That Annoying Gavin Newsom Is Measuring The Drapes
UAW Expands Labor Strike, Though One Automaker Isn't Being Targeted as Heavily
Photos: Texas National Guards Defends Southern Border From Illegal Immigrants
The Evil Party Gets Stupider
Biden’s Hostage Deal: An Affront To Our Efforts To Hold Iran Accountable
Will Americans Elect A Convicted Felon?
Cowards and Communists
Latest Poll Is the Last Straw for Bumbling Biden
What if We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?
The Women of Iran Pave the Way to Freedom
North Carolina Governor Fails to Tell the Truth About Election Reform
Fauci Had 'I Am the Science,' Garland Now Dangerously Has 'I am the...
When Democrats Are Fed Up With Joe Biden, You Know It’s Bad
The Irony of Democrat Bob Menendez Indictment On Bribery Charges
Democrats Demand Joe Biden to be Given Credit For a ‘Successful’ Economy

Why Most of Us Think It’s Silly to Remove Wilder’s Name from A Children's Literature Award

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of

Last week, the Association of Library Service to Children renamed the award it gives authors or illustrators whose books “have made, over a period of years, a substantial and lasting contribution to literature for children.” This award used to be called the Laura Ingalls Wilder Award, but the association’s board decided to rename it the Children's Literature Legacy Award. Why? Because, according to board members, Wilder’s books include “anti-Native and anti-Black” references that fail to represent the association’s “core values of inclusiveness, integrity and respect.”


Wilder wrote about her childhood experiences in a 19th century pioneer family. Perhaps her most famous book, Little House on the Prairie, describes Native Americans as “wild animals” and includes characters who believed “the only good Indian was a dead Indian.”

Despite these references (and others like them), most people in America probably think removing Wilder’s name from an award for Children’s literature is silly. The majority of us have been raised in a Christian tradition (over 70% of us still claim a Christian identity), and we’ve read many of the biblical narratives. As a result, we understand an important distinction that seems lost on those who decided to rename the award:

We understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive literature.

The Old and New Testaments include both types of prose. The biblical authors described the adulterous activity of King David (2 Samuel 11) and the polygamous lifestyle of King Solomon (1 Kings 11:3), for example, without prescribing these behaviors for their readers. The Bible describes people who engaged in a variety of sinful activities, but Christians who read these passages understand we are not to emulate this behavior.


Similarly, the New Testament authors described early believers who sold all their personal belongings, attended temple on a daily basis, and met together in homes (Acts 2:44-46), without prescribing this behavior for subsequent generations. Christians recognize these first century descriptions are simply that: descriptions of the first century. They are not mandates for future behavior.  

If you were exposed to Christian scripture growing up, you probably understand this important distinction. Sometimes an author denounces a belief or behavior (prescribing a better alternative), and sometimes an author pronounces a belief or behavior (describing what someone believed or practiced without endorsing it). This is true for the ancient biblical authors and it is also true for Laura Ingalls Wilder.

It’s important to leave descriptions in place, even if we find them offensive. We can learn a lot about what not to do by reading the biblical descriptions (especially when we see what happened to David and Solomon), and in a similar way, we can learn a lot about what not to do by reading Wilder’s descriptions. Good writers “tell it like it is” (or “how it was”) and allow their readers to evaluate the behavior.


That’s why most of us think it’s silly to remove Wilder’s name from the award. We grew up reading her books (and then re-reading them to our children), yet we didn’t adopt the descriptions of her past as prescriptions for our future. We understood this important distinction by relying both on our rational tradition as thinking humans, and our religious tradition as American Christians.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos