Banning books in schools (3 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread
=========================

On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.

Particularly books for children and teens.

Why else would people like me spend so much time and energy writing them?

Why else would censors spend so much time and energy trying to keep them out of kids’ hands?

In a country where the average adult is reading fewer and fewer books, it’s a surprise to find Americans arguing so much about them.

In this election year, parents and politicians — so many politicians — are jumping into the fray to say how powerful books can be.

Granted, politicians often make what I do sound like witchcraft, but I take this as a compliment.

I’ll admit, one of my first thoughts about the current wildfire of attempted censorship was: How quaint.

Conservatives seemed to be dusting off their playbook from 1958, when the only way our stories could get to kids was through schools and libraries.

While both are still crucial sanctuaries for readers, they’re hardly the only options. Plenty of booksellers supply titles that are taken off school shelves.

And words can be very widely shared free of charge on social media and the rest of the internet. If you take my book off a shelf, you keep it away from that shelf, but you hardly keep it away from readers.

As censorship wars have raged in so many communities, damaging the lives of countless teachers, librarians, parents and children, it’s begun to feel less and less quaint.

This is not your father’s book censorship…..

Here’s something I never thought I’d be nostalgic for: sincere censors. When my first novel, “Boy Meets Boy,” was published in 2003, it was immediately the subject of many challenges, some of which kept the book from ever getting on a shelf in the first place.

At the time, a challenge usually meant one parent trying to get a book pulled from a school or a library, going through a formal process.

I often reminded myself to try to find some sympathy for these parents; yes, they were wrong, and their desire to control what other people in the community got to read was wrong — but more often than not, the challenge was coming from fear of a changing world, a genuine (if incorrect) belief that being gay would lead kids straight to ruination and hell, and/or the misbegotten notion that if all the books that challenged the (homophobic, racist) status quo went away, then the status quo would remain intact.

It was, in some ways, as personal to them as it was to those of us on the other side of the challenge.

And nine times out of 10, the book would remain on the shelf.

It’s not like that now. What I’ve come to believe, as I’ve talked to authors and librarians and teachers, is that attacks are less and less about the actual books.

We’re being used as targets in a much larger proxy war.

The goal of that war isn’t just to curtail intellectual freedom but to eviscerate the public education system in this country.

Censors are scorching the earth, without care for how many kids get burned.

Racism and homophobia are still very much present, but it’s also a power grab, a money grab. The goal for many is a for-profit, more authoritarian and much less diverse culture, one in which truth is whatever you’re told it is, your identity is determined by its acceptability and the past is a lie that the future is forced to emulate.

The politicians who holler and post and draw up their lists of “harmful” books aren’t actually scared of our books.

They are using our books to scare people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/09/23/standing-up-new-censorship/

 

[MT15]

Sack, you’ve already been given an example of a way that would work without creating expensive databases and writing code to send emails. Parents can opt out of the library. They can say, my child shouldn’t be allowed to check out books from the library and then they have total control of what their child reads, because they are providing the books. They still have their choice and the option to exercise their rights. This would be a minority of parents but it should satisfy their expectations of knowing everything their child reads before they read it.

You never answered my questions about your system: once a child who needs consent brings a book up to the desk to check out - the librarian scans and let’s even say that code has been written that will automatically send an email to their parents (which brings up more questions - which parent? What do you do for joint custody? Do both have to agree?). Now what? Does the book go back on the shelf? What‘s your expectation for how long the parents have to respond? How does the library go back and track the parents’ responses? How are the responses recorded? How does the child go back and get the book once library time is over? How do you prevent the same firing of the email when the child goes back to get a book that parents have agreed to? It’s not as simple as you make it seem.

I like the idea that parents who want to maximize control can do so without affecting what other children can read, but I don’t see how this can realistically work without major headaches. Just opting out of the library should mollify the extremists without any burdens placed on the system.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The answers to those very specific questions would be different for each district and each library.

Which still leaves those questions unanswered and is another argument in itself about how logistically and financially difficult it would be to implement such a system.

You're assuming that ever parent will opt in to the requirement that they approve every book that their kid checks out.

