Banning books in schools (8 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,065
    Reaction score
    14,229
    Age
    47
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    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.

     
    Last edited:
    Bunch of straw men and whataboutism with a side ad hominem. Your specialties, lol.

    There is no rational reason to allow a single parent to dictate to a school what books should be available to the rest of the kids at that school. They can have control over what their kids read, but not what my kids read. It really is as simple as that.

    These articles were picked very quickly as I don’t wish to spend a lot of time doing homework for you.


    With Rising Book Bans, Librarians Have Come Under Attack
     
    Bunch of straw men and whataboutism with a side ad hominem. Your specialties, lol.

    There is no rational reason to allow a single parent to dictate to a school what books should be available to the rest of the kids at that school. They can have control over what their kids read, but not what my kids read. It really is as simple as that.
    You're the one arguing with a strawman if you are still talking about a single parent dictating to a school. I explained it twice. That's not happening and that's far from what I advocated. Your oversimplification may work when you're preaching to the choir, but not for the visiting skeptic.

    It is not happening. One parent that objects to a book that almost nobody else would object to is NOT getting that book banned for the whole school.

    What is happening is that districts are recognizing their mistakes in, for example, shelving a book like Lawn Boy or Gender Queer in the middle or elementary school.

    In related coming to of senses, schools are realizing that there really is no educational value in drag queens putting on sexualized shows for kids.
    These articles were picked very quickly as I don’t wish to spend a lot of time doing homework for you.


    With Rising Book Bans, Librarians Have Come Under Attack
    I dont' see any lives being ruined. That's pretty typical of the overly dramatic claims of the left, to be honest.

    I think we talked about the Jenna Barbee case. That first-year teacher had already resigned with a claim of not being allowed to be herself, whatever that dramatic statement may have meant. She wasn't fired. The movie that she showed did not "feature a gay character," it had a gay teen romance that was central to the plot. She took advantage of her access to school children and to the educational facilities that she was entrusted with to educate them, and pushed an agenda that she knew that Florida voters did not want pushed. It was an in-your-face move and she got push back, as she should have known that she would.
     
    Last edited:
    I dont' see any lives being ruined. That's pretty typical of the overly dramatic claims of the left, to be honest.

    I think we talked about the Jenna Barbee case. That first-year teacher had already resigned with a claim of not being allowed to be herself, whatever that dramatic statement may have meant. She wasn't fired. The movie that she showed did not "feature a gay character," it had a gay teen romance that was central to the plot. She took advantage of her access to school children and to the educational facilities that she was entrusted with to educate them, and pushed an agenda that she knew that Florida voters did not want pushed. It was an in-your-face move and she got push back, as she should have known that she would.
    Is that the one who asked every parent to sign a release for Disney films, with a line asking them to specify any films to which they objected? And no parent objected to any? And then after she was pretty much informed she was going to be investigated because she showed a film she had a release for?

    I haven’t seen that movie, but people I know have said that the gayness of the character was not central to the plot. 🤷‍♀️

    I’m going to guess you didn’t read The NY Times piece. It is a long read but it should be a gift link so maybe you’ll have time later.
     
    Is that the one who asked every parent to sign a release for Disney films, with a line asking them to specify any films to which they objected? And no parent objected to any? And then after she was pretty much informed she was going to be investigated because she showed a film she had a release for?
    I dont' remember the part about the release. I do remember that she failed to inform her principal that she was showing a movie as district policy required.

    But suppose what you say is true? That teacher still knew that in Florida, laws have been passed limiting teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity. How could she not, with all the hysteria about it.

    Are you seriously suggesting that every parent knew that Disney had made a movie with a gay romance and therefore was consenting to that movie because they made no exceptions? If that was on the release, and this is the first time I'm hearing that, she knew that she was not meaningfully informing the parents of her plans for their children.

    That was very deliberate and she got called on the carpet for it.

