Every so often, there is a list of quotes about writing or writers that makes me think that maybe I'm not quite as crazy for spending a perfectly beautiful, sunny, summer day inside as most people would think. I hope you enjoy these as much as I did.

Ever Hear of a Place Called Humble?

There's a little town in Texas that most of us have never heard of. It's called Humble, and occupies about ten square miles of northeastern Harris County near Houston. It started out as a tiny oil town, but gradually grew to its current population of about fifteen thousand.

If you're not an author of Young Adult (YA) fiction, you have probably never heard of it. For YA authors, however, it is a different story. They know how this small, independent school district has touched off a firestorm in the literary world.

How?

By planning its biennial Teen Lit Fest.

It seems that the Humble Independent School District is interested in getting kids to read--a laudable goal, to say the least. So, some years ago, it began bringing authors in to talk to teens about their writing, to sign books, give out door prizes, and generally make it more cool for teens to read--or write. The last one in 2009 was a big success, and many looked forward to the 2011 event. They had a select group of authors lined up to attend, including New York Times bestseller, and multiple children's-writing award winner, Ellen Hopkins. What a coup!

But then a middle school librarian made comments to one or more parents about the content of some of Ms. Hopkins work, alleging that it was not appropriate for middle-school students. Those parents brought that concern to the Superintendent, Dr. Guy Sconzo, who then, without any discussion with the author, removed Ms. Hopkins from the list of those invited to the event. In protest of what they deemed censorship, several of the other authors who were planning to attend decided to boycott the event. The school district eventually cancelled it altogether.

I am not in a position to comment on whether I would want my teen or preteen to read Ms. Hopkins' work. I have never read a word she has written. I do know that there are many books written for young adults that I would try to steer my middle schooler or high schooler away from. That's the job of parents. To use their best judgment to decide what is or is not an appropriate activity for their own children. Not the neighbors' kids--not the kids down the street--not the kids on the other side of town. By having an open and frank discussion with one's children, a parent can influence the choices they make even when they are not under the parent's direct supervision.

But should these non-specific "concerns" of a few parents and a lone librarian have led to rescinding Ms. Hopkins' invitation to the event? She had participated in similar events in nearby communities without any adverse response reported. And if a few individuals can get an author's appearance canceled, is it too big a stretch to worry that removing her books from the school district libraries will be next?

The list of books that have been banned over the decades includes many that we now consider classics. Without defending any particular writing, I feel I must defend the author's right to speak or write as he or she decides--and the parent's right not to take their children to any event.

As it is, the children of Humble have lost out on an evening that might have made them better readers--or might have spawned a future writer or two. And that's too bad for all of us.

What do you think? Should a school district event include an author than a few parents feel writes material inappropriate for their children?

Elena Kagan and The Supreme Court--Are the Times A-Changing?

Yesterday the Senate confirmed the nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the fourth woman in history to serve on the U. S. Supreme Court. During the confirmation process, there was much discussion about her lack of previous judicial experience, her judicial philosophy, and her decision while dean of Harvard Law School to ban military recruiters from on-campus interviews because she believed "don't ask, don't tell" to be in violation of the school's anti-discrimination policies. Some even attempted to derail support for her by implying that she was a lesbian, although how that could be relevant to her qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court justice was never spelled out. (Similar whisper campaigns were waged against the nominations of other capable, single women in the past including Janet Reno--President Clinton's Attorney General, and Sonia Sotomayor--Obama's previous appointee on the Supreme Court.) When all was said and done, however, there was no serious attempt to block Kagan's nomination, and her appointment was confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 63-37. She is expected to be sworn in on August 7.

So does this change things?

Well, for the first time in history, one-third of the justices on the Supreme Court are now women: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. It took nearly two hundred years for there to be one woman, appointed to the Court. To have three at once shows how much things have changed since the days before President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor to the Court in 1981. As recently as the early 1970s, many law schools discriminated against women in the admissions process, yet today there are only slightly more male law school matriculants than female, and three women sit at the pinnacle of the profession. Will this change the Court's decisions? Probably not. Studies show that only in the area of sex discrimination can any difference be discerned between the judgments of all-male federal court panels and those that include a woman.

But there is more. There are now three Jewish justices on the Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan. The first Jewish justice, Louis D. Brandeis, was appointed in 1916 by Woodrow Wilson, and only four other members of the Jewish faith sat on the court before Ginsburg was appointed by President Clinton in 1993. But there is no reason to believe that these justices have based their opinions on their faith any more than the six Catholic justices now also serving on the Court. Incidentally, there are now no protestant justices on the Supreme Court for the first time in history. Considering that it used to be an all-protestant, all-male body (with the first Catholic appointed in 1836), this is a change, indeed.

Elena Kagan, born in 1960, is now the youngest justice on the Supreme Court. She replaced its oldest justice, John Paul Stevens, who was born in 1920. Now five of the justices are Baby Boomers: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, John Roberts, and Elena Kagan. Age and judicial philosophy are not linked, however. Thomas, Alito and Roberts are conservatives; Sotomayor and Kagan are liberals.  And while Kagan might be more comfortable with a smart phone that her predecessor, her philosophy could well prove to be very similar to his.

All in all, it appears much has changed. But I think we cannot expect to see those surface changes result in a change in the Court's decisions. After several decades--starting in the mid-twentieth century--of the most liberal Supreme Court in history, the Court in the twenty-first century has the appearance of becoming one of our most conservative with a strong conservative bloc of five: Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito. The liberal bloc of the Court consists of Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and presumably Kagan (although she has yet to write a judicial opinion). Interestingly this bloc includes all of the women and all of the Jewish members of the Court. Unless Kagan, a renowned consensus builder while dean of Harvard Law School, builds a more moderate consensus on the Court, it appears that we can expect a continuation of the very conservative Roberts Court for many years to come.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.