In this case it could be good business sense. From The Guardian [1]: Theodor Seuss Geisel was born in 1904 and died in 1991. More than 600m copies of his books are in circulation, earning Dr Seuss Enterprises about $33m before tax in 2020, up from $9.5m in 2015, according to the company.

Forbes listed Dr Seuss as the second highest-paid dead celebrity of 2020, in part thanks to multimillion-dollar film and TV deals but mostly because of sales of his books.

It is probably prudent, from a business/investment perspective, for a publisher (or rights owner) to ring-fence works that it considers problematic, by being seen proactively to remove them from sale and stating the reason. This would tend to mitigate the chance of an intemperate backlash against the entire Dr Seuss catalogue.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/02/six-dr-seuss-b...

People, and organisations, self-censor all the time. It may be problematic, depending on the circumstances, and the external pressures and forces which lead them to do so. In this particular case, I don't see anything overly damaging about the cause > effect: "many people are not comfortable, and do not enjoy, reading crude racial caricatures" > "we'll stop publishing some books which contain them".

What about every other book that is out of print?

Self-censorship also?

“Every publisher must be forced to continually publish every item that exists in their catalogue, even if the publisher themselves finds that item embarrassingly racist. Otherwise, the SJWs win.”

Seriously this is just incoherent. Dr. Seuss himself amended some of his past work while he was still alive because he was embarrassed by his earlier racism. His estate is certainly allowed to make similar decisions. It is not censorship.