    As she should. Suppose I sent home a release for "a movie about an African-American appointed sheriff in a western town in the 1880's who faces prejudice but wins the people over with his prowess at law enforcement. List any titles like that you would object to." Suppose I then showed Blazing Saddles?
    I haven’t seen that movie, but people I know have said that the gayness of the character was not central to the plot. 🤷‍♀️
    I have seen it, and the gay romance was as central to the plot as romances in other Disney adventure movies. It is not a bad movie, and I found the romance cute. I'm not a homophobe, I'm just a believer in parental rights.
    I’m going to guess you didn’t read The NY Times piece. It is a long read but it should be a gift link so maybe you’ll have time later.
    I'll be happy to look at it. Hopefully, they put the main points up front, and there is not a lot of immediate personal attacks on those who disagree with its points.
     
    How do parents monitor that?

    Before you even answer that, answer this: I'm sure you and I agree that the "sexy seahorse" book is not at all offensive - to us. If a parent is truly offended by that book, should they have the ability to prevent their child from reading it?

    Because unless you want to set up a system in which every parent approves every book before it is given to their child, we have to have a way for parents, taxpayers, and voters, to have input on which books are available to all children. Luckily, we have such a system, it is called free speech and democracy.

    The democracy slows things down sometimes, and the free speech makes board members uncomfortable sometimes, but I want to keep them both.

    I hope you don't accuse Biden of having a poor memory. Here's our discussion on this from just last month.

    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.

    To which you replied:
    Not a bad plan actually.

    What I am certain about is that a few angry parents should not get to dictate to the rest of the parents on earth which books their kids can and cannot read.
     
    I hope you don't accuse Biden of having a poor memory. Here's our discussion on this from just last month.



    To which you replied:


    What I am certain about is that a few angry parents should not get to dictate to the rest of the parents on earth which books their kids can and cannot read.

    It looks like Texas heard my idea and decided to implement it in the worst possible way imaginable.
     
    I hope you don't accuse Biden of having a poor memory. Here's our discussion on this from just last month.



    To which you replied:


    What I am certain about is that a few angry parents should not get to dictate to the rest of the parents on earth which books their kids can and cannot read.
    Yes, that was a good plan. I apologize for not immediately mentioning the Brandon plan. I did not realize that saying that it was not a bad plan committed me to mention it in every post about the topic of books in school libraries.

    I think the problem with that plan is that the school librarians would object to it. Their organization is not interested in allowing parents to have any kind of say over what books are children read. Their goal is exactly to overcome the provincial ways of typical parents and substitute their judgment for that of families.

    I have heard of no case where only a few parents caused a book to be removed. Of course I guess that depends on your definition of a few. MTwas claiming that only one parent could have a book removed, which is obviously not true. How many do you think it takes?
     

    It looks like Texas heard my idea and decided to implement it in the worst possible way imaginable.
    How is that the worst possible way imaginable? Because the publishers would rate their own books instead of a board?

    This would not be an issue at all, if publishers wishing to sell books to Texas schools would just follow this simple guidance from your article:

    The law’s primary author, Republican Texas State Rep. Jared Patterson, said its aim is simple: Get sexually explicit content out of schools.

    If they applied common sense and kept in mind that their audience is school children, not horny housewives, they wouldn't push sexually explicit material into school and then act offended when called on it.
     
    Because its a way to punish any company who disagrees with the state gov't political beliefs. Don't support my agenda, BOOM you are no longer allowed to sell books to Texas Public schools. The vendor doesn't read every book it sells, opinons vary on what someone considers explicit. just by mention the word 'Gay" can be considered sexually explicit if they want it to and can find ways to comsider other terms explicit if it wants to cripple a company that doesn't fall in line. The Right has extemely taken the cancel culture over and to new extremes..
     
    Because its a way to punish any company who disagrees with the state gov't political beliefs. Don't support my agenda, BOOM you are no longer allowed to sell books to Texas Public schools.
    They don't have to agree with any political beliefs, they just have to comply with the standards Texas sets for books they buy.
    The vendor doesn't read every book it sells,
    What? Why not? If a vendor to the cafeteria sold a bunch of frozen breakfast pizza that turned out to be contaminated with salmonella and said, "what, you think we check our products before we send them to your kids?" I would say, "well, I did think you checked them. I'll make sure that whatever vendor replaces you does."
    opinons vary on what someone considers explicit. just by mention the word 'Gay" can be considered sexually explicit if they want it to and can find ways to comsider other terms explicit if it wants to cripple a company that doesn't fall in line. The Right has extemely taken the cancel culture over and to new extremes..
    It isn't that hard for book venders to get this right. They had been getting it right for decades, prior to the movement to sexualize kids' education. Just remember your audience, which is not the School Libararians Association, but other people's children.
     
