5 ms·

A lot of the other comments on here are saying that this is banning books from curricula [1]. But I would...like to see the sources for this assertion? All of

A lot of the other comments on here are saying that this is banning books from curricula [1]. But I would...like to see the sources for this assertion? All of the stories I have seen [1][2] say that the books are banned from the school library system. As far as I am aware, school libraries usually contain a wide range of books, not just whatever is required for the curriculum. So banning a book from a school library does seem to be a fairly strong suppression of ideas. Libraries have usually been the place where you go to find ideas outside the safe circle of whatever is permitted by your (usually insipid) curriculum. For example, I am not a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I am still glad I got to read her books from my school library, so I could make that decision for myself. School libraries curated by legislators with an agenda seem like a Really Bad Idea. ---------------------------------------- [1] This would be within limits, I guess, but still weird. Wouldn't you just use a different curriculum? [2] https://www.npr.org/2021/10/28/1050013664/texas-lawmaker-matt-krause-launches-inquiry-into-850-books https://www.npr.org/2021/10/28/1050013664/texas-lawmaker-mat... [3] https://www.kmuw.org/education/2021-11-09/goddard-school-district-orders-29-books-removed-from-circulation https://www.kmuw.org/education/2021-11-09/goddard-school-dis...

lr4444lr 5y ago
The books being on the school library or on classroom shelves connotes that the educational custodians of our children, who have literal and legal responsibility for their safety and well being on multiple levels, have approved them. Not so much to promote every idea they contain, but at least that they express things in a way that is psychologically appropriate for kids at their level of development. What kinds of ideas cross this line of appropriateness you or I may disagree on, but the point is that it exists in a school setting, which the article seems to pretty much miss altogether.
- TechnoTimeStop 5y ago
  Yeah cause Harry Potter should be banned because the Trans-bully-train.... LMFAO
- wolverine876 5y ago
  We want the kids to use their freedom and free will, and to think for themselves - even or especially when it challenges the adults - and to learn how to do that. It's an essential skill to a democracy (and a free market), and to teach them freedom for all by giving them freedom, instead of teaching them that people should be sheparded. There are limits to what we want middle schoolers exposed to, but I think my approach is different than what you describe.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    > We want the kids to use their freedom and free will, and to think for themselves Says who? The cultures who focus on “freedom” for kids are literally being replaced by the ones that socialize their kids to do what they’re supposed to do.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      What 'cultures' are you talking about? By far the most successful in human history have been modern democratic cultures which, very broadly speaking, focus on freedom. But regardless, the kids should grow into free adults. It's self-evident, as Jefferson said and as much of the world has held to be true for centuries now (again to great success). Are you volunteering to give up your freedom? Then I'll take you up on that and say you may not post such comments (in case anyone is confused, I'm not actually telling the parent what to do).
      - rayiner 5y ago
        > What 'cultures' are you talking about? By far the most successful in human history have been modern democratic cultures which, very broadly speaking, focus on freedom. Not for kids, which is what we’re talking about here. Read Roald Dahl’s books about British education. That’s the culture that built the greatest empire in history. “Freedom” for kids, as opposed to rigid socialization, is a mid-20th century detour. And the cultures that practice it, mainly north Americans and Europeans, are either in decline or are being replaced from the inside by immigrants from cultures that don’t.
- boplicity 5y ago
  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be where people are drawing the line lately, especially in "conservative" areas. It's hard to argue there's anything but racism (or xenophobia) going on when they ban a book such as A Big Mooncake for Little Star.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/pacylin/status/1440318317806317569 https://twitter.com/pacylin/status/1440318317806317569
  - dillondoyle 5y ago
    Homophobia and transphobia too. https://ncac.org/resource/lgbtq-book-bans-and-challenges https://ncac.org/resource/lgbtq-book-bans-and-challenges https://wgntv.com/news/downers-grove-parents-students-clash-over-removal-of-lgbtq-graphic-novels-from-school-libraries/ https://wgntv.com/news/downers-grove-parents-students-clash-...
- kvathupo 5y ago
  From the Texas legislator's proposed list of banned books, I fail to see why books such as "Bioethics Beyond the Headlines" or "V for Vendetta" should be banned. Indeed, it does concern me that much of the novels are fictional works portraying the LGBT experience. I can't imagine how alienating it must be to students of that group. As an aside, I find it amusing that Shakespeare is never banned on the grounds of sexual content. Perhaps people don't pay attention in English class?
  - UnpossibleJim 5y ago
    |Perhaps people don't pay attention in English class?| Funny enough, I always assumed this same thing of the people who were trying to get Mark Twain books banned for the misuse of language =) People who don't read books are always the ones who are the most afraid of the ideas contained within them, I suppose.
    - hulitu 5y ago
      Mark Twain shall definitely be banned. We don't need satire in school. And no books with racism. We have enough of the later.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Some parts of Shakespeare are so wordy that the sexual aspect isn't obvious enough to notice without advanced literary education, but there certainly used to be sanitized versions for school students that omitted more explicit passages on booze, lechery and so on.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - everybodyknows 5y ago
    Most are couched in the slang of Shakespeare's time, an effective filter. How many high schoolers get the Nurse's ribald joke about the very young Juliet learning to "fall backwards" once she had grown older? I didn't, not at all sure our teacher got the meaning either, or if she did, then chose not to explain it ... Check out the Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet to see it played well.
