Hacker News Reader

My middle school had a "parental override" of some sort that parents could use to deny their children access to certain books of certain topics. Worked great.

In terms of "but is the library stocking enough books on conservative views", who knows what that even means. Is there a book out there that serves as a sufficient counterpoint to Roots? Does a library have to offer The Turner Diaries if they're going to stock Dawn?

I think I gave some pretty specific example areas, but to get even more granular: I wonder if they will stock McWhorter’s “Woke Racism” or Abigail Shrier’s “Irreversable Damage.”

As to the question “what about books I think are really bad?” I don’t see how that’s much different than what these parents are asking.

And personally, I would expect high school libraries to have Lenin’s “What is to be done?” and Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” I wonder how many do?

The librarians I know generally want ALL THE BOOKS, especially the good and or "important" ones.

The trick is generally what defines "Good" and "Important". Just because a book presents a counter-perspective, it doesn't mean the book is worth stocking because the book isn't "good" (filled with inaccuracies, lies, whatever). But sometimes, even a "bad" book is "important". But sometimes it's not. So edge cases abound.

But, just as a check, the Chicago (super liberal city run by super liberal everything) public library system does have "Woke Racism" available.

As does the Austin system.

High School libraries are more limited, so they're obviously not going to have every book, and I'm sure gaps exist for any ideological/partisan view.

‘The librarians I know generally want ALL THE BOOKS, especially the good and or "important" ones.’

By and large I agree with them. But, I don’t think that when the people running a public institution disproportionately represent one cultural perspective, we should automatically trust what they believe about what is “good” or “important,” especially when they are making decisions over the objections of another group in the public. Like I said above, I don’t think you should dismiss a person’s perspective only because if immutable characteristics, but when one group controlling an institution treats its own preferences as an objectively correct “view from nowhere” you should be suspicious. I was persuaded to this idea by my fellow lefties, who seem to forget it entirely when the group running the institution is like them (college educated. Likes PBS) and the group objecting is one they don’t like (conservative white Christians).

“People like me have views that are right and good and children of The Other will be better off if we can teach them the backwards, ignorant values of their parents are wrong” is the view of the “parents should have no say” crowd of today and the “Indian residential schools are a good idea” crowd of the past.

If a person thinks that to the greatest degree possible the preferences of conservative / working class parents shouldn’t hamper access for other kids, i’m with them. If they think “the experts” who happen to be the same SEC / social class as themselves are neutral arbiters of goodness, I think they should reflect on what that generally looks like.

As for Austin and Chicago, we’re talking about public schools here. A context where parents who aren’t well off are forced to send their kids to be taught by agents of the state. It is a much bigger deal if the public schools only represent the views of the liberal college educated class.

We don't have to automatically trust them, and challenging is important. I basically agree with everything else you said, but I also don't think it's that big a deal outside of edge cases.

My main issue with this story, and stories like it, is that parent's aren't arguing "we need the library to stock more books which present my beliefs in a favorable light".

They're generally arguing "I don't want books available to any child that present anything I don't personally agree with."

So, yes, absolutely, we should be cautious about institutional ideological blinders.

But I'm under no obligation to take serious anyone whose response to those blinders is to limit access instead of expand access.

Yeah, i agree this is the wrong battle.

> If your conclusion from that is that it’s ok for the school to enforce one group’s values on the children of parents who disagree, then I don’t think you can have a principled objection to the “banning” of books.

How is not banning / removing / restricting a book "enforc[ing] one group’s values on the children"? Just having a book available for those kids who want it is not the same as forcing all kids to read it.

>> How is not banning / removing / restricting a book "enforc[ing] one group’s values on the children"?

The sentence you quoted literally presumes that that is the case. I say if you think it’s ok for one group to impose its values on kids as a whole you should think what these parents are doing (trying to impose their values) is ok.

But I suggest we should instead try to look for non-zero-sum solutions where neither group does that.

But just offering the book, without forcing them to read it, is not imposing one's values on kids. What the parents are doing, forbidding the kids from reading it, is imposing their (not the kids'!) values. They're not equivalent.

IMO the non-zero-sum solution is exactly where neither group imposes their values on the kids, i.e. making the book available for those who want to read it (which will have to mean available for all of them, since we can't know in advance which of them will want to), without either making it mandatory to read or forbidding them from reading it.

Seems to me one of the sides of this issue is a lot closer to that ideal than the other.

Maybe parents should just have no say in what books are available at a school library? They don't like what their kids are being taught, they're free to put them in another school

So to be clear, you would be fine with removing these books if it were done in spite of the desires of the parents but not in response to the parents. After all someone gets to pick what’s in the library.

And do you feel this way about other government services “these people can receive government benefits too if they agree to sending their children to 3 hours of conservative political indoctrination per week. If they have a problem with that, I guess they shouldn’t be poor.”

Should citizens have influence over the police? I mean if they don’t like the service they can always just move to a rich neighborhood.

ETA: I should not have jumped to conclusions. Maybe you think poor and middle class parents should be able to influence their kids education too. Maybe you’re pro vouchers or something.