You're assuming they won't. If there aren't enough parents that will opt in to make it difficult or expensive, then there isn't enough of a common need to implement such a system.

I believe that what what you really object to is parents having control over their kids reading.

You are mistaken. I have a problem with parents trying to control what other people's kids can read.

If I'm wrong about that, then tell me what system you believe should be in place so that parents control their kids' reading?

The same system that has been in place since the dawn of the printing press, individual parental responsibility.

Really? There are libraries in which all of the books about people of color have been removed? Or is it that some of the books written by 21st century authors are concerning to some parents and they've questioned them?

I did not say all books about people of color have been removed. I didn't say anything close to that. Seems like you're trying to create a straw-man argument instead of replying to what I actually said.

Why is it that all of the books, mentioned in this discussion, that some parents are concerned with are written by people from marginalized groups about people from marginalized groups?

I never objected to any books that my kids read.

Wait a minute. So you have or would let your young son and your young daughter read Lawn Boy? You're words have given the impression that you object to your children reading that book and would not let them read it. It's hard to interpret your words in any other way.

I'm pro-parental rights.

Where do you stand on parental responsibilities?

Then they should stop calling them "banned books" and call them "Books banned from a small number of libraries."

Why should everyone else conform to how you want them to speak? In the English language, it is accurate to refer them to as banned books, because they are in fact banned.

Contextually, the topic of this entire discussion is "Banning Books in Schools," so it's completely appropriate and accurate to refer to them simply as banned books.

If a school district truly feels that it is vital to have such books available to kids, parents should know.

I agree parents have a right to know what books are available. Obviously, parents already know what books are available. That's not the issue. The issue is that a handful of parents who already know what books are available are doing everything they can to keep those books from being available.

Any parent can find out what books are available if they make the effort to find out.

Just to make sure I understand you clearly. Are you opposed to parents getting books removed from schools?

If an opt in-out on a per book basis program can be implemented in a way that works logistically, legally, confidentially and within current budgets, then I see no problem with implementing such a system. But the fall back should that system not be workable, should be that parents can not get books pulled out of libraries.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Which still leaves those questions unanswered and is another argument in itself about how logistically and financially difficult it would be to implement such a system.

You're assuming they won't. If there aren't enough parents that will opt in to make it difficult or expensive, then there isn't enough of a common need to implement such a system.

By making it available to all parents, it takes away any reason for them to object to a book being shelved at all.

You are mistaken. I have a problem with parents trying to control what other people's kids can read.

The same system that has been in place since the dawn of the printing press, individual parental responsibility.

Parents have to be informed in order to fulfill that responsibility.

I did not say all books about people of color have been removed. I didn't say anything close to that. Seems like you're trying to create a straw-man argument instead of replying to what I actually said.

Why is it that all of the books, mentioned in this discussion, that some parents are concerned with are written by people from marginalized groups about people from marginalized groups?

I don't know, you'd have to ask them.

Wait a minute. So you have or would let your young son and your young daughter read Lawn Boy? You're words have given the impression that you object to your children reading that book and would not let them read it. It's hard to interpret your words in any other way.

You did not read carefully enough, then. I object to adults who are not children's parents giving them such a book. If my kid asks for the book in a book store, or to check it out at the local library, and I knew exactly what was in it, I'd let him or her read it. Because I always talked to my kids very openly about things and by the time they were ten they knew about all that was in it.

But that's me. I don't demand that every parent parent the same as I do. I think the only reason to provide a book like this at a school library is to get around parents who would object. Again - the author of the book questioned putting it in libraries lower than High School. So me saying the same is not being anti-book or anti-this book.

Where do you stand on parental responsibilities?

Firmly.

Why should everyone else conform to how you want them to speak? In the English language, it is accurate to refer them to as banned books, because they are in fact banned.

Agree to disagree.

Contextually, the topic of this entire discussion is "Banning Books in Schools," so it's completely appropriate and accurate to refer to them simply as banned books.

A questioned book or a challenged book that stays on the shelf is not banned.

