I dont have a problem with parents wanting school libraries to only have appropriate books. I think the presentation by the media as "book banning" is pretty ridiculous.
I assume poster is already living in that world, where what is appropriate is decided by people with very different opinions.
I know that the people pushing those beliefs consider them the one true, correct set of moral beliefs that every right-thinking person should hold - so much so thatt they reject the idea of naming them, because that would suggest there could be other correct beliefs. That's not very convincing to anyone who doesn't already share their beliefs though (especially given how often and quickly they shift).
We shouldn’t, that’s my point. I’m not sure what you’re referring to, but if there were secular groups trying to ban books I’d feel the same way.
Being public libraries, I assume there are official channels with which to convey opinions to the powers that be, and proper procedures that must be followed to permit or not permit books from being included in a library's collection.
What's more, being public, it's reasonable to assume the libraries are funded in majority from taxpayer money.
So personally: If the taxpayers who provide the money for the library are unsatisfied with the library's book selection, file formal complaints, and the books are subsequently removed as applicable, I see no problem.
And ultimately: Taxpayers (aka voters) have the ultimate and absolute authority to just rescind funding for public libraries and/or school districts with objectional collections if they refuse to comply with complaints and other such requests and demands.
Protect freedom so as to avoid being one left standing when the music pauses. Cue Pink Floyd.
Like i said in another comment, while i haven't read most of the books discussed, I've read 'a modern romance' (Streisand effect mostly tbh), and 'a handmaid's tale'. Those are infinitely less stressful to read than 1984 (especially the last part which still traumatize me 17 years after) or even worse: Howard Buten books, which were so fundamental in my development, but the most stressful read.
Of you think those should be banned from school libraries, why not, but please, do we agree this is still banning books.
Also the "we put the 'lit' in literature" exposition which shows old, now unbanned classics, Fahrenheit 451 and books burned in public by the local pastor: pure genius.
Then they should try convincing more fellow taxpayers, aka voters, to get the things they want passed.
In a democracy, majority consensus rules. If you're in a minority and failed to be accomodated by the majority consensus, sucks to be you.
>but please, do we agree this is still banning books.
Nope, because the books are freely available using your own money.
Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
I am a fan of democracy but when it comes to a local issue like this, the reality is “consensus of the people who have the most free time rules”. It’s not like there was a vote on whether to ban these books, and my hunch is such a vote would not have passed.
> Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
You aren't a "fan of democracy" if you immediately toss it out because you don't like its results.
Also, there has been at least one prior example of a public library losing its public funding[1] after angering voters with their defiant behaviour.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32364615
>They literally removed books from shelves and locked them in cabinets, this isn’t just about procurement.
And? You can still buy those books from your favorite bookstore or other retailer if you really want them that badly.
And it contradicts your implication that this is about procurement/use of public funds.
> Refusing to have books procured and presented using public funds is not book banning.
I admit that I have an incomplete understanding of the situation, because as I mentioned earlier the NYT article is obnoxious to read.
But what I presume is: A public library removed books from its collection after complaints from the public.
That isn't book banning, not the least because the people demanding this are the people themselves.
Anyone who really still wants those books can procure them with their own money. Nobody's stopping that. The only thing the public is stopping is using public funds to procure and present those books.
This is not "the people", this is a very small handful of people.
In fact, it is a group of people attempting to use policies designed to stop actual pornography from getting into the library to ban LGBTQ and race-centric memoirs, well regarded critical works like Beloved, Lolita, and Maus, and completely age-appropriate books.
This is an decidely undemocratic action, and as stated above, it's disproportionately voiced by "people with free time" (including free time to send death threats and show up at school board meetings carrying assault rifles)
Deciding whether Anne Frank's diary belongs in a school library should not be a function of who can yell the loudest. Thay is what small children do.
If there was an actual vote by "the people" on these works, they would be allowed in a heartbeat. But the reason we don't have votes on books is because minority views have rights, too, and what's in the library is not a popularity contest.
So there is no "majority consensus" option here. Minority views have rights, too.
This is purely in terms of what can be declared "harmful" or "obscene" or "inappropriate" and again, these have to be weighed against the artistic merit and value of the work as a whole (so a single sex scene in a memoir doesn't count.)
And yeah it is book banning and has a chilling effect - my duaghter brought a book from home and had it stolen - as we later learned, it was by a teacher who was worried they (the teachers) would get in trouble for it being at the school at all, regardless of how it got there.
