I dont have a problem with parents wanting school libraries to only have appropriate books. I think the presentation by the media as "book banning" is pretty ridiculous.
Do you have a problem with a religious parent deciding the definition of “appropriate” in the context of their religion, and foisting that belief on kids of other religions or no religion?
Any definition of "approprite" is going to be in the context of some set of moral beliefs. Why should we treat religious ones differently than secular ones? For example, there's a secular set of beliefs held by all the righteous Twitter users that have had massive effects on what books are in school libraries or that we're even allowed to buy, why should that be any more acceptable because they're secular in nature?
I know that the people pushing those beliefs consider them the one true, correct set of moral beliefs that every right-thinking person should hold - so much so thatt they reject the idea of naming them, because that would suggest there could be other correct beliefs. That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs though (especially given how often and quickly they shift).
Haven't really read TFA because I can't be arsed to deal with NYT and ther asinine style of writing, so I'm assuming we're talking about a public school district and its associated public libraries.
Being public libraries, I assume there are official channels with which to convey opinions to the powers that be, and proper procedures that must be followed to permit or not permit books from being included in a library's collection.
What's more, being public, it's reasonable to assume the libraries are funded in majority from taxpayer money.
So personally: If the taxpayers who provide the money for the library are unsatisfied with the library's book selection, file formal complaints, and the books are subsequently removed as applicable, I see no problem.
And ultimately: Taxpayers (aka voters) have the ultimate and absolute authority to just rescind funding for public libraries and/or school districts with objectional collections if they refuse to comply with complaints and other such requests and demands.
And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about.
Like i said in another comment, while i haven't read most of the books discussed, I've read 'a modern romance' (Streisand effect mostly tbh), and 'a handmaid's tale'. Those are infinitely less stressful to read than 1984 (especially the last part which still traumatize me 17 years after) or even worse: Howard Buten books, which were so fundamental in my development, but the most stressful read.
Of you think those should be banned from school libraries, why not, but please, do we agree this is still banning books.
Also the "we put the 'lit' in literature" exposition which shows old, now unbanned classics, Fahrenheit 451 and books burned in public by the local pastor: pure genius.
I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed.
> Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
>I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed.
You aren't a "fan of democracy" if you immediately toss it out because you don't like its results.
Also, there has been at least one prior example of a public library losing its public funding[1] after angering voters with their defiant behaviour.
>And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds.
I admit that I have an incomplete understanding of the situation, because as I mentioned earlier the NYT article is obnoxious to read.
But what I presume is: A public library removed books from its collection after complaints from the public.
That isn't book banning, not the least because the people demanding this are the people themselves.
Anyone who really still wants those books can procure them with their own money. Nobody's stopping that. The only thing the public is stopping is using public funds to procure and present those books.
Thanks for admitting you have an incomplete understanding.
This is not "the people", this is a very small handful of people.
In fact, it is a group of people attempting to use policies designed to stop actual pornography from getting into the library to ban LGBTQ and race-centric memoirs, well regarded critical works like Beloved, Lolita, and Maus, and completely age-appropriate books.
This is an decidely undemocratic action, and as stated above, it's disproportionately voiced by "people with free time" (including free time to send death threats and show up at school board meetings carrying assault rifles)
Deciding whether Anne Frank's diary belongs in a school library should not be a function of who can yell the loudest. Thay is what small children do.
If there was an actual vote by "the people" on these works, they would be allowed in a heartbeat. But the reason we don't have votes on books is because minority views have rights, too, and what's in the library is not a popularity contest.
Actually no, there's this thing called the First Amendment and a bunch of rulings saying just because speech is unpopular is not a sufficient reason to publicly defund or censor it.
So there is no "majority consensus" option here. Minority views have rights, too.
This is purely in terms of what can be declared "harmful" or "obscene" or "inappropriate" and again, these have to be weighed against the artistic merit and value of the work as a whole (so a single sex scene in a memoir doesn't count.)
And yeah it is book banning and has a chilling effect - my duaghter brought a book from home and had it stolen - as we later learned, it was by a teacher who was worried they (the teachers) would get in trouble for it being at the school at all, regardless of how it got there.
> And what if the other taxpayers want those books? Because that's what TFA is about.
They're free to form their own groups that push for keeping the books. TFA doesn't say whether there's actually a group though[1].
[1] The article writing style is deliberately short on facts and long on emotion. I see this often in New York Times posts, and it's infuriating to read, because to glean two or three facts you have to read all this irrelevant stuff like how the person grew up, what they did as a kid, etc.
I'm a parent, what if these books don't bother me and I want them to stay? Who decide what is appropriate?
First they came for the books they thought not appropriate...
If they "came for" all the books in a particular library, you (as a parent) could check the book you wanted out from another library, or buy it from a bookstore, or download it from a sketchy drive link you find on google, or recover it from an airdrop of literary material dropped into your occupied zone.
These books are "banned" in the same way that Starbucks red cups are "banned" in July.
