Banning books in schools (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    13,589
    Reaction score
    17,362
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Online
    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:
    Last Friday, the president signed an Executive Order that targeted the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The IMLS is the only federal agency that provides funds to libraries and it makes up less than .005% of the federal budget.

    The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) entered the IMLS this week on Thursday. Though little verifiable information has emerged about what happened upon DOGE’s arrival — several Reddit posts have shared some insights — what we do know is that as of writing, IMLS staff are still with jobs. This could change as soon as this weekend.

    We also know that Deputy Secretary of Labor Keith E. Sonderling was sworn in as the Acting Director of the agency.

    This new leadership came with another press release, posted to the IMLS website. It’s deeply concerning, and it points to what the future of the IMLS will look like under the direction of this administration.

    IMLS will be an agency used to produce, promote, and proliferate propaganda.

    From the press release:

    It is an honor to be appointed by President Trump to lead this important organization in its mission to advance, support, and empower America’s museums and libraries, which stand as cornerstones of learning and culture in our society. I am committed to steering this organization in lockstep with this Administration to enhance efficiency and foster innovation. We will revitalize IMLS and restore focus on patriotism, ensuring we preserve our country’s core values, promote American exceptionalism and cultivate love of country in future generations,” said Acting Director Sonderling

    We know through our ability to read government press releases critically that there’s simultaneously a lot being said here and a whole lot of nothing being said.

    First and foremost, “steering this organization in lockstep with this Administration” is the antithesis of what museums and libraries do. These public, democratic institutions offer a breadth and depth of information and resources to ensure that users are able to understand a wide range of ideas and perspectives on any given topic. This allows people to think for themselves and draw conclusions based on evidence, rather than on what someone tells them to be the truth.

    But by being “in lockstep” with the Administration, it’s clear that the IMLS will not be supporting the range of projects and initiatives it has been since its inception. Instead, it will support projects, ideas, and institutions which align with pre-approved values and beliefs aligned with the oligarchical ruling class. Projects with any of this administration’s forbidden words or ideas will most likely not be permitted.

    It also very likely that one of Trump’s earliest campaign promises to combat any education around the ideas of mis- and dis- information will be seen through to their end. A populace that understands how to navigate information is one less susceptible to propaganda.

    One reason DOGE and Trump may not have immediately gutted the IMLS as was anticipated is that it is a fantastic tool for the regime as they prepare to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary. A January Executive Order lists the IMLS as one of the agencies which will help develop and promote activities to celebrate.

    Besides the obvious ability to use the IMLS to push out propaganda about the administration and the celebration, this is an opportunity for Trump and his team to rework the narrative about libraries popular in his constituency.

    Libraries celebrating him and his presidency? They’re good things, actually, great things. What will go unsaid is that libraries have found themselves unable to push back or state otherwise because of the long-prevailing lie that libraries must remain neutral and because of the reality that saying anything contrary could result in annihilation.

    Something else worth considering with this rebranding of the IMLS? New strings which may be attached to current funding models.

    One of the tactics that has played out in book banning over the last several years is local libraries demanding more local control over what books their patrons have access to and in order to control the flow of information to a given library’s patrons, interlibrary loan materials on certain topics have been curtailed to users. Many states rely on IMLS funds to run interlibrary loan programs.

    It would be far from out of the question for there to be strings attached to what kinds of materials can be shared within and beyond state lines. Systems allowing patrons to share books featuring “trans issues” (see here) could be at risk of having funds revoked.

    We may also see IMLS funds that help provide digital materials to libraries through tools like Libby requiring those tools to censor certain materials that do not align with the administration’s purported values. Again, we’ve seen this tactic before (see here and here).................

     
    The public library in Fairhope, Alabama – a picturesque city on the shores of Mobile Bay – has found itself in the crosshairs of battles over library content.

    The Alabama public library service board of trustees recently voted to withhold state funding from the Fairhope public library after complaints from conservative parents about books in the teen section. In the same meeting, the board voted to immediately dismiss the executive director of the state library agency, who had been planning to resign.

    The board chairperson, John Wahl, who is also the chair of the Alabama Republican party, said board members believe the Fairhope library is in violation of state policies to protect children from inappropriate materials. The books that have been cited by the upset parents include Sold, a National Book Award finalist about a girl who is sold into sexual slavery in India.


    The actions come amid a broader national culture war over library content and programs and a surging number of challenges to books on library shelves. The Fairhope library’s defunding is the first measure taken under a new Alabama law and 2024 administrative code changes that say to receive state funding, local libraries must have policies to safeguard youth from “sexually explicit or other material deemed inappropriate for children or youth”.

    The American Library Association’s list of the most-challenged books of 2023 included many with LGBTQ+ or sexual content.

    “I think that the GOP chair on the state library board is forcing the removal of books just because of anti-library extremists. I think that’s ignoring the voices of Fairhope taxpayers and library users,” said Amber Frey of Read Freely Alabama, an organization that has opposed the restrictions.

    Wahl said his board was not trying to ban the books. But he maintained the state code requires “the actual relocation of these books out of youth sections”.

    “We are unapologetic about standing up for Alabama families and putting them in control, even if that means temporarily defunding local libraries until they can be compliant,” Wahl said…….

     

    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