I wanted to start a thread to discuss the current trend of removal of books from public schools because of inappropriate content.

In another thread, someone was complaining about some school districts having books about pedophilia or sexually explicit content. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting its okay to populate school libraries with smut. . . . but Catcher in the Rye, The Great Gatsby, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Color Purple, The Grapes of Wrath. . . . basically every important American classic is being challenged because they contain violence, or alcohol use, or sexual thoughts, or racial ideas. Some districts in Texas are now banning the Dairy of Anne Frank because she makes some sexual jokes. A 13 year old girl going through puberty locked in an attic during the Holocaust and we want to rob children of this important and profound story because she has a few lines about sex?

I understand the concern about how or what teachers teach to children. But a reaction to ban all material that might even slightly touch on a position that you might not agree with seems to rob children of exposure to something profoundly important. Being human is messy and it feels to me like parents today want to rob their children of any exposure or experience that makes the parent uncomfortable.

Again, I do agree that there is a 'line' to be crossed in what books we exposed public school children to. . . . . But what is that line and how do we draw it? "Any content I don't 100% fully agree with" seems like a truly terrible place to draw the line at.

It's really crazy to me, especially coming from people who like to call people snowflakes and complain that everyone gets offended too easily these days. I also agree there's a line, but like with any topic involving "a line," it's hard to define. I just don't see how any of the books you mentioned cross any reasonably drawn one in any way.

Do they cover some uncomfortable topics? Sure - but they're supposed to make you uncomfortable because they deal with bad things that happened. 20-30 years ago, that's how my rural, very conservative school district taught these topics. Slavery was awful. Segregation and Jim Crow were awful. The Holocaust was awful. We watched the Diary of Anne Frank in 8th Grade English and Schindler's List in History class around the same time, and all the parents were fine with it and wanted us to learn about those things. It was all taught through a lens of "this was life not very long ago and it's good society has changed." To see this kind of knee jerk reaction from the same people who used to think that way is pretty disheartening.

The Boat Rocker is smut, filth, and borderline pornography. Terence Mann is sick and a pervert.

The color purple? When did that make the list with the rest of those books?

Quote:

---

Some districts in Texas are now banning the Dairy of Anne Frank because she makes some sexual jokes. A 13 year old girl going through puberty locked in an attic during the Holocaust and we want to rob children of this important and profound story because she has a few lines about sex

---

To clarify, it was a highly abridged graphic novel that contains mature content for elementary-aged children.

The "banned" language is a little loaded. Kids are still free to have these books and read them or bring them to school; the question is whether or not certain books should be in the 0.000001% of books in existence that make the limited space of the library.

Traditionally teachers and staff would decide that. They still do, but now parents have a say in the matter as well.

Should we let parents have a say? Should they have control over how their kids are educated and how their tax dollars are spent?

We had "to sir, with love" pulled from my 8th or 9th grade class after some parent (not parents) called and complained because it had some profanity.

At least one scho is being consistent

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9j/texas-school-bans-the-bible

Which is only fair as it deals with rape, beastiality, antisemitism, racism, paints genocide in a good light, supports witchcraft and necromancy, promotes abortion, seems to support incest, encourages religious persecution, is supportive of Communism, etc etc etc.

All in all, not a book that should be read to children.

You forgot child sacrifice on a cross.

I gave up listing things before I even left the Pentateuch

God commands child sacrifice there too.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

At least one scho is being consistent

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9j/texas-school-bans-the-bible

Which is only fair as it deals with rape, beastiality, antisemitism, racism, paints genocide in a good light, supports witchcraft and necromancy, promotes abortion, seems to support incest, encourages religious persecution, is supportive of Communism, etc etc etc.

All in all, not a book that should be read to children.

---

How dare they ban books!

But it's okay when they ban the books I don't like.

Just to be clear.
Are you trying to imply that I am in favor of them banning the Bible from school libraries? Because I'm not and didn't suggest that.

Or are you agreeing with me on the hypocrisy of these people and that when you go off banning books you don't like, you had better be precise with your rationale and apply it consistently even if it means banning things you don't want banned. And for the standard of acceptable that these parents are calling for, is one that the Bible can not objectively meet.

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

Some districts in Texas are now banning the Dairy of Anne Frank because she makes some sexual jokes. A 13 year old girl going through puberty locked in an attic during the Holocaust and we want to rob children of this important and profound story because she has a few lines about sex

---

To clarify, it was a highly abridged graphic novel that contains mature content for elementary-aged children.

