No. Not stocking a book because it's physically impossible to stock all books in the world is not the same as banning it.
The ALA's statement[1] is clear, and IMO common-sense: proscribing or removing content for doctrinal reasons is the problem.
Every American that I know (including myself) understands the phrase "book ban" to refer widely, if not exclusively, to school libraries in the context of American politics. It's been nearly 70 years since we've had otherwise politically notable book bans[1].
> And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?
Yes.
[1]: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/banned-books-wee...
That's just not true. "Banned book" has meant "book banned from schools and libraries" for a very long time. This is the meaning used by the American Library Association.
https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbook...
It is, for the time being and for most practical purposes, impossible to ban a book from being published in the USA. Other countries have bigger problems but that is not what people discuss in American politics.
>And did you find it just as egregious when Huckleberry Finn was banned in new york and california schools and public libraries for using the "n" word?
This is a very feeble gotcha.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-universitys-new-loyalty-oat...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equalit...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equalit... - A recent report from the Goldwater Institute found that 80% of job postings for Arizona’s public universities required applicants to submit a statement detailing their commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Are you implying these books are so unpopular that a good chunk of their influence and profitability is very much dependent on left-wing public school librarians subsidizing them by making sure they are included in the catalogues?
We should remember that a school library has limited space, so a decision is being made about what to include no matter what.
If you think ideology/doctrine doesn't already play a role in these decisions, I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate".
In principle, my libertarian side would have agreed with you that imposing these choices in a centralized way is not a good idea. But those principles are only meaningful in a classical liberal context. Not when scourges of affirmative action, indoctrination, ideological subsidies [1] and pseudo-liberal bureaucratic processes are used to impose ludicrous ideas upon us.
[1]: For examples of that, see https://dc.claremont.org/federal-progressive-subsidy-databas...
No; please don't editorialize. It's obvious that the goal of these bans is to ensure that children and young adults who otherwise wouldn't have access to these books continue to not have access.
> I invite you to check if the library of your local high school has a physical copy of say "When Harry Became Sally", "The Bell Curve", or even "The Blank Slate"
It has two of the three[1][2]. You need to reevaluate your assumptions here.
(And note: I grew up in a district where students simultaneously have access to one of the largest public library systems in the world, by default. I'm positive I could find all three additionally in that system.)
[1]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear...
[2]: https://search.follettsoftware.com/metasearch/ui/113378/sear...
I agree that the main goal is to reduce the access of children and young adults to these book, compared to the status quo. I don't think anyone is disputing that, one of the common rationales given being that these books are "inappropriate" for them.
However, framing this as a de facto book ban is definitely "editorializing".
> It has two of the three[1][2]. You need to reevaluate your assumptions here.
Touché. That isn't the typical high school though. It seems like a very good one, with competitive merit-based admission, and eight Nobel Prize-winning alumni. [1] Even then, you can see the biases of the high school librarians if you take a look at the collections page [2]: "LGBTQIA+", "BIPOC Reading List", "Grade 1: Inclusion contributes to a community’s diversity", "Indigenous Math & Science Collection", "Diverse Voices", etc.
Do you disagree that these are topics favored by left-wingers? Do they have collections promoting "Nuclear Energy", "Classics", "Freedom", "Family Values", "Meritocracy", or even "Personal Responsibility"?
> I grew up in a district where students simultaneously have access to one of the largest public library systems.
Good for them. I very much support that. Although there are significant biases in the procurement process for the public libraries, I assume their situation is probably much better than public school libraries.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bronx_High_School...
[2] https://collections.follettsoftware.com/collections/public
That's a lie. Or shall I say "gas lighting at best and a false flag at worst"?
"The Lithuanian press ban (Lithuanian: spaudos draudimas) was a ban on all Lithuanian language publications printed in the Latin alphabet in force from 1865 to 1904 within the Russian Empire, which controlled Lithuania proper at the time. Lithuanian-language publications that used Cyrillic were allowed and even encouraged." [0]
I don't know what else you'd call the use of state authority to restrict access to books, without painful euphemisms.