- naasking 5y ago
  > but at least that they express things in a way that is psychologically appropriate for kids at their level of development Frankly, we have little real idea what's psychologically appropriate for kids. Consider that over 65% of papers in psychology fail replication. I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming they know what's psychologically good for anyone.
  - danielvaughn 5y ago
    You're probably right, but nonetheless, the original commenter's point stands about the state having literal and legal responsibility for peoples children. It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library.
    - KarlKemp 5y ago
      ""In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."" (NJ v TLO) Meaning: schools have the right (and responsibility) to take steps necessary for the safety of children, but those rights are rather limited compared to those of parents, because they must also satisfy the limits set by constitution for all acts of the state and its representative. Banning books is an excellent example since it is almost the textbook definition of a restriction of free speech at the same time as having exceptionally weak arguments for its necessity, ostensibly to prevent psychological harms, which is a dubious concept to begin with.
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      > It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. It really doesn't. School is one of the best places we can have people encounter challenging idea and works for the first time. If we coddle people on school and then they are exposed to those ideas on their own (which they will be) then they have fewer resources to aid in processing those ideas and are more likely to end up confused and misinformed.
- KarlKemp 5y ago
  I don't believe the article is denying the schools' right and responsibilities in protecting children from harm. It is just assuming as much as commonly accepted. Then, it does the same with regards to the "harmfulness" of these books. Or, more specifically, it names some books (Beloved etc) as well as concepts (health education) in a way that assumes its audience will tend to agree that these aren't harmful to children. That it doesn't necessarily extend that belief to all books is clear from the distinction it makes when it separates some books from others that have been "caught up in this net [such as] books about health education, teen pregnancy, civics, philosophy, religion,..."
  - drivers99 5y ago
    Sorry to highjack an unrelated comment but your previous one to Scott Adams was to the wrong Scott Adams. You thought he was the author of Dilbert and the one doing the AMA is actually a programmer of classic text adventure games. I couldn’t reply there because that comment was flagged/dead.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > What kinds of ideas cross this line of appropriateness you or I may disagree on, but the point is that it exists in a school setting, which the article seems to pretty much miss altogether. I doubt it. If you consider censorship bad then different justifications for it all add up to [justifications for banning books which can be repurposed as needed]. Reading Clive Barker, Stephen King and history books did me no harm as a pre-teen and I see no reason to believe reading more graphic things would do harm either. Plenty of people reject your argument as nonsense.
Spooky23 5y ago
Local school districts frequently do this sort of thing. It sucks for the kids, but it is a good signal for you when you’re looking for a place to live, as the school board is controlled by provincial idiots.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
  Sometimes it's entire states.
  - sokoloff 5y ago
    That just makes it a stronger signal.
Cpoll 5y ago
> I am not a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm not sure where I stand. I'm against book burning, but I feel like there are also problems with unchecked dissemination of ideas. I think this is flawed logic in a few ways, but I'll put it down anyway: 1. Is there a difference between an undiscerning student (i.e. young, impressionable, hasn't been taught critical thinking, doesn't have sufficient experience to evaluate the validity of what they're learning) reading Ayn Rand on their own and being taught Ayn Rand by a teacher? 2. Would you consider it acceptable to teach Rand's novels non-critically as part of the curriculum (heck, why not, there are more than a few Senators that cite her books as inspiration). The problem I run up against is how do you "objectively" decide which books to restrict. As you said, "school libraries curated by legislators with an agenda seem like a Really Bad Idea," but everyone has some sort of agenda. Everyone thinks it's obvious what should and shouldn't be taught in school, but of course it's not the same "obvious" for everyone.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  Frankly? The best is when a child can read Ayn Rand and then be in a safe enough environment where they can discuss the ideas with adults who can greatly contextualize the discussion around that piece of literature.
  - Cpoll 5y ago
    I'm completely in agreement. I think I danced around this in my post. The main things that bother me, in general: 1. Undiscerning student (i.e. young, impressionable, hasn't been taught critical thinking, doesn't have sufficient experience to evaluate the validity of what they're learning). 2. Things taught non-critically. I think this even applies to the "obvious" stuff like algebra and heliocentrism. My experience with public schooling was that there was too much rote memorization and appeal to authority and not enough "learning." If either of those are fixed (and I think they go hand-in-hand) I don't care if the curriculum/school library has Rand, an unannotated Mein Kampf, or $insert_book_promoting_an_agenda.
    - 5y ago
rch 5y ago
I grew up in Texas, and disagreements about the harm certain content (exactly which varies) can do to society, in or out of classrooms, could become heated in a hurry. I believe it's appropriate to err on the side of openness, and keep context in mind. That hasn't always been popular.
- austincheney 5y ago
  I grew up in Texas too. I can remember loud parents crying about censorship for certain books. They were always just one or two at a time and everybody thought they were extreme wackos, but the school district has to avoid controversy before lawyers get involved and really screw it up.
rayiner 5y ago
Schools are for the socialization of children. Fundamentally a different context than other libraries.