The point of libraries is to give access to children who don't necessarily come from privileged family to a diversity of opinions. Removing books from libraries shape what information those children can access.
Saying that parents can go to a bookstore or to another library misses the point.
> Removing books from libraries shape what information those children can access.
So does blocking websites. Should school computers also provide unrestricted internet access? Or provide safer filtered access blocking a wide range of the most 'harmful' sites?
'Banned books' sounds dramatic, but is it any worse than blocking social media, porn, and gambling sites on the school network?
This is a small group of busybodies trying to declare that their "boundary of appropriateness" should apply to all students. That's just a pleasant form of thoughtcrime.
A simple solution would be a third category between "appropriate" and "inappropriate " - call it "borderline" - and have an opt in policy for children for these books.
Letting each parent decide for their own child what is appropriate is fine.
What's happening here is not.
Source: Texas school parent, weirded out by casual fascism
If internet filters in schools are 'casual fascism', then 'fascism' has no meaning any more.
If you genuinely care about child suicide, you'd want to keep children well away from social media for as long as humanly possible. It's harmful enough even to adults!
Why not? You can have rules about what is appropriate in schools without banning websites. This of course requires an open dialogue with the students. Banning is definitely easier if you don’t care about banning too much.
That may or may not be the case, but the discussion is not about changing what books are on the recommendation list, but about books getting banned from libraries.
Recommendations are very different from bans of something even being available. Something not getting recommended in class does has no influence on its availability in the library.
> The point of libraries is to give access to children who don't necessarily come from privileged family to a diversity of opinions. Removing books from libraries shape what information those children can access.
Big deal. We already shape opinions by having a vocal minority successfully shout down dissenting opinions.
From the article it's hard to tell whether this is from a vocal minority of the libraries target audience, or a majority opinion.
Your comment about "having a vocal minority successfuly shout down dissenting opinions" reminds me of this article I just read by Nassim Taleb (Skin in The Game) which covers "how once an intransigent minority reaches a tiny percentage of the total population, the majority of the population will naturally succumb to their preferences:"
> If they "came for" all the books in a particular library
The "came for" was a reference to the holocaust [1]. It starts with books in this library but OP was implying these people will escalate to a total book ban. And when books are burned, humans will soon follow [2].
And they were children's books, written to be appropriate for children: “Larry the Farting Leprechaun,” “Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose,” “Freddie the Farting Snowman” and “Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts,” along with “My Butt Is So Noisy!” and “I Broke My Butt!”
If someone doesn't want their 5 year old to read about farts, then don't borrow the books. If someone else wants their children to enjoy reading funny books let them.
And the parents that don’t want their kids reading “Ruby Bridges Goes to School” certainly have their own agenda that says quite a bit about America.
If the school / library bans the book and the answer is “if you want YOUR kid to read it buy it yourself” then now we’ve got the problem of the next generation growing up with some kids learning only half of our history.
The parents are responsible for what their child reads.
To me, that doesn't translate to defining what other parent's children get to read.
If some folks think fart/butt books are not appropriate for their children, that's fine. They should tell their kids that, and follow up to make sure the child's behaviour reflects that view.
Parents can want only appropriate books. But parents getting to decide what is and what is not appropriate for all children isn't something we should strive for. Some parents think books on sexual health are not appropriate, others think books on race relations are not appropriate, some think books speaking badly about Trump's presidency are not appropriate while books that speak positively on his presidency are. Why should one parent's opinions affect another parent's children?
It is rather concerning to many people that some people want to decide what children can and can not be taught or allowed to find out about.
>Why should one parent's opinions affect another parent's children?
When you start dealing with public institutions, aka Other Peoples' Monies(tm), you don't get to say your way or the highway, one way or another.
Anyone is welcome to make their own private school and library as they see fit with their own private money and time. But if you are going to peruse public schools and libraries, opinions from various people (namely the taxpayers, aka voters) have to be gathered and reconciled into a final consensus which may or may not be to your liking.
At which point, it should be something governed by elected officals and not random people who have opinions. And what we're often seeing is random people at various levels of non-elected roles deciding what is and what is not acceptable speech within a school system.
>When you start dealing with public institutions, aka Other Peoples' Monies(tm), you don't get to say your way or the highway, one way or another.
Right, so why are you defending folks who are saying "my way or the highway" by denying access to books?
If they don't want their children to read such books, then they should, you know, parent and know what their kids are up to, not force their beliefs on everyone else.
Okay, if you want to remove books about farts in the kids section (and books about how to get dressed, those are super offensive), why not.
But what is appropriate for teens? Because 1984 is way more traumatizing than a Modern romance or Heavy. The last part, with the psychological torture and mind control? Inappropriate, we should remove it from school libraries and stop the book just before the arrestation. Re-edit the book without the last part, which isn't the part we use to attack our political opponents anyway, we will still be able to misuse the word novlang. Name it "appropriate 1984" and put it back on the shelf. I remember I couldn't eat for a day after i read about the arrestation and the subsequent torture in the book, at 14. Remove that part for teenagers please, its safer. And appropriate.