The "banned" language is a little loaded. Kids are still free to have these books and read them or bring them to school; the question is whether or not certain books should be in the 0.000001% of books in existence that make the limited space of the library.

Traditionally teachers and staff would decide that. They still do, but now parents have a say in the matter as well.

Should we let parents have a say? Should they have control over how their kids are educated and how their tax dollars are spent?

---

Thank you for the correction about the Anne Frank illustrated version. I tried googling images of what specifically was being objected to in the graphic novel, but didn't find anything.

99.999999% of books are probably self published drivel. I think it is disingenuous to put To Kill a Mockingbird on same level as Joe Sixpack's memoirs that sold zero copies when it comes to vying for library space.

For me, whether or not parents / community should have a say is not under debate. What I think is up for debate is the criteria that should be used in deciding if a book is appropriate for children or not. And I'm not saying I'm right or that what other parents want should be disregarded. I am concerned about which books are being removed from schools and the reasons for their removal. My goal would be to argue a position and convince others that exposing their child to different ideas is not a bad thing. And for what its worth, I think parent's should be permitted to ask a school to allow their children to read a different book if an 'objectionable' book is assigned.

From what I can tell about the Anne Frank book that was removed, the objection is primarily to do with a passage about homosexual feelings that Anne feels toward another girl. There doesn't appear to be anything pornographic or explicit in the book. Is the objection that the book has sexual ideas or homosexual ideas? If the former, then we need to ban damn near every book or novel ever written for an audience over the age of 10. If the latter, then I think there needs to be justification for discrimination against that idea. Why is it okay to ban a book with homosexuality but not a book with equal heterosexual themes?

As everyone here agrees, there is a line somewhere. That line is subjective, and you'd likely get a different answer in rural Texas than you would in Downtown Houston as far as what counts as offensive. For that reason, I think the current system is fine. Public schools are funded and run by locals, and the local community should be deciding what counts as offensive since they are the people sending their children to that school. No one is stopping any parent from showing their own kids any of the objectionable material at home

First off: "obligatory user name fits."

Secondly: "book banning" is an emotionally manipulative term. Library stocking and organization are real valid considerations - ESPECIALLY in a children's section.

Ex: parents tell kids about Noah's ark in Pre-K ages, but hold off on the "why" of the flood, or the post-flood drunken incident until kids are older. And they hold off on topics like genocide, human sacrifice, sexual intercourse, sexual deviancy, torture, etc until their kids have aged and matured enough that discussion on those topics can actually be beneficial rather than just innocence-shattering.

In the same way - it is only reasonable that a library's selection should reflect material which is considered worth-while and age appropriate by the vast majority of parents whose children will supposedly be served by that communally funded resource.


TLDR: saying that The Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in the 1st Grade section isn't "book banning" any more than excluding Go Dog Go away from the Travel section is. It's a responsible application common sense.

Seems like it would be a great idea if parents, teachers and administrators had the ability to make decisions at the most local level possible, and if a citizens or citizens of that locale were unhappy with the decision, they were able to send their children to a different school they agreed with without incurring large costs.

Subsidiarity reigns supreme.

This is one of those examples of a slippery slope in action.

Banning pornographic and wildly inappropriate books from schools? Fine. (But how much of that stuff was actually in schools in the first place?)

But this will and has already devolved into banning any book that hits on a controversial subject or makes people uncomfortable. Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Diary of Anne Frank. All deal with very serious and heavy topics. Huck Finn originally used the N word liberally until censored versions came out.

This is why I have huge problems with this and the ill-defined "CRT." What disguises itself as well-meaning is really just censoring kids from controversial, but important subjects, thereby making the next generation more ignorant of history.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First off: "obligatory user name fits."

Secondly: "book banning" is an emotionally manipulative term. Library stocking and organization are real valid considerations - ESPECIALLY in a children's section.

Ex: parents tell kids about Noah's ark in Pre-K ages, but hold off on the "why" of the flood, or the post-flood drunken incident until kids are older. And they hold off on topics like genocide, human sacrifice, sexual intercourse, sexual deviancy, torture, etc until their kids have aged and matured enough that discussion on those topics can actually be beneficial rather than just innocence-shattering.

In the same way - it is only reasonable that a library's selection should reflect material which is considered worth-while and age appropriate by the vast majority of parents whose children will supposedly be served by that communally funded resource.


