Banning books in schools (6 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,596
    Reaction score
    15,297
    Age
    48
    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:

    Posted this in LGTBQ thread

    I honestly wonder if taking kids who live with same sex couples are next

    If children learning about LGBTQ (even just that they exist) and being exposed to (and 'forced to accept) LBGTQ is so bad isn't it just a hop, skip and a jump to the absolute evil of children actually living with LGBTQ people?

    First ban gay adoption moving forward, then go after already adopted kids first then maybe even biological kids?

    Hell, not even parents, what about straight parents and a LGBTQ sibling? Parents forced to choose?

    You can keep your gay teen or your 8 year old not both

    I hope to God that is far fetched and ridiculous but who can say these days?
     
    Certainly hope so

    Been a lot of laws passed that I never thought would have

    EDIT: there are a lot of things I never would have thought would have been even seriously suggested much less passed
     
    Last edited:
    A children’s book has been flagged for censorship by Alabama officials – because the author’s surname is “Gay”.

    The book, Read Me a Story Stella by Marie-Louise Gay, was placed under review at the Harris County Public Library due to its “sexually explicit” nature, Al.com reported.

    But the story has no sexual content, and is in fact about a brother called Sam and sister called Stella reading books together as they spend the day building a fort.

    Harris County Public Library executive director, Cindy Hewitt, said that the book was incorrectly put on its list of books under review because the author’s name “Gay” triggered a keyword in the facility’s system.

    “Obviously, we’re not going to touch that book for any reason,” Ms Hewitt said.

    Kristen Brassard, Ms Gay’s publicist at Groundwork Books, branded the saga “laughable”.

    “Although it is obviously laughable that our picture book shows up on their list of censored books simply because the author’s last name is Gay, the ridiculousness of that fact should not detract from the seriousness of the situation,” she said in a statement.

    Ms Gay’s book was one of hundreds of titles put under review after 233 books at the library were flagged by the HCPL for containing the words “sexuality, gender, sex, and dating”.……

     
    A children’s book has been flagged for censorship by Alabama officials – because the author’s surname is “Gay”.

    The book, Read Me a Story Stella by Marie-Louise Gay, was placed under review at the Harris County Public Library due to its “sexually explicit” nature, Al.com reported.

    But the story has no sexual content, and is in fact about a brother called Sam and sister called Stella reading books together as they spend the day building a fort.

    Harris County Public Library executive director, Cindy Hewitt, said that the book was incorrectly put on its list of books under review because the author’s name “Gay” triggered a keyword in the facility’s system.

    “Obviously, we’re not going to touch that book for any reason,” Ms Hewitt said.

    Kristen Brassard, Ms Gay’s publicist at Groundwork Books, branded the saga “laughable”.

    “Although it is obviously laughable that our picture book shows up on their list of censored books simply because the author’s last name is Gay, the ridiculousness of that fact should not detract from the seriousness of the situation,” she said in a statement.

    Ms Gay’s book was one of hundreds of titles put under review after 233 books at the library were flagged by the HCPL for containing the words “sexuality, gender, sex, and dating”.……


    Tell me again how all this book banning isn't just McCarthyism like effort to remove all LGBTQ people from existence and literature that any kid might read. Religious authoritarianism, plain and simple.
     
    They are too ignorant to understand the more you ban something and try to remove it, the more it peaks people's interest in those things. Some people who had no interest in it think, wow, they are making a big deal of this, lets see what the fuss is all about. All they do is bring more attention to it than their original goal.
     
    The children’s book publisher Scholastic said it will separate titles in its elementary school book fairs by race, gender and sexuality, allowing school districts to include or exclude the list.

    The decision is a response to dozens of state laws restricting how the topics are discussed in schools, which Scholastic has opposed. Districts can now opt out of the new list, called the Share Every Story, Celebrate Every Voice catalog, or choose specific titles from it.

    The new catalog of 64 titles includes biographies of the supreme court justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and the civil rights icon John Lewis; the memoir I Am Ruby Bridges, on the experience of desegregating schools; the picture book Change Sings by the poet Amanda Gorman; The Storyteller, a middle grade novel about a Cherokee boy; and the disability-positive titles You Are Enough and You Are Loved.

    In a statement last week, Scholastic said it created the separate catalog to continue offering diverse books in a hostile legislative environment that could threaten school districts, teachers or librarians. “There is now enacted or pending legislation in more than 30 US states prohibiting certain kinds of books from being in schools – mostly LGBTQIA+ titles and books that engage with the presence of racism in our country,” it said.

    “Because Scholastic Book Fairs are invited into schools, where books can be purchased by kids on their own, these laws create an almost impossible dilemma: back away from these titles or risk making teachers, librarians and volunteers vulnerable to being fired, sued or prosecuted.

    “We cannot make a decision for our school partners around what risks they are willing to take, based on the state and local laws that apply to their district,” the statement added, “so these topics and this collection have been part of many planning calls that happen in advance of shipping a fair.

    “We don’t pretend this solution is perfect – but the other option would be to not offer these books at all – which is not something we’d consider.”

    Alongside PEN America, Scholastic has signed an open letter condemning book bans on the state and local level. But the Share Every Story catalog demonstrates the difficulty of continuing to do business in states in which restrictions on diverse titles could put schools and teachers in jeopardy.

