Footloose and fancy-free, Utah leaders can’t see their own hypocrisy

In 1984, “Footloose” captivated audiences with its spirited take on youth rebellion against unfounded censorship. “Footloose” revolves around Ren McCormack, a teenager who moves to the small town of Bomont where tragedy leads local authorities to outlaw dancing and rock music. Ren sees this as an affront to freedom and expression, and he challenges the ban. The film champions the right of young people to make their own choices and express themselves freely.

Forty years after its release, Utah welcomed the film’s iconic star, Kevin Bacon, back to Payson to relive the glory days of fighting against “the man” and restoring youthful freedom to a small town. While Mr. Bacon is a tad older and Payson is a bit bigger, the themes of “Footloose” seem to resonate more profoundly than ever in Utah, where recent legislation aims to make statewide book bans easier than ever before.

Complex legislative measures to restrict access to certain books echo the film’s theme of fear, control and censorship. Proponents argue they are protecting children from explicit content and corrupting influences (which seem primarily to involve the “agendas” Black, Brown, and LGBTQ folks). Opponents see it as the age-old struggle over cultural and moral values, and the unnecessary fear of outside influence over children.

Interestingly, Utah’s leaders seem to be incapable of seeing the silliness of celebrating such a great movie while ignoring its premise. In fact, while beckoning with one hand for Mr. Bacon to come to Utah to celebrate his artistic work in “Footloose,” Gov. Spencer Cox signed with the other legislation perpetuating the very behaviors “Footloose” condemned.

The beauty of “Footloose” is not the absolute yes or no, but the reliance on context in the debate over morality and appropriateness. It suggests that communities should engage in nuanced discussions about the content young people should access, rather than pursuing knee-jerk bans on anything a certain subset of people might be offended by.

How many ‘indecent’ books will be banned statewide after new Utah law takes effect in July?

Utah would benefit from a similar approach. Rather than outright bans, a more effective strategy involves community engagement where parents, teachers, and students discuss concerns about specific materials. This respects varying perspectives, preserving the educational integrity of the school environment and preventing censorship from replacing critical thinking and open discussion.

Of course, doing this is a lot harder than a “Just Say No” approach, but hard things are hard for a reason. Blanket bans on literature raise important questions about the role of public education. Most educators (a group policymakers rarely consult in education matters) agree that schools are not fact-memorization factories. They are spaces where young minds should be exposed to a range of ideas and learn to navigate complex social issues. Books that cover sensitive or controversial topics give students and teachers an opportunity to wade through the complexities of modern society together in a controlled, supportive environment stimulating thought and creativity.

I still remember my 11th grade discussion of William Bradford’s “Of Plymouth Plantation.” Admittedly tame compared to some of the literature at issue today, I would not be as thoughtful or considerate of others had we not had a crucial conversation about treatment of Native Americans in early colonial times. That discussion did not make me less patriotic or less American, but it did teach me several lessons that still inform me today.

Ultimately, three things are true:

First, there are books that young people should not read in school. Limiting access to some literature before graduation may be a good idea.

Second, communities should decide these matters, through public discussion and consensus that includes local educators, parents and students. Any other approach — especially one left in the hands of people outside the community — should be suspect.

Third, if we err, it should be on the side of free speech, free expression and free press, not the other way around. If we are not sure of a limitation, we should not limit until we are sure. That squares with our inclinations as Americans as well as our common sense.

In “Footloose,” Ren succeeds in appealing to the town’s higher senses — reciting Biblical passages in his impassioned speech (a book, incidentally, temporarily banned in public school libraries in one Utah community due to the Legislature’s overzealous approach). The ban is lifted, and he and his classmates have an amazing school prom. We can only hope that those higher senses are evoked in Utah, and that we start making decisions ruled not by fear, but by curiosity.

Who knows, maybe it will lead to something amazing for Utah.