There’s a difference from banning a book in public libraries (or even Amazon) vs a school board saying it’s not appropriate in school libraries.
The former I agree has the reaction of the Streisand effect (like Dr Seuss-gate)
However if a kid can get the book from online store with relative ease, or lookup why it’s banned and find it’s benign, I don’t think it’ll have nearly the effect this article predicts.
In a school setting, I’m not against the library within the school being more restricted - it should be on the parents to provide, or withhold, books from kids when they deem appropriate.
And if a board elects to have a book removed, then the process worked. Let the PTA or others voice concerns, or better yet, just get the book for your kid.
I’d rather have the school library too strict than too relaxed with selection.
Let the parents parent. If they want to take their kid to a public library, or get the books themselves, let that happen. This isn’t some mass societal book burning
The books in a school library should be roughly appropriate for the age of the students. So while I think this is important for e.g. primary school kids, older kids should be able to read a large part of literature.
I don't think parents or school boards are really making decisions here based on purely educational reasons. They are removing books they disagree with, and that is not a good thing.
I see your point, and yes in the id case and perhaps others, from the outside it seems wrong.
But many don’t give credit to how diverse a culture exists throughout America. Northeast vs southeast vs Midwest etc.
The internet is an equalizer, but geographically there’s still cultural context that I don’t think is easy to describe unless you’re in it, or have historical knowledge of the area.
If the board or parents agree this book is wrong, we shouldn’t be wanting to have a government force them to allow certain books. That’s not called for explicitly here, but it’s the logical next step. Some remediation that goes against what the board, and let’s assume most parents agree with the board, chose.
If the board is acting in mutiny, then it’s on the parents to vote/enact change. Otherwise the system they have is working as intended.
Criticisms against their system are justified, but this discussion goes beyond books. It’s really a cultural difference, whether you agree with the culture or not.
Children are not the property of their parents. I do see the attitude that parents should be able to fully control what content their children are exposed to as problematic. The school is full of education professionals, we're not in a random public space with who knows what kinds of materials. These are books that professionals already selected.
Those eduction professionals sure failed you if you can't connect the dots on what happens when their politics differs from yours and the shoe is on the other foot. Children are certainly not the property of woke teachers either. Very amusing of you to trot out this line of defense about a book with an extremely simply message that seems to have gone over your head.
> we're not in a random public space with who knows what kinds of materials.
That's exactly where we are, unfortunately. Banning books is bad but god help kids who are at the mercy of teachers and people like you. Or the Bible thumpers. Two peas in a pod.
As a devout muslim it is considered haram. So says my imam, I don't know myself, I didn't read. Are you an Islamaphobe?
You can raise your offspring on whatever books you wish but you cannot force anything on kids who are not yours. It is offensive to me.
Your intolerance of my diverse viewpoint is very problematic.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree and stick to teaching kids math and core subjects instead of imposing on each other otherwise one of us will have to switch schools.
I'm from Germany, if not being able to remove a book from the school library riles you up that much, you probably would hate it here.
Children are required to go to school, there is no home schooling possible. You also can't remove them from particular classes or content you find objectionable, even for religious reasons (in general, exceptions are rare as far as I understand). And I think it is very reasonable that kids have the right to an education and that the parents can't just remove stuff they disagree with.
Schooling was invented in Germany (Prussia) in order to churn out massive amounts of soldiers who would obey any order without questioning. It is no surprise that education continues to be very backwards in the country who invented the worst system.
> Ohio’s Department of Education appears to have closed an investigation without pressing charges against a couple that operates the Dissident Homeschool Telegram message channel with thousands of members.
> One founder, who said the group responded to “having a rough time finding Nazi-approved school material” to homeschool her children, posted photos of a cake she baked for Adolf Hitler’s birthday, Vice News and The Huffington Post reported, based on Anonymous Comrades Collective research.
Well at least here in the US, those "professionals" are failing hard at their jobs, with test scores falling year after year (beginning long before COVID). So it's understandable that parents have lost some faith in them.
The book in question here isn't hardcore pornography or spicier excerpts from 4chan. And this isn't happening at the elementary school level, these are teenagers.
The objective of banning The Handmaid's Tale from a high school isn't to let parents do their job. The objective is to fuel culture wars.
I'm just going to side step the ethics of withholding easy access to certain books, just focusing on the pragmatic and functional.