    They don't have to agree with any political beliefs, they just have to comply with the standards Texas sets for books they buy.

    What? Why not? If a vendor to the cafeteria sold a bunch of frozen breakfast pizza that turned out to be contaminated with salmonella and said, "what, you think we check our products before we send them to your kids?" I would say, "well, I did think you checked them. I'll make sure that whatever vendor replaces you does."

    It isn't that hard for book venders to get this right. They had been getting it right for decades, prior to the movement to sexualize kids' education. Just remember your audience, which is not the School Libararians Association, but other people's children.
    You’re a teacher. Have you ever walked down the hall and talked to your school librarian about what she, and the association actually thinks about this topic?
     
    They don't have to agree with any political beliefs, they just have to comply with the standards Texas sets for books they buy.

    What? Why not? If a vendor to the cafeteria sold a bunch of frozen breakfast pizza that turned out to be contaminated with salmonella and said, "what, you think we check our products before we send them to your kids?" I would say, "well, I did think you checked them. I'll make sure that whatever vendor replaces you does."

    It isn't that hard for book venders to get this right. They had been getting it right for decades, prior to the movement to sexualize kids' education. Just remember your audience, which is not the School Libararians Association, but other people's children.
    If the owner of the company made a comment that he didnt agree with x law that was passed, his company can easily be targeted and hurt monetarily. basically like Desantis is doing.
    If a cafeteria vendor sold brozen breakfast pizza to the school that was contaminated with salmonella, that falls on the manufacturer of the product. If Win-Dixie sold those same frozen Pizza that were contaminated with salmonella, do you blame them ,or do you blame Totinos? Now if found that they mis-handled the pizzas and left them sitting in the September heat all weekend, then still shipped them to the school, well, thats a different story...
     
    You’re a teacher. Have you ever walked down the hall and talked to your school librarian about what she, and the association actually thinks about this topic?
    By Allah, no!

    Last thing I'm going to do is provoke a political discussion at work. It might be interesting, though. We just got a new young librarian after our previous one retired after more than thirty years. I just don't know how I would bring that up, without seeming as if I'm trying to find out where she stands on the issue, which is really none of my beezwax. I don't know her that well.

    Honestly, with her being so young, I would feel like a DOM if I asked her whether she thought it appropriate to provide books to middle schoolers in which there are graphic pictures of a young girl performing oral sex, or graphic descriptions of a young boy performing oral sex.

    I think this is the difference between left and right. Left seems to think it is their duty to find out if people they know deviate from their beliefs so they can correct them. Most cons and nearly all libertarians I know only talk politics with people they know are willing to have that conversation. Like on a message board, for example.
     
    If the owner of the company made a comment that he didnt agree with x law that was passed, his company can easily be targeted and hurt monetarily. basically like Desantis is doing.
    I disagree with DeSantis for doing that in Florida. But, I don't see that happening in Texas in the article we are discussing.
    If a cafeteria vendor sold brozen breakfast pizza to the school that was contaminated with salmonella, that falls on the manufacturer of the product. If Win-Dixie sold those same frozen Pizza that were contaminated with salmonella, do you blame them ,or do you blame Totinos? Now if found that they mis-handled the pizzas and left them sitting in the September heat all weekend, then still shipped them to the school, well, thats a different story...
    Fair enough. Suppose after learning of the contamination, the vendor said, "well, that's just the kind of pizzas the manufacturer makes. I'm not going to stop selling them to you because a few parents complain."

    I get that most companies don't have time to sit around reading books. But if you are a book selling company, of course you should know your product. It shouldn't be hard to pick "Gender Queer" out of a lineup and check it for appropriateness. "Lawn Boy," having the same title as an actual good book by Sachar, an actual good writer for elementary and middle school kids, might slip through. But as with the poison pizza example, when the school finds out, they should say "we blew it" (no pun intended) and send it back for a refund.
     