I agree parents have a right to know what books are available. Obviously, parents already know what books are available. That's not the issue. The issue is that a handful of parents who already know what books are available are doing everything they can to keep those books from being available.

My solution prevents them doing that. Yet you find every excuse to avoid it. Which tell me that you have more on your mind.

Any parent can find out what books are available if they make the effort to find out.

Just to make sure I understand you clearly. Are you opposed to parents getting books removed from schools?

No. Parents pay for schools and they send their kids to them.

If there were a book by a Andrew Tate and a parent objected to it, would you make the same argument?

It is unlikely that you would need to. Andrew Tate is mentioned frequently in teacher publications as being a toxic influence on young males, so most librarians would ban his books themselves. Would you object to that banning?

If an opt in-out on a per book basis program can be implemented in a way that works logistically, legally, confidentially and within current budgets, then I see no problem with implementing such a system.

Good.

But the fall back should that system not be workable, should be that parents can not get books pulled out of libraries.

Agree to disagree.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You did not read carefully enough, then.

I actually read and remember you words very carefully. You repeatedly objected to Lawn Boy being available in schools to children younger than high school age. Here's just one of times you said that:

If "Lawn Boy" had said something like, "As I was watching Doug drink his coffee, I remembered when fooled around at church camp," I wouldn't object. If it was as is and not in schools I would not object.

There are many more times you made it clear that you object to Lawn Boy being available in school libraries. You even clearly implied you wouldn't let your young daughter and your young son read anything with what you describe as sexually explicit content.

Now you're saying you would let you them read it:

Because I always talked to my kids very openly about things and by the time they were ten they knew about all that was in it.

So you went from objecting to children reading it to now saying you'd let your children read it.

I think the only reason to provide a book like this at a school library is to get around parents who would object.

I think that's unfounded and border line paranoia.

A questioned book or a challenged book that stays on the shelf is not banned.

Some of these books have been in fact removed from the shelves in schools which makes them banned in that school.

If there were a book by a Andrew Tate and a parent objected to it, would you make the same argument?

You're confusing me being opposed to "banned/getting removed from shelves" with me being opposed to "parents objecting to." Individual parents are having books removed from libraries across the country. That's a verified fact.

My issue is very clearly, consistently and specifically with giving any parent the sole right to have any book they object to banned/removed from libraries. I hope that is clear to you now.

Now to answer your question, yes I would be opposed to any parent having the sole right to get Andrew Tate's banned/removed from a school, and I don't even know who you're referring to or what they've written.

It is unlikely that you would need to. Andrew Tate is mentioned frequently in teacher publications as being a toxic influence on young males, so most librarians would ban his books themselves. Would you object to that banning?

I want to point out that when Andrew Tate's writings are removed from library shelves by librarians, you see that as banning, but when a parent has a book removed from library shelves, that's not banning. You're highly inconsistent in what you say.

To answer your same question for the second time, yes I would be opposed to any parent having the sole right to get Andrew Tate's banned/removed from a school.

I am also opposed to any librarian having the sole right to remove any book from book shelves.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I actually read and remember you words very carefully. You repeatedly objected to Lawn Boy being available in schools to children younger than high school age. Here's just one of times you said that:

If "Lawn Boy" had said something like, "As I was watching Doug drink his coffee, I remembered when fooled around at church camp," I wouldn't object. If it was as is and not in schools I would not object.

Let's parse that sentence. If it was as is, meaning the actual book right now, but no school was putting it on the shelf, I would not object. Public libraries have grown up books for grown ups. Lawn Boy is that.

There are many more times you made it clear that you object to Lawn Boy being available in school libraries. You even clearly implied you wouldn't let your young daughter and your young son read anything with what you describe as sexually explicit content.

Show me where I said that, or implied it. You may have misunderstood, but if I mispoke, I mispoke and I'll admit it.

Now you're saying you would let you them read it:

I would.

So you went from objecting to children reading it to now saying you'd let your children read it.

I object to other adults besides parent providing children that book.

My issue is very clearly, consistently and specifically with giving any parent the sole right to have any book they object to banned/removed from libraries. I hope that is clear to you now.

