Hacker News Reader

Comment by riazrizvi | Hacker News Reader

I hate the current trend in histrionic social media. A ‘banned book’ is one that you are not allowed to own by the State. You face fines, detention, interrogation, prison, torture, execution. Examples are 1984, The Satanic Verses. Countries that maintain book bans are Iran, China, Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan.

Your school not stocking books you want is not a ban. It’s the prerogative of the institution to choose how it shapes minds. It cannot avoid taking on some angle, since any incomplete collection is an editorial choice.

View on HN

>A ‘banned book’ is one that you are not allowed to own by the State.

>Your school not stocking books you want is not a ban. It’s the prerogative of the institution to choose how it shapes minds.

At least some of these books are banned from schools by state-level law, not because the school district chose to not stock it.

Which books and which law? Aren't there other books that are banned for legitimate reasons like hate speech and racial hate that aren't included here?

Florida bill 1069 allows parents to challenge the inclusion of books in the library, but only explicitly identifies books related to sexual preferences/conduct/etc.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1069/BillText/er/...

The bill is all about pronouns, heterosexuality, abstinence, and getting books out of libraries on those grounds.

Inclusion != ban.

A ban would be you'd get in trouble for having the book in your possession, which isn't the case here.

Parents can sue the schools for retaining books they've challenged.

Again, you are redefining the word "ban" to suit your arguments. The use of that word within the context of the article is different.

>Which books and which law?

The one I was referring to:

https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2024/08/02/utah-book-b...

"The law, which went into effect July 1, requires that a book be removed from all public schools in the state if at least three school districts (or at least two school districts and five charter schools) determine it amounts to “objective sensitive material”"

It seems like there may be more similar laws, per sibling comment.

>Aren't there other books that are banned for legitimate reasons like hate speech and racial hate that aren't included here?

I don't know, and I'm not sure how it is related to my comment. I did not create the list in the article and I don't maintain any other list of banned books.

This says it's a removal from the library, not a ban. You can have it with you, but it won't be available in the school library.

Would you want your kids reading Mein Kampf or The Passing of the Great Race? I wouldn't.

>You can have it with you, but it won't be available in the school library.

No, they are "prohibited in the school setting". You cannot bring it with you.

This is not a case of a school or librarian choosing books. This is a case of some external party forcing them to remove books.

The state is not an "external party" to a school. Schools are run by the state; they are not sovereign or independent entities empowered to make their own decisions.

And the state is a function of the voting electorate, so by your logic anyone who casts a vote is effectively a school supervisor... yet some of them are mysteriously forbidden from stepping foot on school property.

Can you back this up with a source?

https://www.metroweekly.com/2024/06/an-idaho-library-goes-ad...

This isn't a school?

That's true. I provided you with a link to the text to the Florida bill that does impact school libraries in another thread.

The FAQ from that same site?

https://pen.org/book-bans/book-bans-frequently-asked-questio...

Not exactly a ban, as per their own source.

That link answered the question you asked, I’ll presume you are just being argumentative, and starting to border sea lioning.

Why are elected officials and parents "external parties" to the education of their children, while librarians are.. "internal"? What gives one, but not the other, the moral authority to decide what kind of education to give children (compelled by law to attend public school)?

Librarians actually read the books and are experts in the curation of the books. It is not actually about moral authority it is about expertise.

Special accommodations are made for students. Parents can ask for their child not to participate in activities they deem inappropriate. I see this happen all of the time during Halloween events. It would be nice if Christian conservatives would do the same.

> It is not actually about moral authority it is about expertise.

I sure am glad that there is an Objectively Correct set of books children should be exposed to, unaffected by issues of identity, politics, or morality, and it's just a matter of applying dispassionate expertise to discover it.

And of course, that this is what librarians are doing, and not letting their personal beliefs interfere.

It sounds like you are trying to say there is no such thing as expertise. These people have degrees in education and/or library science. Why bother going to university to learn anything then?

No, I am saying there is no such objectively correct set of books. Hiding behind "expertise" doesn't make educational decisions less political. Children can be indoctrinated more, or less, "expertly".

But then everyone knows this, and I don't for a second believe you or anyone else thinks school librarians make decisions entirely based on universal (i.e. not specific to any country, ethnic group, or political persuasion) dispassionate principles. You're only pretending to to win an argument, then you'll go right back to believing the opposite, and call for libraries to be "decolonized" [1].

I guess we're lucky libraries are expert and objective now, unlike how they were 3 years ago when they were biased and needed decolonizing. Except the ones that haven't decolonized yet, of course. Those librarians' expertise and judgment can still be questioned.

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/narrative-expansion...

There is a difference between a professional academic librarians managing a collection and political activists suppressing societal critiques and marginalized identities.

The reference you posted is about collection management at libraries London School of Economics in England. England has different history with respect to colonization than the US. A sordid history in-fact. We are also talking books for adults not children under 18.

The US itself is was decolonization project. I hope you know that colonialism is rarely judged a good thing in modern scholarship.

> There is a difference between a professional academic librarians managing a collection and political activists suppressing societal critiques and marginalized identities.

Yes, the difference is the political activism of librarians is institutionalized [0]. You don't view the absence of Jared Taylor's "White Identity", or any similar book, from school libraries, as "suppressing societal critiques", do you? Why, because it's done quietly and tacitly?