TLDR: saying that The Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in the 1st Grade section isn't "book banning" any more than excluding Go Dog Go away from the Travel section is. It's a responsible application common sense.

---

Sure, Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in a 1st grade section (for many reasons).

Lets do a hypothetical: Its been a while since my kids were young enough to read Go Dog Go to. But, lets say there is a page with Dog and his Mother and Father that read s"Here is dog with his mother and father". Now, imagine an equally benign children's book with the text "Here is dog with his mother and mother". Would that be a problem? It no more promotes homosexuality than hundreds of other children's books promote heterosexuality.

The age appropriate argument is valid in plenty of cases. In many other cases, I think parents are objecting to the idea of subjecting their children to anything that challenges their views. And parents are free to isolate and insulate their children as they see fit, and I would argue we parents should be careful about how much we isolate and insulate our children from reality.

You have a real point, but lets also not pretend that all education is altruistic. Education has been a primary ideological weapon going back to the invention of the printing press. Every ideology from the Nazi's with Hitler Youth to the Soviets with the Young Pioneers tries to indoctrinate the children as they are more impressionable than adults.

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictacting what that school teaches

Quote:

---

This is why I have huge problems with this and the ill-defined "CRT." What disguises itself as well-meaning is really just censoring kids from controversial, but important subjects, thereby making the next generation more ignorant of history

---

I'd say that public schools, and even core university classes, don't teach history at all. They teach a carefully crafted narrative that bears only a passing resemblence to actual history.

I'm not sure solving this at the local level provides much of a solution just more variety.

I agree individual libraries have limited space and need to be selective from the get go and how to use that should be decided locally. But I wouldn't mind protecting selected titles like huck Finn or Anne frank from local stupidity.

The problem with this is when someone tries to make what should be a short and important list of books be a long and self congratulatory list of woke books of little importance.

Frok said:

---

Duncan Idaho said:

---

At least one scho is being consistent

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzv9j/texas-school-bans-the-bible

Which is only fair as it deals with rape, beastiality, antisemitism, racism, paints genocide in a good light, supports witchcraft and necromancy, promotes abortion, seems to support incest, encourages religious persecution, is supportive of Communism, etc etc etc.

All in all, not a book that should be read to children.

---

How dare they ban books!

But it's okay when they ban the books I don't like.

---

I'll admit I thought you were pro-banning the bible.

But was making a general point about how people on both sides fall on both sides of this issue.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictating what that school teaches.

---

I think that I'll agree that conservatives actually feel this way when they begin to rebuke the conservative state governments passing bills to limit material that local communities are allowed to carry in their libraries.

If children's access to information should be controlled at the most granular level, then let it be at the level of individual parents. Could a compromise to the public library issue be to not ban ANY books, but allow parents control over what their children have access to? I would like for my children to have access to To Kill A Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies and books with LGBTQ characters. That is fine if others don't . . . .but why should that affect my child's access to those books? To say they still have access to those books through their parents or outside of the library is to partially defeat the purpose of a library in the first place.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First off: "obligatory user name fits."

Secondly: "book banning" is an emotionally manipulative term. Library stocking and organization are real valid considerations - ESPECIALLY in a children's section.

Ex: parents tell kids about Noah's ark in Pre-K ages, but hold off on the "why" of the flood, or the post-flood drunken incident until kids are older. And they hold off on topics like genocide, human sacrifice, sexual intercourse, sexual deviancy, torture, etc until their kids have aged and matured enough that discussion on those topics can actually be beneficial rather than just innocence-shattering.

In the same way - it is only reasonable that a library's selection should reflect material which is considered worth-while and age appropriate by the vast majority of parents whose children will supposedly be served by that communally funded resource.


TLDR: saying that The Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in the 1st Grade section isn't "book banning" any more than excluding Go Dog Go away from the Travel section is. It's a responsible application common sense.

---

Sure, Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in a 1st grade section (for many reasons).

Lets do a hypothetical: Its been a while since my kids were young enough to read Go Dog Go to. But, lets say there is a page with Dog and his Mother and Father that read s"Here is dog with his mother and father". Now, imagine an equally benign children's book with the text "Here is dog with his mother and mother". Would that be a problem? It no more promotes homosexuality than hundreds of other children's books promote heterosexuality.