No parent has ever had that sole right. Getting a book taken off the shelf or "banned" as you would have it, is a process involving school and parents, almost always multiple parents. What i object to is parents being cut out of the process, and told it's none of their business.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Show me where I said that, or implied it. You may have misunderstood, but if I mispoke, I mispoke and I'll admit it.

The following seems to be you are saying you wouldn't want your daughter and son to read Lawn Boy.

I'm not concerned that "Lawn Boy" has homosexual characters, I'm concerned about how explicit it is. If the narrator in that book were female and she remembered fondly how the man she is having coffee with is the boy whose [Mod Edit You can be descriptive without using such crass phrasing], I wouldn't be any less concerned. I wouldn't want my young daughter reading that and thinking that this is the way to make friends. I sure would not want my young son reading that and thinking that this should be his expectation of girls.

No parent has ever had that sole right.

And they never should. We agree on that.

Getting a book taken off the shelf or "banned" as you would have it, is a process involving school and parents, almost always multiple parents.

You criticize the usage of the word banned in regards to parents getting books pulled from library shelves.

You then use the word banned in describing Tate's books being pulled from libraries.

Then here you are again questioning my use of the word banned in reference to anyone getting books pulled from shelves.

Regardless of what word is used, deciding which books are and are not on any library shelves should be a decision based on the majority opinion of all involved.

What i object to is parents being cut out of the process, and told it's none of their business.

Of course every parent should have an opportunity to register their opinion, but every parent has to understand that they can't make people bend to their individual or minority group will.

What's happening is that individual and a minority group of parents are pushing to force their opinions on the majority. They have had success and things are currently trending toward them having more success.

The individual parent and a minority group of parents don't have and should never have the right to dictate what books are or are not avialable on library shelves.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The following seems to be you are saying you wouldn't want your daughter and son to read Lawn Boy.

Yes, I see why it made you think that. I probably should have worded it better, but as is if you read it correctly it doesn't mean that.

It says I wouldn't want my daughter to read this book AND think this is the way to make friends.

She wouldn't think that if she read it under my supervision and also importantly her mom's supervision. Her mom would explain what is proper for a young lady to do and not do, and her dad would explain how boys think.

We wouldn't get the chance to do that in relation to the book if she read it in the school library and didn't talk to us about it.

You tell me, what age is best for a young girl to read about boys having oral sex with each other and why would it be important that they do read about that?

And they never should. We agree on that.

Agree to agree.

You criticize the usage of the word banned in regards to parents getting books pulled from library shelves.

You then use the word banned in describing Tate's books being pulled from libraries.

Then here you are again questioning my use of the word banned in reference to anyone getting books pulled from shelves.

I showed willingness to use the word "banned" in order for us not to have to keep debating the word. Maybe I should have said so.

Regardless of what word is used, deciding which books are and are not on any library shelves should be a decision based on the majority opinion of all involved.

I'm fine with that, but I don't know where that is happening.

What is happening is that the voters elect a school board, the school board selects district and campus administrators, those administrators pick the librarian, and the librarian picks the books, often with guidance from some senior librarian in the district, or maybe from the district ELA Department of Instruction.

Obviously, we can't hold a referendum on every proposed book. We need to be able to have confidence that our librarians are going to use some common sense. If they shelved "Lawn Boy" knowing it's content, they did not use common sense. I don't think they did that. I think they saw the recommendation of the learned folk at Alex Award, that it was for age 12 - 18 and ordered it. Or more likely, the Alex award prompted its placement some list of books librarians should order that year. Maybe the ALA puts out such a list.

I don't have a problem with such a slip-up. My problem is when a parent, who supervises their child's reading as you say they should, finds out what is in it and tells the librarian or the district. If the librarian says, "I had no idea. I'll send this book to the local public library and thanks for the heads up," that would be appropriate.

Instead, the knee-jerk reaction of some is to push back. That's because the whole idea of books that parents object to are then virtuous books by that very fact is ingrained in librarians. I read some of their professional magazines, their "trades," and banned books are talked about in almost every issue, with parental villains and heroic librarians.