And note: the use of "book ban" to describe partisan curtailments of reading materials is not itself partisan[1]. You can find similar uses of the phrase in any partisan or non-partisan news source.
> Do you disagree that these are topics favored by left-wingers? Do they have collections promoting "Nuclear Energy", "Classics", "Freedom", "Family Values", "Meritocracy", or even "Personal Responsibility"?
There was a classics topic in our library. I think it would behoove you to think one step beyond this and observe that topical selections in libraries reflect three pressures:
1. What the audience (i.e., students in this case) actually wants to read;
2. What the librarian thinks will induce reading among the audience;
3. The librarian's own biases.
You're focusing on (3), when the reality is that (1) and (2) matter more. Asking high schoolers to get excited about a library section on "personal responsibility" or "meritocracy" sounds like a bad joke.
[1]: https://www.foxnews.com/us/library-book-bans-united-states-s...
First of all, this isn't just about state authority. Parental authority also plays a role. In many cases, removing books from circulation happens due to complaints by parents. This is just some form of parental/public input on what taxpayer money is being spent on, and what kind of books are appropriate for children.
Also, in our current situation, state authority is very often used in ways I would consider inappropriate. For example, in a lot of cases, affirmative action is not only allowed, but required by law. So, there aren't really many good reasons to strictly stick to classical liberal principles.
> And note: the use of "book ban" to describe partisan curtailments of reading materials is not itself partisan[1].
Fox News generally sucks beyond measure. Here's National Review's take (though it is a bit different than mine): https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/04/book-curation-is-not-...
> Asking high schoolers to get excited about a library section on "personal responsibility" or "meritocracy" sounds like a bad joke.
Maybe, but probably there are ways to hype up and sensationalize everything. Besides, I could come up with a lot of "exciting" topics which also probably wouldn't be emphasized: "Victims of Communism", "The Green Revolution in India", "Lysenkoism", etc.
Although you didn't say it explicitly, I assume we both can agree that the librarian's own biases do have a significant effect, and what the typical direction of those biases are. You may think this is a good thing, but that's besides the point.
Also, your (2) is also very much subject to personal biases.
It's not bizarre. It's not just about moral principles, but also practical realities.
> Children and teenagers aren't stupid
TBH, I kinda think they are, and I'm not exempting my teenage self. They are definitely impulsive, impressionable, and prone to fads and groupthink.
Have you heard of the book "Lord of the Flies"? Interestingly, this particular book has also been subject to what you would call a ban, at least in one case in because it's "racist". [1]
> Children and teenagers aren't stupid: what you're proposing is replacing subjects that they're interested in with ones that you're interested in, with your interest being an ideological one.
I don't think any of the topics I came up with are more ideological than the ones I mentioned from the library collections. However, probably what you count as ideological is itself influenced by the ideological glasses one's wearing.
> I think it's worth taking a step back and considering whether you'd be a worse librarian than the ones that we have; the ones at hand can at least offer the sound justification that increasingly large numbers of students feel comfortable self-identifying as LGBTQ.
Me personally? Maybe, but I could make suggestions which are definitely an improvement, but I don't think enough high school librarians would consider doing it. An example would be not purchasing any books by Ibram X. Kendi.
Additionally, I searched “fox news book bans” and “nbc book bans” and these were the first links that came up.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/choice-lies-parent-texas-dad-supp...
> Maia Kobabe’s book "Gender Queer" became one of the most banned books in the country in 2022. The book has been at the center of the debate over what books should be banned in schools.
https://www.nbcnews.com/data-graphics/map-book-bans-rise-rcn...
> School districts in 26 states have banned more than 1,000 books in the past nine months
Additionally, the Wikipedia article “ 2021–2022 book banning in the United States” discusses various cases of books being withdrawn from school libraries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021%E2%80%932022_book_banning...
To make my point stronger: I would call it a book ban, if English language books were illegal to write in the Latin alphabet, and only allowed in the Cyrillic alphabet. This would be consistent with the situation of Lithuanian language book ban (except it would not replace kindergarten and lower grades with Russian grammar schools).
Calling it a lie seems at the very least ignorant of the actual situation, or worse, willful twisting of history. If the former, I invite you to read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuanian_book_smugglers to find out on which day they are celebrated!