The age appropriate argument is valid in plenty of cases. In many other cases, I think parents are objecting to the idea of subjecting their children to anything that challenges their views. And parents are free to isolate and insulate their children as they see fit, and I would argue we parents should be careful about how much we isolate and insulate our children from reality.

---

How can you ask about a dog with two moms in one paragraph and then talk about isolating and insulating children from reality in the next? It's contradictory. No dog has two moms, just like no child has two moms. It makes no sense to include it in a story unless you're going to talk about adoption and attraction. But why would you do that in a childrens book like Go Dod Go?

I listened to Dave Rubin talk about adoption with Jordan Peterson and for all rubin's explanation about his desire to adopt, the kids are simply a tool for self actualization. It really is the handmaids tale. Who wants to read about that in Go Dog Go and have the discussion?

Edit: i can call this response post modern right? Because heterosexuality is being treated as a narrative and it's ok to elevate other narratives, hence simply swapping a dad for a mom is showing another truth? And all truths are equal?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictating what that school teaches.

---

I think that I'll agree that conservatives actually feel this way when they begin to rebuke the conservative state governments passing bills to limit material that local communities are allowed to carry in their libraries.

If children's access to information should be controlled at the most granular level, then let it be at the level of individual parents. Could a compromise to the public library issue be to not ban ANY books, but allow parents control over what their children have access to? I would like for my children to have access to To Kill A Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies and books with LGBTQ characters. That is fine if others don't . . . .but why should that affect my child's access to those books? To say they still have access to those books through their parents or outside of the library is to partially defeat the purpose of a library in the first place.

---

I think this is a good point. with technology now, parents should be able to have a 'no check out list' for their kids. The kid tries to check out the book, a message pops up so they know the parent doesn't want the kid to check this out. This seems like the most logical adult way to solve this.

Macarthur said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictating what that school teaches.

---

I think that I'll agree that conservatives actually feel this way when they begin to rebuke the conservative state governments passing bills to limit material that local communities are allowed to carry in their libraries.

If children's access to information should be controlled at the most granular level, then let it be at the level of individual parents. Could a compromise to the public library issue be to not ban ANY books, but allow parents control over what their children have access to? I would like for my children to have access to To Kill A Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye and Lord of the Flies and books with LGBTQ characters. That is fine if others don't . . . .but why should that affect my child's access to those books? To say they still have access to those books through their parents or outside of the library is to partially defeat the purpose of a library in the first place.

---

I think this is a good point. with technology now, parents should be able to have a 'no check out list' for their kids. The kid tries to check out the book, a message pops up so they know the parent doesn't want the kid to check this out. This seems like the most logical adult way to solve this.

---

The parent has to be aware of every book entering the library and content within it for this to be adequate. The inverse is actually a better approach; parents should choose which books to unlock (an opt in approach) for their child to check them out. It helps the library serve the community better as well since they don't have to stock books that aren't in demand.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

You have a real point, but lets also not pretend that all education is altruistic. Education has been a primary ideological weapon going back to the invention of the printing press. Every ideology from the Nazi's with Hitler Youth to the Soviets with the Young Pioneers tries to indoctrinate the children as they are more impressionable than adults.

Whether you agree or not, a large swath of the country thinks we're in the midst of a cultural revolution, and they don't like the direction of that revolution. So they are actively fighting any attempts to use the public school system to push that ideology onto their children. Which circles back to my original point. If your community is funding, supporting and governing the school, then that community should be dictacting what that school teaches

---

So if a community decides that the Holocaust was a good thing, you'd be okay with them teaching that to every child in the school system? What guardrails are you okay with? Why should the loudest parents get veto power over what kids choose to read?

Quote:

---

I listened to Dave Rubin talk about adoption with Jordan Peterson and for all rubin's explanation about his desire to adopt, the kids are simply a tool for self actualization.

---

What does this mean? And have you ever met heterosexual helicopter parents?

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

This is why I have huge problems with this and the ill-defined "CRT." What disguises itself as well-meaning is really just censoring kids from controversial, but important subjects, thereby making the next generation more ignorant of history

---

I'd say that public schools, and even core university classes, don't teach history at all. They teach a carefully crafted narrative that bears only a passing resemblence to actual history.

---

Oh i couldn't agree more. History classes are heavily biased with a pro-America slant. Once I got out of school, started reading more books, and going to more museums, I couldn't believe how much was left out of history classes because it made America look bad. Horrors of the Vietnam war, US intervention in Latin America in the 80s, the ugly nitty gritty details of slavery and the civil rights movement. It's all whitewashed so badly.