Of course every parent should have an opportunity to register their opinion, but every parent has to understand that they can't make people bend to their individual or minority group will.

What's happening is that individual and a minority group of parents are pushing to force their opinions on the majority. They have had success and things are currently trending toward them having more success.

Examples?

The individual parent and a minority group of parents don't have and should never have the right to dictate what books are or are not avialable on library shelves.

How could they do that?

Only by being strongly concerned and willing to push about that one issue, and having other parents not be so concerned about it.

I can't imagine too many actual parents strongly objecting strongly to Lawn Boy being taken off the shelves. "A book about two fourth graders having oral sex? Of course that belongs in the library! I and my friends will run against you board members if my middle schooler can't read about a kid sucking [Mod Edit You can be descriptive without using such crass phrasing],!"

That sounds like something that activists with an agenda would do, not a parent.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What is happening is that the voters elect a school board, the school board selects district and campus administrators, those administrators pick the librarian, and the librarian picks the books,

The librarian picks books with the oversight of everyone you just mentioned and as you mentioned the top of that structure are elected officials which give the general public oversite of them.

What's happening is that a minority of parents are trying to overturn the will of the majority of voters by trying to dictate to schools and school boards what books can and cannot be available to students that are not their children.

We need to be able to have confidence that our librarians are going to use some common sense.

This is a really odd thing for you to say, because you've shown nothing but contempt for librarians. You're even worried about who these people are that "have access to your children." You have not demsonstrated any trust or confidence in librarians at all, unless of course they agree with you on which books to make available or not.

I don't have a problem with such a slip-up. My problem is when a parent, who supervises their child's reading as you say they should, finds out what is in it and tells the librarian or the district. If the librarian says, "I had no idea. I'll send this book to the local public library and thanks for the heads up," that would be appropriate.

You say you don't want to remove any books from libraries, but then you belie yourself by saying librarians need to remove books that you don't think should be in libraries.

Once again you're saying a "parent," a singular meaning a single parent, tells a librarian they don't want the book in the library, the librarian should remove the book from the library. Furthermore, you see that as the parent supervising what their child reads. That's the opposite of supervising what their child reads. That's trying to supervise what other parents's children read.

You keep saying that's not what you want, but you also keep saying that's what should happen.

This is the authoritarian aspect of your mindset. You're only okay with someone if they do what you want them to do. If they refuse to do what you want, then they are suspect, appalling and generally loathsome people with a sinister agenda to harm children.

And sure enough, you had this case in point cued up and ready to go:

That sounds like something that activists with an agenda would do, not a parent.

I was responding to your post as I read through it, so I had not read your statement above when I pointed out that you accuse people who disagree with you as having an agenda.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The librarian picks books with the oversight of everyone you just mentioned and as you mentioned the top of that structure are elected officials which give the general public oversite of them.

What's happening is that a minority of parents are trying to overturn the will of the majority of voters by trying to dictate to schools and school boards what books can and cannot be available to students that are not their children.

Again, examples?

This is a really odd thing for you to say, because you've shown nothing but contempt for librarians. You're even worried about who these people are that "have access to your children." You have not demsonstrated any trust or confidence in librarians at all, unless of course they agree with you on which books to make available or not.

Yes, and I'm proposing a way for them to earn back that confidence.

You say you don't want to remove any books from libraries, but then you belie yourself by saying librarians need to remove books that you don't think should be in libraries.

They need to use common sense in selecting books. When a "Lawn Boy" gets through, they should react appropriately. A book title like "Gender Queer" should prompt them to vett the book before shelving it.

This is the authoritarian aspect of your mindset. You're only okay with someone if they do what you want them to do. If they refuse to do what you want, then they are suspect, appalling and generally loathsome people with a sinister agenda to harm children.

And sure enough, you had this case in point cued up and ready to go:

I was responding to your post as I read through it, so I had not read your statement above when I pointed out that you accuse people who disagree with you as having an agenda.

Yes, people who want to give such books to kids with parents having no say have an agenda.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Again, examples?