> However if a kid can get the book from online store with relative ease […]
They can't because they don't have the means: no money and no credit card. And they won't: a lot of children have very low internal motivation for reading so any barrier to entry will make them read less.
Then at this point it’s on the parents to either foster their interest, or to withhold it.
This specific book aside, parents should have the final say what their kids are exposed to. Yeah as they hit adolescent that becomes harder/more futile, but the core of it, in my eyes, is parenting.
> parents should have the final say what their kids are exposed to
What do we do when a religious fundamentalist objects to learning about evolution in biology class, or a neo-Nazi parent objects to teaching about slavery?
Straw man aside, that’s the cost of freedom. To think freedom has no price, that it’s a utopia, is a mistake as old as time.
Because when the “other” is in power, and uses the force that you’ve granted them, then it’s authoritarianism.
And let’s be honest, kids aren’t a blank slate. That’s been proved incorrect time and time again.
Yes such influences you mentioned are heinous, obviously. But humans aren’t robots, as has happened with many in religious groups, once the kid is exposed to the outside world their views typically change. And with the internet and technology, it’s harder than ever to withhold information, especially from adolescent youth.
This isn't true in the US thanks to the vast public library system, coupled with interlibrary loans. Any child can get access to any book for free. School libraries aren't required to carry every book.
> vs a school board saying it’s not appropriate in school libraries.
There's plenty of books I can think of that are not appropriate in elementary school libraries. I have read some of them, but I would not put them in a school library when there's plenty of better, uplifting, educational material available to choose from. Only so much shelf-space
Obviously not in the case you mentioned, but this discussion is more about cultural differences within the states vs a specific school board banning a book.
It’s further a discussion on what rights parents have to expose their children to what material. Especially if one’s opinion is that these books should be forcibly allowed in the school library (not saying that’s your opinion)
> In Pinellas County, that confluence of factors resulted in the removal of prize-winning author Toni Morrison’s first book, “The Bluest Eye,” from all high schools. The district acted after one parent complained about the book in one class at one high school.
> All graphic novels in the school library’s collection were recalled after parent Tim Reiland took issue with the school letting his teenage daughter borrow Blankets, an autobiographical coming-of-age story by Craig Thompson about questioning blind faith in a fundamentalist Christian household.
I still think this isn’t a failure of giving parents the right to what’s exposed to their children.
The points you mentioned, to me, are a case of the system not doing its job properly. A board not reviewing or representing the parents is not a problem with what parents have the right to show their children.
A simple waiver that parents sign, that details the more “edgy” (according to the local area/group) material to be available for check out for the kids seems to me to resolve much of this. Books won’t be banned, but parents have a say what their child can check out at the library.
>There’s a difference from banning a book in public libraries (or even Amazon) vs a school board saying it’s not appropriate in school libraries.
Exactly this. Whenever I read any of these articles with "book banning" on their titles it simply boils down to parents rightfully organizing and agreeing upon what should be appropriate reading material for their young children in school libraries and classrooms [1]. It's never about "book banning" because after all anyone can get the book from public libraries, bookshops, online retailers, etc. except from the school library in question.
[1]: I don't think it's the case for Atwood's book, however there's a documented common pattern about these "banned" books: Whenever concerned parents try to read them to their school boards, their mics are usually cut off because of the sexual and explicit of the material, which apparently adults cannot be subjected to yet young children should even without the parents' permission. Search for "parents read inappropriate books to school board" to see what I'm talking about.
> it should be on the parents to provide, or withhold, books from kids when they deem appropriate
It should be on the parents to withhold books from THEIR kids when they deem appropriate. Tell your kids not to read whatever you don't want them to read, but if you try telling MY kids that they can't read something, we're going to have words.
I agree, I think it’s a failure of the system in place that if a parent has gripes over XYZ books, then that shouldn’t prevent everyone from reading it.
The core of my argument is to keep the state out of the decision process on matters such as these.
> However if a kid can get the book from online store with relative ease, or lookup why it’s banned and find it’s benign, I don’t think it’ll have nearly the effect this article predicts.
That's a classic example of Overton Window at work.
Banned by Amazon, and now from school library shelves too? And that's on top of their foundation being deplatformed by all credit cards. They really don't want us reading White Identity by Jared Taylor.
Oh, it's about Handmaid's Tale, the book about what if Sharia came to the US? With a well-publicized, well-funded TV series on major networks? Available literally everywhere except school libraries in one Virginia county?