You can see it for yourself.
https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-ko...
This is apparently what it would be censorship to keep out of gradeschool libraries. If you're ok with the book, then I guess there's not much more to talk about. If you're now not ok with the book, then I guess this is the first time you actually saw inside of it.
We're told that there is a difference between doctrine and curation, and maybe in some theoretical world this is true. But in the world we actually live in, doctrine's already being pushed... they're just pretending that they're "merely curating". And they're demanding that the other side not be allowed any oversight on that curation. When they curate, good, when anyone else does it, well... they're the "bad guys".
Personally, I could not care less. If you want this book in schools, it does not affect me. But you should know what book it is we're talking about. Take a look, click the link.
This is not a "gotcha" or loophole of some type. Words have meanings[1]. If your argument relies on changing the meaning of a common word in the dictionary, it's your argument that is wrong, not the damn dictionary!
I mean, where are you going with this?
Are you seriously advocating that school libraries and librarians have free reign to determine which books to hold? Because that's how you get Intelligent Design introduced into schools. It's how you perpetuate stereotypes and bigotry.[2].
We don't want individuals exclusively responsible for determining what ideas may or may not be available to people. By having the ruling authority perform the determination, it becomes a collective determination by the taxpayers.
If the taxpayers are unhappy, they express their unhappiness with their vote.
I want to know, after reading your many emotionally charged arguments for why this must be called a "ban", exactly why you feel that the decision on literature suitability be made by selected individuals, and not by a voted-in government.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ban
[2] I've been atheist for decades, and I argued multiple times against allowing individuals within schools to determine what goes into the minds of children, because I've seen multiple times that the only end-result of allowing this is that the more passionate (engaged? Ideologues? Insane?) people tend to move into those positions that allow them to propagate their ideology.
It doesn’t matter whether I or anyone else has a problem with it. What matters is whether adolescents have a right to read it, which they do. I exercised that right as a student, and I would like other students to be able to do the same.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie%27s_Choice_(novel)
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_According_to_Garp
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/05/20/gender-q...
I did. Please don’t call people liars.
It’s a graphic novel depicting a sex act, albeit not particularly erotically.
The entire point of my other comments was that I checked out other books in high school, books that are widely considered excellent and have been for decades, that contained far more explicit “inappropriate” content. The only things different here are the facts that it’s (1) drawn, and (2) concerns LGBTQ identity.
> They don't have any such right, best that I can understand the legal framework of the western world.
We live under a negative legal scheme, not a positive one. I’m not aware of any law that says that children cannot read what they’d like to read, either federal or state.
Obscenity in the US has a distinct legal test[1], one that you and I both understand this book (and Sophie’s Choice) would pass easily. It also doesn’t mention children anywhere.
Finally: nobody in this thread wants children to be hurt, or to be exposed to things that will hurt them. But books, especially ones that are presented and explainable within an educational context, do not hurt children. If anything, adults tend to hurt themselves and others more based on books than children do.
https://www.kcrg.com/2023/05/19/this-book-is-gay-iowas-loomi...
Axios puts it nicely: it "states that a health professional who provides gender-affirming care to a trans person under 26 — or even refers a patient to another provider — could be sentenced to jail and lose their medical license."
Is this sufficient, or do you need more?
Right now Kazakhstan is transitioning from Cyrillic to Latin alphabet. This year children will be taught only Latin letters and they won't be able to read the texts in Kazakh language written in Cyrillic in the last 80 years.
Do you consider this a problem?
And there you go again - "children", except it's "children and adults"! In what other context are people treated as children while 25?
And I asked whether this was enough or not, because (naturally) this is not the only example. Here is a current bill from Florida which "prohibits health insurance policy & health maintenance contract from providing coverage for gender clinical interventions": https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1421/ByVersion
This is in addition to the stronger and more inflammatory language that conservatives are using these days, including the reaction to any corporate interaction with transgender individuals (Budlight etc.)
And one last point I want to get back to:
> social contagion
You believe this to be a social contagion. This is not what current scientific studies indicate, and it is definitely not broadly accepted. You putting it this way says a lot about you.