You keep ignoring are misrepresenting the examples already given by other posters. That's why I'm not going to waste my time finding more for you. Even though you refuse to acknowledge them, they're there and everyone else has seen them. That's good enough for me.

Yes,

Thank you for honestly acknowledging that you've shown nothing but contempt for librarians.

They need to use common sense in selecting books.

It seems you define common sense as "the things I believe." That's authoritarian and has no place in a free and open society.

When a "Lawn Boy" gets through, they should react appropriately.

It seems you define reacting/acting appropriately as "do what I want you to do."

Yes, people who want to give such books to kids with parents having no say have an agenda.

It seems you define parents having a say as "the parents I agree with should be able to dictate to everyone else" and it doesn't matter that they are in the minority. "If I agree with them" they have a right to make you do what they and I want you to do.

It would be terrific if you would finally acknowledge that you simply think everyone should think what you think and do what you want them do, otherwise they're bad people with a bad agenda. They can't just simply have a different opinion on how things should work in a free and open society.

The following is a general statement and is not about you are anyone else on this board. Authoritarians; like Trump, Putin, Xi, Musk and so on, are inherently cowardly and insecure people. Only cowardly and insecure people feel a need try to con other people into doing the dirty work of making other people do what they want them to do.

 

[Snarky Sack]

You keep ignoring are misrepresenting the examples already given by other posters. That's why I'm not going to waste my time finding more for you. Even though you refuse to acknowledge them, they're there and everyone else has seen them. That's good enough for me.

Thank you for honestly acknowledging that you've shown nothing but contempt for librarians.

It seems you define common sense as "the things I believe." That's authoritarian and has no place in a free and open society.

It seems you define reacting/acting appropriately as "do what I want you to do."

It seems you define parents having a say as "the parents I agree with should be able to dictate to everyone else" and it doesn't matter that they are in the minority. "If I agree with them" they have a right to make you do what they and I want you to do.

It would be terrific if you would finally acknowledge that you simply think everyone should think what you think and do what you want them do, otherwise they're bad people with a bad agenda. They can't just simply have a different opinion on how things should work in a free and open society.

The following is a general statement and is not about you are anyone else on this board. Authoritarians; like Trump, Putin, Xi, Musk and so on, are inherently cowardly and insecure people. Only cowardly and insecure people feel a need try to con other people into doing the dirty work of making other people do what they want them to do.

Before I respond to any of that, let me give you another chance to answer this question from a couple of posts up:

You tell me, what age is best for a young girl to read about boys having oral sex with each other and why would it be important that they do read about that?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Before I respond to any of that, let me give you another chance to answer this question from a couple of posts up:

You tell me, what age is best for a young girl to read about boys having oral sex with each other and why would it be important that they do read about that?

If I don't answer you, you want respond to me. That's a rather odd stance to take, especially since there's a very relevant question I asked you several times earlier in this thread. You never acknowledged or answered that question, yet here you are trying to make a show of the fact I haven't answered one of the questions you asked.

If you answer my question in a straight forward, no BS manner; then, and only then, I will reciprocate by answering your question.

Who do you think should have the final decision over what books are available in schools and why do you want them to have that final decision? I've asked that of you at least 3 times earlier in the thread and you've never addressed it.

 

[Snarky Sack]

If I don't answer you, you want respond to me.

No, I just said before I respond, I'd give you a chance to answer.

That's a rather odd stance to take, especially since there's a very relevant question I asked you several times earlier in this thread. You never acknowledged or answered that question, yet here you are trying to make a show of the fact I haven't answered one of the questions you asked.

If you answer my question in a straight forward, no BS manner; then, and only then, I will reciprocate by answering your question.

Happily.

Who do you think should have the final decision over what books are available in schools and why do you want them to have that final decision? I've asked that of you at least 3 times earlier in the thread and you've never addressed it.

I thought that I had explained that. Maybe you were expecting a one-or two word response.

The School board does and should have the final decision over what books are available in schools, and I want them to have that final decision because they are elected by the people who live in that district so their tax dollars pay for it. They can be held accountable by voters if they make poor decisions.