They so like cloaking themselves as noble crusaders against censorship, but their crusades never go beyond their ideological doorstep.
They so like cloaking themselves as noble crusaders against censorship, but their crusades never go further than their ideological doorstep.
Sadly that's true for almost everyone on both ends of the political spectrum. The loudest voices are rarely raised in defense of expression they despise. Most people espouse whatever set of principles most benefits their own desires, and will abandon them the moment they don't.
The author is being controversial for controversy sake, the cynic in me points to "buy my banned book", but we all know how much money authors make off commission, however, this might just elevate her profile enough to collect paychecks for book signings and other appearances.
I'm awfully tired of this charade. Parents have a right to petition their local school boards with regard to what the school administers provision funds toward. In reality, this story is a cover for the more questionable books the school boards have been opting out of in their institutions because the author knows if those were covered most parents would be outright disgusted and possibly mad enough to pick up a pitchfork.
This isn't banning or censorship, its parents having a say what their kids are exposed to. If you don't like that, go petition your school board or buy the book yourself and read it to your child before bed.
I don't think multi-award-winning, multi-millionaire, world-famous novelist Margaret Atwood is in a position where she could possibly give a flying fuck about elevating her profile.
You can argue reasonably that communities, schools, and parents' groups have some level of responsibility for making decisions about the content of school libraries. But schools also have a responsibility to ensure that this doesn't stray into the effect of a government body (the school) restricting access to speech on the basis of its content (there was a whole Supreme Court case about exactly this).
And beside all of that it's totally legitimate to complain about stupid decisions that you think will hurt students.
The handmaidens tail is hot garbage. Banning books is stupid. Time is a flat circle, we forget and repeat all these lessons endlessly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451
Don't send your kids to public school and avoid the loonies screeching (of whatever politics, as far lefties and far righties are eager to ban anything and everything they don't like).
It is derivative in the extreme. I'm allowed to be bored by mediocrity, sorry, it doesn't take anything away from you if you enjoyed it. Quite ironic the implied peer pressure implicit in your reply - I must like it or I am so stupid as to confuse it with a knockoff.
I also am not a fan of Harry Potter. These are the sort of books that are wildly popular amongst people who otherwise don't read anything at all. So I suppose it is better than nothing.
I must like it or I am so stupid as to confuse it with a knockoff
The thing is, your response to the novel is out of whack to the point that it becomes a legitimate (if snarky) question – especially given that you made multiple mistakes in the title!
I think it would be fair to say that the novel is as close as it comes to being objectively not "hot garbage" – multi-award winning, widely-praised, multiple adaptations, massive cultural impact and so on. You're not obliged to like everything—I for one have absolutely zero interest in Harry Potter—but if you're going to go out of your way to hyperbolise then don't be surprised if you get pushback on it.
> multi-award winning, widely-praised, multiple adaptations, massive cultural impact and so on
Can say the same about about Marvel movies and Fifty Shades of Grey.
> but if you're going to go out of your way to hyperbolise then don't be surprised if you get pushback on it.
I simply wrote that I think it sucks but don't support banning it.
As for surprise at screeching over tedium, who could be at this day and age. I already said I insist on your right to awful taste and screeching - just not at me. Begone to your Oprah's Book Club schlock you absolute philistines :P
Hot garbage is a big overstatement, but I'd agree that its fame has more to do with hitting a nerve than with its being a remarkably good book. I'd personally probably put it at the bottom of the Atwood novels I've read—but, at the same time, might well recommend it first to many people coming to Atwood, today. It's not bad, it's "hot" right now, and it's not a challenging read (unlike, say, Surfacing)
I read it as a young adult and it was gripping and mind-blowing in a quiet way to me. IMO it’s pretty compelling to younger people (and well as older ones).
> To those who seek to stop young people from reading The Handmaid’s Tale: Good luck with that. It’ll only make them want to read it more.
This is a double edged sword... On one hand, yes, kids will be more interested into why it's banned, and at first might be more interested to read it.
On the other hand... kids might expect too much ("if it was banned, it must be real 'bad'"), and then be disappointed with the lack of stuff they expected.