They're free to form their own groups that push for keeping the books. TFA doesn't say whether there's actually a group though[1].
[1] The article writing style is deliberately short on facts and long on emotion. I see this often in New York Times posts, and it's infuriating to read, because to glean two or three facts you have to read all this irrelevant stuff like how the person grew up, what they did as a kid, etc.
What's your alternative proposal?
It looks to me like the system is working as intended; if something matters to you, form a group and petition the government.
If they "came for" all the books in a particular library, you (as a parent) could check the book you wanted out from another library, or buy it from a bookstore, or download it from a sketchy drive link you find on google, or recover it from an airdrop of literary material dropped into your occupied zone.
These books are "banned" in the same way that Starbucks red cups are "banned" in July.
Saying that parents can go to a bookstore or to another library misses the point.
The point is for these materials to be widely available. Is there a "banned" book that isn't available on the internet for free? No.
So does blocking websites. Should school computers also provide unrestricted internet access? Or provide safer filtered access blocking a wide range of the most 'harmful' sites?
'Banned books' sounds dramatic, but is it any worse than blocking social media, porn, and gambling sites on the school network?
One website blocked here in Katy ISD is The Trevor Project, which is a suicide prevention support site for LGBTQ youth.
I strongly encourage you to visit this site for 2 minutes and imagine having to explain what policy this site violates.
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/
This is a small group of busybodies trying to declare that their "boundary of appropriateness" should apply to all students. That's just a pleasant form of thoughtcrime.
A simple solution would be a third category between "appropriate" and "inappropriate " - call it "borderline" - and have an opt in policy for children for these books.
Letting each parent decide for their own child what is appropriate is fine.
What's happening here is not.
Source: Texas school parent, weirded out by casual fascism
If you genuinely care about child suicide, you'd want to keep children well away from social media for as long as humanly possible. It's harmful enough even to adults!
Big deal. We already shape opinions by having a vocal minority successfully shout down dissenting opinions.
From the article it's hard to tell whether this is from a vocal minority of the libraries target audience, or a majority opinion.
https://nassimtaleb.org/2016/08/intolerant-wins-dictatorship...
*picking a side here will be left as an exercise to the reader
The "came for" was a reference to the holocaust [1]. It starts with books in this library but OP was implying these people will escalate to a total book ban. And when books are burned, humans will soon follow [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
[2] https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/where-they-bu...
And they were children's books, written to be appropriate for children: “Larry the Farting Leprechaun,” “Gary the Goose and His Gas on the Loose,” “Freddie the Farting Snowman” and “Harvey the Heart Had Too Many Farts,” along with “My Butt Is So Noisy!” and “I Broke My Butt!”
If someone doesn't want their 5 year old to read about farts, then don't borrow the books. If someone else wants their children to enjoy reading funny books let them.
If the school / library bans the book and the answer is “if you want YOUR kid to read it buy it yourself” then now we’ve got the problem of the next generation growing up with some kids learning only half of our history.
To me, that doesn't translate to defining what other parent's children get to read.
If some folks think fart/butt books are not appropriate for their children, that's fine. They should tell their kids that, and follow up to make sure the child's behaviour reflects that view.
[Edit: fixed typo]
It is rather concerning to many people that some people want to decide what children can and can not be taught or allowed to find out about.
When you start dealing with public institutions, aka Other Peoples' Monies(tm), you don't get to say your way or the highway, one way or another.
Anyone is welcome to make their own private school and library as they see fit with their own private money and time. But if you are going to peruse public schools and libraries, opinions from various people (namely the taxpayers, aka voters) have to be gathered and reconciled into a final consensus which may or may not be to your liking.
Right, so why are you defending folks who are saying "my way or the highway" by denying access to books?
If they don't want their children to read such books, then they should, you know, parent and know what their kids are up to, not force their beliefs on everyone else.
But what is appropriate for teens? Because 1984 is way more traumatizing than a Modern romance or Heavy. The last part, with the psychological torture and mind control? Inappropriate, we should remove it from school libraries and stop the book just before the arrestation. Re-edit the book without the last part, which isn't the part we use to attack our political opponents anyway, we will still be able to misuse the word novlang. Name it "appropriate 1984" and put it back on the shelf. I remember I couldn't eat for a day after i read about the arrestation and the subsequent torture in the book, at 14. Remove that part for teenagers please, its safer. And appropriate.