Of course, the School board will delegate the process of selection to administrators, who will select and supervise librarians. The librarians will make the day-to-day book-by-book decisions. School Board members don't have time for that.

If all that sounds familiar it is in post #169.

I'll add: If the school board calls a librarian and says, "take this book off the shelf," or "put this book on the shelf," the librarian has a duty to follow those instructions, not substitute her own judgment from that of her elected bosses.

Now let me clarify this misstatement by you of my position:

Once again you're saying a "parent," a singular meaning a single parent, tells a librarian they don't want the book in the library, the librarian should remove the book from the library. Furthermore, you see that as the parent supervising what their child reads. That's the opposite of supervising what their child reads. That's trying to supervise what other parents's children read.

I did not say the process should be 1) parent calls and complains about a book, then 2) librarians takes book off shelf and goes to recover it from any student who has checked it out.

Yes, my example was about "a parent." but it was also about "this book" i.e. "Lawn Boy. I said:

I don't have a problem with such a slip-up. My problem is when a parent, who supervises their child's reading as you say they should, finds out what is in it and tells the librarian or the district. If the librarian says, "I had no idea. I'll send this book to the local public library and thanks for the heads up," that would be appropriate.

Maybe I wasn't clear that I would expect the librarian to read the book to see if the parent's complaint is valid. Some might be borderline, or have two sides to the story, or more than two. In that case the librarian should consult higher authority. I don't see "Lawn Boy" as anywhere close to any grey area. The librarian should read it, think 'what the fudge?! This won an Alex Award? I can't believe I checked this out to 6th grade Sally Jones just yesterday. I'm taking down any copies right now, and getting it back from Sally.'

See the difference? She took it down, not just because a single parent complained, but because she verified for herself how inappropriate it was.

I think a librarian with common sense would do that, and it is part of the book-by-book decision process that the school board has delegated to them. But I think that the ALA and the school librarian organizations and publications have indoctrinated the common sense out of them, or bullied them into not following their common sense.

 

[brandon]

Here’s a thought.

Maybe books should have an objective ratings board a la the RIAA/MPAA that give books an evaluation for content and recommended age ranges for those books.

Then, school librarians would have an easier time stocking shelves with books appropriate for the age of their schools, and parents could opt out of books with certain ratings for their children, specifically.

I’ll move on to world peace next. You’re welcome.

 

[Incumbent]

Here’s a thought.

Maybe books should have an objective ratings board a la the RIAA/MPAA that give books an evaluation for content and recommended age ranges for those books.

Then, school librarians would have an easier time stocking shelves with books appropriate for the age of their schools, and parents could opt out of books with certain ratings for their children, specifically.

I’ll move on to world peace next. You’re welcome.

The NC-17 on the Bible wouldn't go over well with a lot of people.

 

[brandon]

The NC-17 on the Bible wouldn't go over well with a lot of people.

The Passion of the Christ had an R rating from the MPAA.

I think just like the MPAA ratings have general descriptors for why a title has a particular rating, it would make sense to provide those descriptors for books.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Here’s a thought.

Maybe books should have an objective ratings board a la the RIAA/MPAA that give books an evaluation for content and recommended age ranges for those books.

Then, school librarians would have an easier time stocking shelves with books appropriate for the age of their schools, and parents could opt out of books with certain ratings for their children, specifically.

I’ll move on to world peace next. You’re welcome.

Not a bad plan actually.

The NC-17 on the Bible wouldn't go over well with a lot of people.

Nor would any rating higher than G for "Lawn Boy" with lots of other people.

 

[Incumbent]

The Passion of the Christ had an R rating from the MPAA.

I think just like the MPAA ratings have general descriptors for why a title has a particular rating, it would make sense to provide those descriptors for books.

Yeah, I actually agree with the idea. Age range suggestions already exist for reading level, so build on that for content.

I was being...snarky...but to make the point that the people who have the greatest issues with books already aren't being consistent with their concerns, and so imagining the backlash of the Bible getting the "adults only" treatment.