People really cannot come to terms with the fact that yes, America has been the bad guy at times. And it's a shame how much is censored from students. If you dare teach any of this now a bunch of idiot parents will accuse the school of being anti-American/pro-communist and if it's in a red state the legislature and governor will make it illegal to teach it.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

I listened to Dave Rubin talk about adoption with Jordan Peterson and for all rubin's explanation about his desire to adopt, the kids are simply a tool for self actualization.

---

What does this mean? And have you ever met heterosexual helicopter parents?

---

You can always listen to the podcast and find out.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

First off: "obligatory user name fits."

Secondly: "book banning" is an emotionally manipulative term. Library stocking and organization are real valid considerations - ESPECIALLY in a children's section.

Ex: parents tell kids about Noah's ark in Pre-K ages, but hold off on the "why" of the flood, or the post-flood drunken incident until kids are older. And they hold off on topics like genocide, human sacrifice, sexual intercourse, sexual deviancy, torture, etc until their kids have aged and matured enough that discussion on those topics can actually be beneficial rather than just innocence-shattering.

In the same way - it is only reasonable that a library's selection should reflect material which is considered worth-while and age appropriate by the vast majority of parents whose children will supposedly be served by that communally funded resource.


TLDR: saying that The Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in the 1st Grade section isn't "book banning" any more than excluding Go Dog Go away from the Travel section is. It's a responsible application common sense.

---

Sure, Grapes of Wrath doesn't belong in a 1st grade section (for many reasons).

Lets do a hypothetical: Its been a while since my kids were young enough to read Go Dog Go to. But, lets say there is a page with Dog and his Mother and Father that read s"Here is dog with his mother and father". Now, imagine an equally benign children's book with the text "Here is dog with his mother and mother". Would that be a problem? It no more promotes homosexuality than hundreds of other children's books promote heterosexuality.

The age appropriate argument is valid in plenty of cases. In many other cases, I think parents are objecting to the idea of subjecting their children to anything that challenges their views. And parents are free to isolate and insulate their children as they see fit, and I would argue we parents should be careful about how much we isolate and insulate our children from reality.

---

As stewards of local children with a charter to impart valuable lessons unto those children BY THE TAXPAYING PUBLIC, and through their taxed $... The guidelines are to do things that the taxpayers want, and to avoid doing things that reasonable taxpayers may disagree with.

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

And to your insulation point. You may be cool with your 8yo earning some dollar bills during drag story hour - but that doesn't mean that the library should agree to be the venue for that debauchery.

Quote:

---

I think parents are objecting to the idea of subjecting their children to anything that challenges their views. And parents are free to isolate and insulate their children as they see fit, and I would argue we parents should be careful about how much we isolate and insulate our children from reality.

---

Tell Twitter that

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

I listened to Dave Rubin talk about adoption with Jordan Peterson and for all rubin's explanation about his desire to adopt, the kids are simply a tool for self actualization.

---

What does this mean? And have you ever met heterosexual helicopter parents?

---

You can always listen to the podcast and find out.

---

No thanks. You can always explain the examples you provide without expecting people to listen to Kermit the Jungian bloviate for hours on end.

Quote:

---

That looks different in different jurisdictions, but if a librarian's choices are causing drama - they're likely doing the job poorly.

---

Should a librarian be encouraging learning and critical thinking or limiting learning so that parents can indoctrinate without any interference from other views?

larry culpepper said:

---

This is one of those examples of a slippery slope in action.

Banning pornographic and wildly inappropriate books from schools? Fine. (But how much of that stuff was actually in schools in the first place?)

But this will and has already devolved into banning any book that hits on a controversial subject or makes people uncomfortable. Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Diary of Anne Frank. All deal with very serious and heavy topics. Huck Finn originally used the N word liberally until censored versions came out.

This is why I have huge problems with this and the ill-defined "CRT." What disguises itself as well-meaning is really just censoring kids from controversial, but important subjects, thereby making the next generation more ignorant of history.

---

Great write up. The sad reality with the books you specifically mentioned is that the idiots try to deprive school kids from these books because they might be hard to read or make them uncomfortable….. that's the whole point.

You're supposed to read to Kill a Mockingbird and by disturbed at the unjust legal system under jim crow in the south. That's the whole point. Something, something about not learning from history and repeating it.

SMH