...but this might be just a cultural thing, since here in europe, in the balkans, boobs and asses are visible in public adspaces, while US had the 'nipplegate', and we didn't have any real censorship since the fall of yugoslavia and communism.. (...well, until the EU started banning russian media... which again, made more people distrust eu and watch the russian media with soe workarounds). If a book got banned here, I'd expect at least a lot of graphic (as much as text in a book allows) sex, drugs and other illegal stuff when I was a kid. If I then got eg. Catcher in the rye, I'd be disapointed.
I read Breakfast of Champions, around age 14, only because I saw that it was not kept with the general library collection, and was told that children needed permission to read it. My mom was reluctant but agreed, and that was my introduction to Vonnegut. I liked it. That underlined an interest in things singled out like that. For instance I read the cancelled stories on HN first, and while the signal-to-noise ratio is low I've found an unusual number of pearls in that pile too. If you want me to read something forbidding it is a great sales pitch.
It's a shame that I've already read Margaret Atwood's oeuvre since now I can't read her with that extra spice.
That was my experience with Lady Chatterley's Lover, and with Sexus. These books were not in my school's library, but copies circulated. It was easy to find the "dirty" bits, because the books fell open at those pages.
I found both books pretty disappointing.
I'm strongly against attempts to control young people's minds. If kids want to read a book, that's a good thing. If it's a book written for adults, that speaks to the kids' reading age and maturity; just because someone is at highschool doesn't mean they're childish. And if they are childish, then they'll likely close the book soon after opening it.
US democracy is weird. Elections for sherriffs, judges and school-library censors seems bizarre to me.
I’m more annoyed about the lack of science and maths books in libraries in general… nobody cares about political takes at the age of 13. That university level organic chemistry textbook was so much more interesting.
I think you underestimate what 13-year-olds care about. I know it’s typical to portray them as caring only about pop-culture, but kids and teenagers are surprisingly adept and aware and care about a variety of subjects. And have strong, sometimes well-informed opinions about them.
I've seen a huge push the last years to try to redefine what it means to ban a book, where political activists claim that a book is "banned" when children are no longer forced to read it in school. As no surprise, these are the same political activists who work zealously to ban anybody they disagree with from modern communication platforms.
>This is a public school. It is precisely censorship from the government.
It's not censorship from the government. Parents need and should have a say about what it's taught to their children in public schools. Government censorship would be the government preventing anyone from buying or borrowing through any legal mean, and penalizing those who read it.
>Government censorship would be the government preventing anyone from buying or borrowing through any legal mean, and penalizing those who read it.
You're describing some thing being outlawed. A government may censor information that is otherwise available via legal alternative avenues of delivery.
> Parents need and should have a say about what it's taught to their children in public schools.
I strongly disagree. If parents think they know better how to educate children than professional teachers, they're free to homeschool. Most voters are not educators, and what materials are appropriate for educational purposes isn't a matter that should be put to a vote of the general population.
Are you saying this from a position of being a parent? Rhetorical question.
If I’m not mistaken, your implication is that material should be taught to kids regardless of parental input.
It’s in everyone’s best interest to keep the state out of matters such as these. This is precisely what history has taught us. It’s not this exact matter, it’s what such a move would do for future iterations. Lines should not be blurred in matters such as these.
A simple example is a school teaching creationism vs evolution. You can take your argument and swap the material. What if the local government enforced creationism, and barred evolutionary material?
I am a parent; both of my kids are grown-up, and I have grandchildren.
I'm not keen on any kind of government interfering with school curricula. What is tsaught, and how it is taught, are matters that should be decided by professional educators. The job of a politician is primarily to influence the public's views, and they won't do the right thing if they get their hands on the levers controlling education.
I don't think left-leaning activists would be similarly up in arms about "The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life" getting pulled from libraries.
I hope everyone would object to that. It's an extremely influential book, and I don't see how you can pass a "civics" course without at least discussing it. And how can you discuss a book, if nobody is allowed to actually read it?
The former I agree has the reaction of the Streisand effect (like Dr Seuss-gate)
However if a kid can get the book from online store with relative ease, or lookup why it’s banned and find it’s benign, I don’t think it’ll have nearly the effect this article predicts.
In a school setting, I’m not against the library within the school being more restricted - it should be on the parents to provide, or withhold, books from kids when they deem appropriate.
And if a board elects to have a book removed, then the process worked. Let the PTA or others voice concerns, or better yet, just get the book for your kid.
I’d rather have the school library too strict than too relaxed with selection.
Let the parents parent. If they want to take their kid to a public library, or get the books themselves, let that happen. This isn’t some mass societal book burning