Jim Dey: Can anti-book-ban rhetoric help political dreams come true?

Sep. 19—Illinois Secretary of State Alexi Giannoulias went to Washington, D.C., last week to lay the groundwork for a future bid for re-election/governor/U.S. senator.

Whoops. Scratch that truth-slinging assertion.

Here's the official line: Giannoulias testified before Sen. Dick Durbin's Judiciary Committee to warn of a rising tiding of fascism that threatens to capture America's libraries. Having already saved Illinois, our hero is prepared to expend his last breath to save libraries in the other 49 states.

For those who have forgotten, Giannoulias is the author of legislation described as a "ban on book banning." It isn't really that at all, but it sounds good enough to impress the uninformed.

That ploy worked so well for Giannoulias in the Land of Lincoln that he decided to take his act on the road. But the neophyte secretary apparently didn't count on running into skeptical Republicans who aren't as enamored as he is with the idea of third-graders reading "Sorority Shack-Up" — with librarian permission, of course.

While fellow Illinois Democrat Durbin contended his hearing was about banning books like "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" and "Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass," Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., read excerpts from books that have been the subject of graphic-content complaints to libraries — "Gender Queer" and "All Boys Aren't Blue."

Kennedy's excerpts had nothing to do with what was over the rainbow but much to do with what was considered over the top for the Senate committee.

To quote the Chicago Sun-Times, Kennedy reveled in what it called the "shock value" of "graphic details" involving two men having sex.

Even Giannoulias was agog over what one media account called lurid details from a memoir of sexual identity.

"The words you spoke are disturbing, especially coming out of your mouth," he told Kennedy.

But they apparently are not too shocking for libraries to include in their catalogs.

The issue in play involves what influence, if any, parents have or should be allowed in books available in taxpayer-funded libraries.

As a consequence of the Giannoulias non-ban ban, Illinois libraries must adhere to the American Library Association's Bill of Rights or forfeit eligibility for state grants.

That's mostly a toothless threat, because local libraries are funded by property taxes. State grant funding is at best minimal.

Hence the ban on book bans is little more than, potentially, a vote-attracting scheme for an ambitious wannabe.

At the same time, the purported efforts to ban books are, most frequently, issues involving the age-appropriateness of specific books.

After all, books aren't really banned if they're widely available outside of school or community libraries.

That's why another witness, University of Illinois graduate and free-speech advocate Nicole Neily, complained she and other concerned parents are routinely smeared by people like Giannoulias.

Neily complained that he and others are engaged in a "deliberate attempt to demonize parents" who have "reasonable concerns about subject-matter appropriateness" of some books.

Nothing much was resolved at the hearing. Indeed, senators complained they have no authority over local libraries' book acquisitions.

That reality prompted Kennedy to suggest Giannoulias' appearance must be "good for your politics back home."

"It's got nothing to do with my politics," Giannoulias replied.

Whatever he said must be true.

But apparently, nobody told members of Giannoulias' political team. They sent out a fundraising appeal to potential supporters asking, "Will you rush a donation now to take a stand against extreme book bans?"