Book banning isn’t always a terrible idea.Granted, I agree with the main premise of The Intellectual Freedom Exhibition held by the LSU Libraries, just not its broad generalizations.Found on the second floor of Middleton Library, the exhibition showcases many challenged and banned books for the purpose of “ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them.”This is done in defense of an individual’s inherent right to hear a plethora of viewpoints and thereby form their own opinion, as per the First Amendment and the tradition of the marketplace of ideas.However, with the rallying cry issued by the exhibition comes a smidgen of oversight. What free speech proponents often forget is an important distinction: in some situations, it’s perfectly acceptable to ban books, particularly when they’re foisted on young students as “required school readings.”Unfortunately, this distinction isn’t often made because of the negative connotations associated with the phrase “book banning.” Most find the idea too offensive to entertain a scenario in which it might actually be beneficial.My issue with the Middleton exhibition is the grouping of banned or challenged “required school readings” with other literature. Though the exhibition indicates they were banned for different reasons, it does nothing to suggest one might be acceptable.Actually, it does the opposite by grouping all categories under a tagline that bids observers to “come in and unlock” their minds.The result is a negative impression, one which suggests concerned parents are closed-minded for disliking that their children are being forced to read inappropriate literature.What it amounts to is a school forcing children to be open-minded whether they like it or not. Such a compelled attitude goes completely against what a free society should stand for. Essentially, it accomplishes the same thing book burning does but in a different way. Instead of telling them what to think by limiting their number of ideas, it forces them to think a certain way by insisting upon questionable material, all in the name of open-mindedness.By this logic, forcing objectionable literature on children is actually worse than book banning.I believe this particular controversy has next to nothing to do with the First Amendment doctrine. Truthfully, it is an argument about who is more qualified to raise the child, though it is disguised with inflammatory rhetoric about freedom of speech. A self-respecting educator should not assume they know what is best for children who aren’t their own.Some may disagree with this sentiment and argue it “takes a village to raise a child.”Unfortunately, these individuals often forget about the proverbial “village idiot” and a parents’ intellectual right to shield the minds of their children from the accompanying literature, should they find it objectionable.This argument shouldn’t be dismissed as irrelevant prattling about a fringe issue, considering the statistics show otherwise.Parents account for 56 percent of those who either challenge or succeed in banning books. And given that schools and school libraries together account for 68 percent of the targeted institutions for banning, it’s reasonable to infer my gripes actually target the predominant focal point of this controversy, rather than a fringe issue as most would think.Contrary to popular belief, religious devotees who seek to uniformly ban, burn or otherwise censor literature are only 1 percent of those who seek to ban at all – though media overexposure and their bizarre antics make their numbers appear larger.As such, a parent’s right to ban literature is too important to be overlooked, mislabeled or overshadowed and stigmatized by a relatively small, albeit loud, minority. Discussion of the issue should be kept in the forefront when engaging in dialogue about book banning, foregoing the tendency to capitalize on free speech rhetoric.Linnie Leavines is a 19-year-old mass communication sophomore. Follow her on Twitter @TDR_lleavines.– – – -Contact Linnie Leavines at [email protected]