    Florida, for example, recently passed a law that would allow educators to be fired, and school districts to be sued or fined, for teaching banned material on race, gender or sexuality. Some school districts in the state are now requiring parents to fill out permission slips for their children to attend book fairs.…….

     
    The largest US publisher of books for children has a new collection that sounds wonderful. It’s called “Share every story, celebrate every voice”.

    But the backstory isn’t so wonderful.

    School librarians around the country can opt out of that Scholastic Books collection of 64 “diverse” books for their popular book fairs.

    They can choose to hit what one librarian has called “the bigot button” in order to stay out of the line of fire of rightwing parents and politicians. Presumably to pre-emptively placate the anti-woke mobs, the opt-out effectively removes the curated collection of “diverse” books from the offerings.

    One example is this title: Justice Ketanji, by Denise Lewis Patrick, which tells the story of how Ketanji Brown Jackson became the first Black woman to serve as a US supreme court justice. The brief biography details how Jackson “refused to let the naysayers stop her from rising to the top”.

    Cover the children’s eyes immediately!

    Another, which depicts same-sex parents and interracial families living in peace and harmony with others is All Are Welcome, by Alexandra Penfold. Sure to poison young minds, right?

    Or how about Because of You, John Lewis, by Andrea Davis Pinkney? It’s the tale of a boy who becomes inspired by the late Georgia congressman’s decades-long struggle for rights. It focuses on Lewis’s role in the 1965 march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, a key milestone in the civil rights movement.

    Another, I Am Ruby Bridges, is a picture book whose author was in 1960 the first Black child to integrate a school in Louisiana.

    By all means, do not expose young people to these heroic figures of American history. They might never recover from the trauma.

    After some negative national publicity and protests by authors and librarians, Scholastic Books defended itself by saying that it had been forced into this decision. They claim they did it to protect teachers and libraries in regions that may have regulations – or even just proposed regulations – prohibiting specific types of books.

    “These laws create an almost impossible dilemma: back away from these titles or risk making teachers, librarians, and volunteers vulnerable to being fired, sued, or prosecuted,” the publisher wrote in a recent public statement. “We cannot make a decision for our school partners around what risks they are willing to take.”

    It’s a weak argument. Even in these absurd times, it seems extremely unlikely that state or local governments would fire or sue librarians or volunteers for putting these books on tables for potential purchase.……

     
    Kim Reynolds, Iowa’s Republican governor, signed a law in May that, among other provisions, requires schools to remove books that depict a “sex act.”

    That statutory phrase has now helped unleash a frenzy of book-banning across the state, one that illustrates a core truth about these types of censorship directives.


    Their vagueness is the point.


    When GOP-controlled state legislatures escalated the passage of laws in 2022 and 2023 restricting school materials addressing sex, gender and race, critics warned that their hazy drafting would prod educators to err on the side of censorship.

    Uncertain whether books or classroom discussions might run afoul of their state’s law, education officials might decide nixing them would be the “safer” option.

    What’s happening in Iowa right now thoroughly vindicates those fears. This week, the Iowa City Community School District released a list of 68 books that it removed from schools to comply with the law.

    Among the titles: “Ulysses” by James Joyce, “Nineteen Minutes” by Jodi Picoult, “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison.


    The Iowa law requires K-12 schools to remove materials that depict any one of a series of sex acts that include intercourse and other types of genital contact. The law also bans instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation before seventh grade.


    Beyond Iowa City, the Des Moines Register reports that school districts across the state have removed hundreds of books from their school libraries, also in response to that law.

    Among these titles: “1984” by George Orwell, “Brave New World” by Aldous Huxley, “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut and “Forrest Gump” by Winston Groom.

    To be clear, what’s happening here is not necessarily the fault of the districts themselves. Their administrators have worked for months to determine which books must be removed to comply with the law.

    They’ve asked the state for guidance, but it has mostly not been forthcoming — leaving them in the tough position of navigating the law on their own.


    That has led districts to flag books with depictions of “sex acts” that aren’t lascivious or lewd and often aren’t important parts of their content, said Margaret Buckton, a lobbyist for the Rural School Advocates of Iowa.

    As Buckton told me, “fear” is “motivating districts to interpret even vague descriptions of a ‘sex act’ that aren’t pornographic as meeting this definition.”


    No one disputes that in plenty of cases materials depicting such acts should be removed. Nonetheless, the law and the subsequent lack of state guidance are plainly causing officials to cast a wide net. “Many literary classics have sex in them,” said Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America.

    “But now the term ‘sex act’ is turning into a blunt instrument to remove scores of books that have all kinds of literary merit and cultural significance.”………

     
    Well, it’s plainly unconstitutional - same-sex adoption bans have been struck down and the underlying law solidified. I don’t see how that kind of thing could ever be more than isolated incidents of local abuse.
    We thought Roe was a solid interpretation as well. Just takes the right case before this SCOTUS - they’re an extremely activist court and they are racing to roll back every gain made for social issues in the last 50 years.
     
    The problem is not that parents wants to decide what their children reads - but wants to dictate what OTHER peoples children read.
    I would go further. Parents should not have input into the curriculum. It should be consulted with experts and voted on by a non partisan board. Their limit is to place their child into that school or not. After all, one parent cannot tell the teacher not to teach multiplication to the entire class. That's BS.
     

    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