    I think this is the difference between left and right. Left seems to think it is their duty to find out if people they know deviate from their beliefs so they can correct them. Most cons and nearly all libertarians I know only talk politics with people they know are willing to have that conversation. Like on a message board, for example.
    No, this is a perfect example of the problem with you.

    My suggestion that you go down the hall and actually talk to the school librarian was so you could gain an understanding of what they actually are dealing with, and what they actually think, rather than just assuming something completely incorrect about their position.

    Instead, you assumed something completely incorrect about my position.

    Additionally, rather than considering the suggestion, you prefer to wallow in your ignorance.
     
    I disagree with DeSantis for doing that in Florida. But, I don't see that happening in Texas in the article we are discussing.

    Fair enough. Suppose after learning of the contamination, the vendor said, "well, that's just the kind of pizzas the manufacturer makes. I'm not going to stop selling them to you because a few parents complain."

    I get that most companies don't have time to sit around reading books. But if you are a book selling company, of course you should know your product. It shouldn't be hard to pick "Gender Queer" out of a lineup and check it for appropriateness. "Lawn Boy," having the same title as an actual good book by Sachar, an actual good writer for elementary and middle school kids, might slip through. But as with the poison pizza example, when the school finds out, they should say "we blew it" (no pun intended) and send it back for a refund.
    but with this bill, a vendor could be crippled by selling "Lawn Boy" to the school, especially if they are looking for reasons.

    Also, if anyone thinks Desantis didn't go after Disney strictly because they publically disagreed with his don't say gay bill, then there honestly isn't any hope for them to take off blinders.
     
    but with this bill, a vendor could be crippled by selling "Lawn Boy" to the school, especially if they are looking for reasons.
    If you mean the sexually explicit version of Lawn Boy, I think the point of the law is so that if the vendor does sell that book, it is rated as a sexually relevant book or a sexually explicit book.

    I don't think Texas is looking to "cripple" book sellers. What would their motivation for that be?

    The law defines sexually explicit books as those containing sexual content that is “patently offensive,” explained in state law as anything that affronts “current community standards of decency.” These books will be banned from school campuses.

    The law says that sexually relevant books depict sexual conduct but not necessarily in a way that is “patently offensive.” Students will need a parent’s written consent to check one out.

    I believe that Lawn Boy would be rated as "sexually relevant" by many vendors. I don't necessarily agree with them for that, but that's how I think they would rate it.

    I would assume, and the assumption may be wrong, that the library would simply seek parents permission at the beginning of the year to offer sexually relevant books to their children. I think they should have long since been informing parents if that's what they are doing.

    I'm not saying this law is perfect, because lawmakers are notorious for passing laws that are over-complicated or have unintended consequences. I'm just not seeing any valid objections to this one yet.

    Here is the closest I see to validity:

    The CEO of the largest independent bookstore in Texas oversees a four-story, 40,000-square-foot space in Austin and the 100 employees who staff it.

    BookPeople CEO Charley Rejsek said she has time to read about 30 books a year — but doesn’t have the time to read and rate the thousands of books she might sell to a school, nor does she have the money to pay someone else to.

    I get it. It's an extra step in the process to ensure the safety of Texas school children from sexually explicit materials. Nobody likes changing requirements when they have gotten comfortable with the old way of doing things.

    They will need to hire some people to read books to check for such content. Social media has no problem hiring plenty of basement dwellers to editorialize on and "fact check" things I say to family and friends. Hire some similar people to check for explicitness. If they raise the prices they charge for the books they sell, due to this new requirement, that would be perfectly fair.

    Also, if anyone thinks Desantis didn't go after Disney strictly because they publically disagreed with his don't say gay bill, then there honestly isn't any hope for them to take off blinders.
    I don't know of anyone who thinks that DeSantis didn't go after Disney for disagreeing with his parental right bill that never says "don't say gay," a single time.

    They either applaud him for doing that or criticize him for doing that. I'm in the latter camp, but I get why people are in the former.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom