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
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...
The only reason they need collections like "LGBTQIA+" and "Diverse Voices" in the first place is because literally the rest of the collection will already be filled with "Classics", "Freedom", and "Family Values". Those are considered the default in society, there is no need to explicitly highlight them when you will already come across them without even trying.
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.
If public schools are purposely preventing books that would otherwise be present from being included in their libraries, how is that anything other than a book ban? A ban doesn't have to be across an entire legal jurisdiction to be a ban; if someone got wasted and tried to start a fight at a bar and then was never allowed back in again, you'd still say they were "banned" even if they were able to go to other bars in the city.
Parental opinions don't make a book ban into not-a-book-ban. They make it into a book ban fueled by parents. Road to hell, good intentions, etc.
The other point is bizarre: two wrongs don't make a right. Political revanchism because you don't like the other things your government does is not socially healthy (arguably, substantially less healthy than any of the topics that are being banned).
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 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.
Actually I think I would have less problems if the only people who can go to school policy discussions and make these requests are parents whose children are literally in that school system right now. I have repeatedly witnessed people who don’t have children in that school system show up to these things and debate about this. It’s very stupid.
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.
Or "The Turner Diaries" or "The Camp of the Saints" if you want some more extreme examples.