US public schools banned 10k books in most recent academic year
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Every book removed/withheld should be replaced by a volume explaining why it was withheld, in terms a child can understand. Some of these bans wouldn't have happened because even children could've seen how full of shit some adults are.
You are aware that this already happens without bans, right?
The ultimate board of censors is the school and library staff that decides on your behalf what kind of books you and your kids should be exposed to.
It's not like the school library is some sort of the Great Library of Alexandria and the censors came to take out the "good stuff".
What happens is that the library staff is in position to censor and proselytize their ideologies and weird secular religions. These bans really are aimed at library staff than restricting childrens access to read whatever they want.
I highly doubt school libraries function any differently. Every year you receive a magazine with books who received prizes/recommendations, you move older books that aren't read to the reserve and command new ones. In my country, you especially have the 'highschooler prize' (not sure how to translate it), which is voted upon by students from 50 different highschool accross the country, and the winners are always recommended by the magazine.
My advice would be, rather than preventing librarians to do their job, maybe write better books? Prevent new commands rather than remove already existing books? Because putting 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' on the shelves isn't ideology, just good taste. Removing it is.
What really grind my gear is that I would bet censors don't read or review books. Book reviewing was a staple of my curriculum from 11 to 16, so I imagine it isn't hard. Censors should have to write at least a book review a year, graded (not to prevent them to censor, just publish the grade so we could see their reading level).
Changing that would require to put educated people in schools ... and that would require competing with senior-level jobs in private companies which at this point would be a doubling or tripling or even more of teacher pay in quite a few places.
I'm used to most libraries being part of a national system of libraries, which will get you volumes shipped from another one if they don't have it there.
Local curation doesn't mean much since your main interface to those libraries nowadays is a digital one that has pretty much any physical media with an ISBN in it, from where you can request non-locally-available media.
Maybe the states operate differently and (school) libraries are more independent. Most schools here don't have their own library at all and instead rely on the nearest public one...
Most library boards are very happy to order any book that is requested by multiple students. My daughter's high school library contains a lot of manga that would never have been ordered by any "ultimate board of censors".
Do these concerned parents (censors) want to take off Harry Poters and The Hobbit and similar in demand youth literature?
Doesn't look like it at all.
As far as I can tell, kids aren't interested in most of the weird shit what's getting restricted from the school library. The only people that are concerned about the books in question being restricted in public schools are ideologues that want to peddle their weirdo stuff to kids.
Also, I know several parents who would love to see Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings banned because they say they are about the Occult and demons and Anti-Christian and so on. Many are vocal about it at school board meetings. I don’t think librarians should give in to these bullies, either.
I'm sure there are. But was Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings restricted? Or literature kids want to read? No?
Then you don't have an argument.
If the books that were restricted are of no interest to kids, nor does their parents want their kids exposed to it by ideologically driven librarians or teachers, I don't see any issue in it whatsoever.
Keep in mind that school libraries can allow books about World War 2 without promoting (or peddling) war.
Also, Harry Potter constantly tops lists of most-banned books in libraries.
>Also, Harry Potter constantly tops lists of most-banned books in libraries.
Well, then that is clearly bad.
The article does clearly communicate and wear it's convictions on it's sleave about what it is concerned about, and I see no mention of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings there.
I think the people who spend the most time in school libraries must be the Book Banners, desperately looking high and low for something to be outraged about.
The only weird ideology youve cited so far is “human sexuality” which is neither weird nor an ideology.
Children should not be exposed to sexual material at an early developmental age. That's sexual child abuse.
In the US you mean? This is a thing to ban books in libraries, especially ones that sell well?
A book ban can take many forms, it can be diminished access, it can be explicit removal, it can be shuffled to a back room to make room for other content. What is common though, is administration, the school board, or legislature being the impetus in the decision of the removal of content.
> The media claimed that the removed books were banned even though kids were allowed to read their copy
This statement is why I’m thinking you’re not arguing in good faith.
The structure and forms of communication kids have at their fingertips these days provides plenty of ways to explore these topics, unfortunately mixed in with low quality or possibly dangerous content.
I think those who push back hard against these topics are accelerating a counter-reaction, and I'm here for it. This is a weird thing to obsess against.
But I really don't want that being pushed into my daughter at a young age, not until she can mount her own idea of what she is. Much in the same way I don't want religion being pushed into her from a young age, not until she can have an idea of how she views the world.
And yes, it is all very cute and girly. But she is also still a baby, and the wife would hang me by the balls if I bought our baby daughter boy's clothes.
Not that I would anyway. It melts my heart seeing her in her tiny little dresses, with cute headbands and all.
The practical part is that this is the societal default. And while she is a child there will be many benefits in just following that. As I said, she will have space to explore themes of sexuality and gender once her age is more suitable. Until then, she is the little princess.
I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife. They might go through a phase where they prefer being called or boy, or an ostrich, or reject every label, and it doesn't have to be a crisis, it's just a normal part of growing up.
I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow. What I can tell is that challenging the rules come at a price. I don't want to impose that price on my daughter. If she wants to challenge societal rules (against my advice) when she is old enough to do so, she will have my support.
> Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
Asking her things now is foolish. She is only months old.
If she prefers playing with cars and trains rather than dolls, I will buy her cars and trains.
To be frank, I think all those are lame. I will try to nudge her into liking puzzles, board games, painting, that sort of stuff. And later on videogames. I dream of the day she will be old enough to play Mario Kart with me and beat me.
> I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife
I agree, but that will be at an age when she can meaningfully build her own idea of self. Right now she cries when her nappies are dirty, and likes when I make her sleep walking arond the bedroom holding her against my chest. I don't think she can mount an intellectual defense about her own gender identity, or about religion, or any such complex subjects.
Many parents aren't assigning a gender at birth. Many have same-sex parents. Many parents are hateful, and have kids who they've taught their hatred towards. "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children. There's consequences to following the rules as much as breaking them (if they are even rules to begin with).
Maybe. I have no idea what her interests and desires will be, nor do I control them. I can at best try to nudge them in certain directions, and offer what little guidance and support I can when the time comes.
What I can say in the subject of sexuality and gender, is that it was something I was completely uninterested in until I was closer to puberty. My peers were pretty much the same. I have the impression that younger generations are dealing with it much earlier. I am not sure if this is healthy. I tend to think it is not.
> "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children.
One of my main challenges is guiding my daughter on how to navigate a world that at best is uninterested in her happiness and well being, and at worst is outright malevolent.
Part of this challenge is teaching her that society has many expectations of her, and choosing what mountains to climb and what hills to die on is something that is part of life.
Since sexuality and gender are very touchy subjects, I can give many other examples. She is expected to go through school, no matter if she wants to. When she is older she is expected to have skills that are of use in a system of work and bosses that you have to adhere to in order to have a functional life. I can go on and on about the very many things that are imposed on everyone by a careless, harsh, and unfair world.
Not following rules is typically a luxury of the elites. While I am thankfully much more affluent than my parents were, we are far from rich.
Yes. That is the literal definition of having information pushed on to her.
The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air, they would be contained in the text. As a father, who is responsible for her health, well-being, education, happiness and future, I want her to occupy her mind with things more suitable for a child.
I won't give her the Bible for the same reason.
> The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
I don't know. And honestly, I don't care. She has the world to explore at her young age, and there is so much more in the universe. I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage, when her body and mind are more suited to such things. If at that point she wants to be whatever, she will have my support. I want her happiness after all.
You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
> I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage
Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing. The proof for that is very simple: Exposing a girl to a boy doesn't make her a boy. Exposing a child to a heterosexual relationship doesn't make them heterosexual.
Instead, exposing children to drag queens and gays and lesbians and asexuals and trans individuals means that there's a the greater the chance they will choose to continue to live if they are something other than a CIS gendered girl attracted to boys. It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
> I want her happiness after all.
Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Yes. She will likely hear about God from peers with religious parents. Are you suggesting I teach her the Bible so she gets "accurate information"?
Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
> Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Because as a father I have to make choices on her behalf, with her well being in mind. And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
> Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing.
Absolutely, she will be gradually exposed to many things and situations as she grows. All things in due time.
> It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
There will, unavoidably, come a time when she will come to understand her own sexuality, how she views her body, etc and so forth. Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included. She will have my full support no matter her choices. Until then my role is to help her develop the best way I can.
> Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
> Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her, much less what pronoums I use to refer to her in the third person. Your sarcastic quotation marks do very little to support your rationale.
And I made it clear what I mean by "old enough". Some subjects are complex, and demand a certain level of maturity to be properly tackled.
And what stance will you set with them to avoid discussing sexual orientation (or religion) when they report that their friend Austin has two moms? Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
> And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
> Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included.
Gender identity in particular has nothing to do with physical sexual maturity. It happens much earlier in life. And putting off any talks about gender identity until puberty starts means that the child in question will have changes forced upon their body that they may not want to live with at that point in time, even if they chose to remain their gender assigned to them at birth.
General preferences in attraction also start to manifest much earlier than 13; I remember knowing that I liked girls back in first grade.
> It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
> Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her[...]
My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
Thankfully, your child is young enough that you have time to think about it.
Depends on what kind of child she is, and how old she is, I think.
A dismissive reply of the sorts of "Yeah, some children have two moms. It is unusual, but it happens" is a likely answer. No reasom to make a fuss about it. If children are picking on the Austin kid for having lesbian moms, I'll try to teach her to be polite to the kid.
Children can be cruel sometimes. I know I used to be.
> Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
That one I have been debating myself how to address. Not specifically about some religious parent on a screed about gay people going to hell, but how to explain to her in simple terms that God, Hell, and so on are fictional ideas, allegories to try to explain the world, in a way that a child can understand, that is.
> Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
Yes, absolutely.
> What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Depends. My father started to teach me some simple math concepts when I was around 3 or 4. I already could do simple addition and subtraction when I started school, for example.
I plan to nudge her with those concepts when it comes time to play with her, but she has to show interest too. Forcing does nothing good.
> Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
I fundamentally disagree with basically everything written there. At a too young age she will be ill-equiped to understand the consequences of her choices, both at a personal level and at a social level.
> My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
I can only do my best, to the best of my judgement. As she gradually grows and builds her own interests and desires, my plan is to be a sort of guide, helping her navigate a complex (and sometimes malevolent) world.
I can at most nudge her in some directions, but ultimately I can't really force anything.
This article is one-sided and goes to great lengths to hide the reason those books were banned in schools.
Dig in a little, and you can find out how the various state laws are used, like Tennessee's HB 843 which effectively bans any book containing nudity in school libraries for anyone under 18.
The reason these books are banned is not explicitly mentioned in those laws of course.
It also forbids "sexual excitement", "sexual conduct", and "excess violence" which means that it bans the bible, books on mythology, every single history textbook, just about anything Shakespeare ever wrote, and pretty much any book with a character who has a love interest.