It's so funny seeing the same people complaining how every institution is systemically racist or whatever-ist (including math [1,2] - I made sure links are for the US, since apparently that is such a special case that critiques of institutions in even the most closely related countries are completely inapplicable to it), then turn around and claim that "no, this institution that does what I like is beyond politics, driven by pure expertise", even in a field as fuzzy and political as child education.

> The reference you posted is about collection management at libraries London School of Economics in England.

Thank you for this uselessly reductive interpretation. While yes of course libraries in those other, lesser countries are politicized and in need of correction, libraries in the US are objective and beyond reproach - unless [3] that [4] reproach [5] comes [6] from [7] the [8] left [9,10,11].

When activists lobby to change institutions how I like, this is good and necessary - those institutions are systemically racist, colonialist, and biased!

When activists lobby to change institutions how you like [12], this is bad and political - those institutions are dispassionate, apolitical, objective experts!

[0] https://libnews.umn.edu/event/librarians-and-social-justice-...

[1] https://www.clrn.org/why-is-mathematics-racist/

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/modern-mathematic...

[3] What It Means to Decolonize the Library - https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/l...

[4] Interpreting decolonization in academic libraries - https://www.ala.org/news/2021/12/interpreting-decolonization...

[5] Decolonizing the CSW Library - https://library.csw.org/home/decolonize

[6] Taking Steps to Decolonize Library Collections, Policies, and Services - https://serials.atla.com/proceedings/article/download/3336/4...

[7] Over the last decade, there have been increasing calls to “decolonize” the archive. - https://whc.yale.edu/what-colonial-archive

[8] Diversifying the Curriculum & Decolonizing the Collection - https://blogs.library.duke.edu/blog/2022/04/11/diversifying-...

[9] Remembering the Howard University Librarian Who Decolonized the Way Books Were Catalogued - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/remembering-howard-un...

[10] Diversifying Collections - https://www.wocandlib.org/features/2022/5/11/diversifying-co...

[11] Anti-Racist Collections Workbook: A Tool for Building Inclusive Library Collections - https://www.journals.ala.org/index.php/lrts/article/view/855...

[12] I don't actually like it, I just don't fool myself into thinking what librarians are doing is any different. If anything, it is worse, since it is invisible and unchallenged.

What should we call it when you may know of a specific book but be unable to access it through any path available to you?

Banned makes sense to me as shorthand though sure it's not quite exactly accurate. Suggest me an alternative?

EDIT: This was a sincere and I thought pretty neutral question but I have clearly touched a nerve with this. Everyone seems to be having a great time.

Non-stocked by schools? That's literally what is happening.

Prevented to be stocked? Library removed?

What should we call it when you can legally acquire the book, read and share it with other people with no concern from the law or authorities whatsoever? Do you think the correct word for this is "banned"?

We have, broadly speaking, two groups deciding which books to make available to children using taxpayer money - the voters/parents/elected officials, and unelected librarians. If one of those groups decides to withhold a book from schoolchildren, it's fine and not a ban. But if another does the same, then it's a ban.

Or am I completely wrong, and Jared Taylor's "White Identity" is available in every school library, explaining its absence from "banned" book lists?

You are wilfully wrong.

So Jared Taylor's "White Identity" is available in most school libraries?

No, your strawman has nothing to do with the article's content.

Of course it does - the article makes a big deal about books banned [1] by parents/politicians, but turns a blind eye to books banned by librarians themselves. I refuse that framing.

[1] 'Banned' meaning not using taxpayer money to make them available to schoolchildren.

Make your own list then, instead of having toddler conniptions about this one.

> What should we call it when you may know of a specific book but be unable to access it through any path available to you?

"Unavailable" ?

Librarians and schools have always been able to curate their collections as they see fit. The issue here is the state is now getting directly involved which has very little precedent since the Red Scare.

Oh I see now. You are describing the ongoing laws which restrict minors from viewing certain content. You are calling this ‘book banning’.

Yeah, no.

A simple Google search would provide the answer you (aren't) seeking: https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/state-laws-on-book-b...

Librarians culling collections by any arbitrary criteria = good, fine. (We even have examples of all books prior to 2000 being mass deleted!)

Parents (customers) lobbying school administrators about what should be in the school library = bad, evil.

I thought the countries you listed as maintaining book bans was a little short, given that basically every Western/First World/Global North country has previously banned or continues to ban books. For instance, Belgium, Finland, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, South Korea, and the United States have all banned the sale and publication of books within recent memory, with restrictions on the importation of books and potential detention and fines for people importing them, and there may have been legal challenges made to the authors and publishers of books.

The definition you gave for banning books does narrow it down a bit though. Restriction on the publication, sale, or importation isn't a ban, but possession is. Ah. I guess a book is only banned if you face legal consequences for owning it after purchase during the very limited window that it may appear on bookshelves. In that case, I can't say for certain that Australia, Canada, Germany, and New Zealand bans books, but I can say that I would not want to be in possession of certain types of books in these countries. The definition of 'banned books' gets a little murky here though, is the inevitable police detention and interrogation due to the possession of the books themselves or rather obscenity/hate speech/Nazism/terrorism/drug laws? Does it count if the detention and interrogation occurs after an unrelated search of your property? Is a book only banned if it is confiscated from your possession? Does it count if you win your court case?

Which leaves the only Western nations that fit such a definition as being Austria and the United Kingdom, which do objectively criminalise the possession of banned books.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com