a way out and up on their own, the system itself long having giving up on participating in the process. Funnily enough, that process of self-improvement, when face down in the dirt, so often seems to begin with religious curiosity ..

Also true. Is there something here about people having been so broken that a Calvinistic worldview (or whatever parallels to it be there in other traditions - I would love to see the actual list) is thought to be the most appropriate one to take? I mean, is it the same kind of thing that somebody in the "selection process" here sees going on with addicts who hit bottom and, as per the AA model, feel themselves to be hopelessly powerless, and to need to submit to a higher power? On one hand, that makes some sense to me, but also opens things up for all kinds of (authoritarian) abuse.

I dunno. I smell an experiment.

[d_rawk]

By collectively I just mean the decisions that are acted on by the aggregate of our public consent / assent. That is, people don't make any noise about being interested in rehabilitation programs, and do tend to make noise about not wanting to fund the ne're-do-wells, so money doesn't get funneled in that direction.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Ugh.. collective thought! Perhaps one of the greatest mistakes is our preconcieved notions of what one another are thinking, getting wrapped up in that, losing ourselves in it and giving up on what we think, individually.

You're quite gfdlks. fghjkgfkd, ndn gonsngjf, ghggkjgjksjkf ghj flaodoiebs. slsiei? foiffuid!! :D !!

fgkljg, fkfnax xxnapptihd... kgll!!!

And I'm so right about that. I don't care what anybody thinks. Good luck tomorrow, suckers, after I gjkgfj, gjkfksaud, and then qooijfidos!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!!

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

That was glib. But I don't think we can avoid that fact that communication and learning is about giving and receiving. And yes, identity is fragile. I'm not sure, though, where this point was coming from.