Harry Potter and the Cedarville Censors: Inside the Precedent-Setting Defeat of an Arkansas Book Ban

by Brian Meadors

In 2002, the Cedarville School Board in Crawford County, Arkansas, ordered the removal of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books from library shelves, holding that "witchcraft or sorcery [should not] be available for study." The Board picked some formidable adversaries. School librarian Estella Roberts, standing on policy, had the books reviewed--and unanimously approved--by a committee of teachers and administrators that included a child and a parent. Not satisfied with the Board's half-measure permitting access to the books with parental approval, 4th-grader Dakota Counts and her father Bill Counts sued the school district in Federal court, drawing on the precedent Pico v. Island Trees to reaffirm that Constitutional rights apply to school libraries. Written by the lawyer who prosecuted the case, this book details the origins of the book ban and the civil procedures and legal arguments that restored the First Amendment in Cedarville.

Genres: Nonfiction, Books About Books

217 pages, Paperback

Published February 28, 2019

Reviews

[Melissa Sutton · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a Christian living in Arkansas who loves all things Harry Potter, I was captivated to read this book. At times, this book kept my attention but at other moments, it fell flat. I felt that he implied thoughts and opinions on individuals who were Christians especially ones living in rural areas of the state.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is an account of a case involving the removal of the Harry Potter books from the library shelves of the elementary, middle, and high school libraries in a school district in Arkansas. The book is written by the lawyer who represented the student/parents who sued the school district because of the books being removed. Overall this book was an interesting look into the legal process. The author writes clearly for people without a background in law, while explaining the legalese involved in court cases. The author discusses building the case and explores some previous Court decisions that he used to support his side of the issue.

One problem I had with the book was how the people involved where characterized. The author falls into the trap of conflating definitions, especially of the group of people known as evangelicals. For example, early on in the book Meadors lays out some of the "fundamental truths" of the Assemblies of God church of which some of the defendants are members. He claims these particular beliefs (evidence of salvation shown by speaking in tounges and faith healing are two listed) are believed and upheld by the majority of evangelicals. (These two beliefs in particular are more popular in Pentecostal churches which may or may not be included in the definition of evangelicals, but are definitely not the majority when they are included.)

Meadors does sympathetically paint the defendants and admits they are nice people, but he also makes them out to be empty-headed, imposing their particular beliefs in a totalitarian way. I suspect there could be more nuance applied when discussing these issues. I agree the Harry Potter books are not harmful in and of themselves, but it is an important question to consider the underpinning values of your community and how to maintain them especially in the schools, which the Court decision (included as an appendix) does point out, specifically for the national value of our freedoms in the Bill of Rights.

I did appreciate the author mentioning the gray area in the law of what a library chooses to buy or not to buy. Censorship can happen in those decisions too, but often that type of censorship can go in many directions. What does the librarian believe should be in the collection? The librarian may decide not to buy a book that discusses the harmful effects of books like Harry Potter or books that discuss why witchcraft should be rejected. The people who wanted the Harry Potter books to remain in the library may think it would be ludicrous to even consider such books for purchase.

This was an interesting book.

[David Basora · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a librarian interested in how our justice system protects intellectual freedom and civil rights, or sometimes fails to do so, I was intrigued when I saw this book. I found it appropriate to start around Banned Books week, and it was an enlightening recounting of how laws and interpretations of court rulings change over time to form what we experience as the rule of law. Told from the inside perspective of the lawyer bringing the case, it was plain how an Arkansas judge decided to overturn a school board's ban on Harry Potter books to set a precedent that would aid all libraries in the fight against censorship. However, I have to admit that I was disappointed while reading this book because Mr. Meadors seems to have relished the opportunity to be more biased than a court of law would allow, when writing this book. Perhaps I need to read more books written by lawyers to gauge the level of arrogance that must be taken to be "normal" for a lawyer, but it seemed to me that the writing here signaled that his level was a bit higher than that. By his own admission, Meadors was a very arrogant lawyer when he worked the Cedarville case, and even cited himself in the brief that won the decision. Yet, it was the constant judgement and condescension that was obvious whenever certain people like Angie Haney or Pastor Hodges were mentioned. This was all plainly revealed at the end of the book during a rant against evangelicals as a whole. I found the generalization and of a whole group of people and attempts at rationalization inappropriate for the format and platform of the book. The only reason this did not dock my rating to 2 stars was that it was countered by the solid research and reporting on the legal decisions supporting Judge Hendren's decision and how this whole process happened.

Otherwise, it was very interesting.

[Christopher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick, easy read, told in a surprisingly engaging, attractive style. It's written for the legal layman and does a good job getting across the ins and outs of filing and defending a case. I had hoped for more on the actual case itself, but it was a pretty simple case, so Meadors offers his readers chapters on older cases of civil liberties in school and the tales of his fellow attorneys he heard during the daily grind. A lawyer would probably be bored by the elementary nature of his explanations, but it should make a good read for the common reader.

[April]

I decided not to finish this one. The first few chapters painted the people who would ultimately challenge the Harry Potter books as overly religious and perhaps uneducated and intolerant. Obviously they were intolerant to a degree to bring the ban request against Harry Potter but I believe there is a way to write the narrative in a more neutral and factual way. I decided to pass on this read for now.

[Kim Hampton · Rating 1 out of 5]

While I'm definitely not in favor of book bans, I'm also not in favor of attorneys who go after small school districts and libraries to gain a large payout for themselves. The students and teachers of that district, and the librarians and patrons of small libraries, who are innocent, are the ones who pay the price, not the people who are sued. There are a lot better ways to handle censorship than by attorneys getting rich off of it.

[Abby · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-written book about Harry Potter, libraries, and civil rights? Yes, please! I savored this book and am glad that I did.