lr4444lr 5y ago

The books being on the school library or on classroom shelves connotes that the educational custodians of our children, who have literal and legal responsibility for their safety and well being on multiple levels, have approved them. Not so much to promote every idea they contain, but at least that they express things in a way that is psychologically appropriate for kids at their level of development. What kinds of ideas cross this line of appropriateness you or I may disagree on, but the point is that it exists in a school setting, which the article seems to pretty much miss altogether.

TechnoTimeStop 5y ago
Yeah cause Harry Potter should be banned because the Trans-bully-train.... LMFAO
wolverine876 5y ago
We want the kids to use their freedom and free will, and to think for themselves - even or especially when it challenges the adults - and to learn how to do that. It's an essential skill to a democracy (and a free market), and to teach them freedom for all by giving them freedom, instead of teaching them that people should be sheparded. There are limits to what we want middle schoolers exposed to, but I think my approach is different than what you describe.
- rayiner 5y ago
  > We want the kids to use their freedom and free will, and to think for themselves Says who? The cultures who focus on “freedom” for kids are literally being replaced by the ones that socialize their kids to do what they’re supposed to do.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    What 'cultures' are you talking about? By far the most successful in human history have been modern democratic cultures which, very broadly speaking, focus on freedom. But regardless, the kids should grow into free adults. It's self-evident, as Jefferson said and as much of the world has held to be true for centuries now (again to great success). Are you volunteering to give up your freedom? Then I'll take you up on that and say you may not post such comments (in case anyone is confused, I'm not actually telling the parent what to do).
    - rayiner 5y ago
      > What 'cultures' are you talking about? By far the most successful in human history have been modern democratic cultures which, very broadly speaking, focus on freedom. Not for kids, which is what we’re talking about here. Read Roald Dahl’s books about British education. That’s the culture that built the greatest empire in history. “Freedom” for kids, as opposed to rigid socialization, is a mid-20th century detour. And the cultures that practice it, mainly north Americans and Europeans, are either in decline or are being replaced from the inside by immigrants from cultures that don’t.
boplicity 5y ago
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be where people are drawing the line lately, especially in "conservative" areas. It's hard to argue there's anything but racism (or xenophobia) going on when they ban a book such as A Big Mooncake for Little Star.[0] [0] https://twitter.com/pacylin/status/1440318317806317569 https://twitter.com/pacylin/status/1440318317806317569
- dillondoyle 5y ago
  Homophobia and transphobia too. https://ncac.org/resource/lgbtq-book-bans-and-challenges https://ncac.org/resource/lgbtq-book-bans-and-challenges https://wgntv.com/news/downers-grove-parents-students-clash-over-removal-of-lgbtq-graphic-novels-from-school-libraries/ https://wgntv.com/news/downers-grove-parents-students-clash-...
kvathupo 5y ago
From the Texas legislator's proposed list of banned books, I fail to see why books such as "Bioethics Beyond the Headlines" or "V for Vendetta" should be banned. Indeed, it does concern me that much of the novels are fictional works portraying the LGBT experience. I can't imagine how alienating it must be to students of that group. As an aside, I find it amusing that Shakespeare is never banned on the grounds of sexual content. Perhaps people don't pay attention in English class?
- UnpossibleJim 5y ago
  |Perhaps people don't pay attention in English class?| Funny enough, I always assumed this same thing of the people who were trying to get Mark Twain books banned for the misuse of language =) People who don't read books are always the ones who are the most afraid of the ideas contained within them, I suppose.
  - hulitu 5y ago
    Mark Twain shall definitely be banned. We don't need satire in school. And no books with racism. We have enough of the later.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Some parts of Shakespeare are so wordy that the sexual aspect isn't obvious enough to notice without advanced literary education, but there certainly used to be sanitized versions for school students that omitted more explicit passages on booze, lechery and so on.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- everybodyknows 5y ago
  Most are couched in the slang of Shakespeare's time, an effective filter. How many high schoolers get the Nurse's ribald joke about the very young Juliet learning to "fall backwards" once she had grown older? I didn't, not at all sure our teacher got the meaning either, or if she did, then chose not to explain it ... Check out the Zeffirelli Romeo and Juliet to see it played well.
naasking 5y ago
> but at least that they express things in a way that is psychologically appropriate for kids at their level of development Frankly, we have little real idea what's psychologically appropriate for kids. Consider that over 65% of papers in psychology fail replication. I would be very skeptical of anyone claiming they know what's psychologically good for anyone.
- danielvaughn 5y ago
  You're probably right, but nonetheless, the original commenter's point stands about the state having literal and legal responsibility for peoples children. It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library.
  - KarlKemp 5y ago
    ""In carrying out searches and other disciplinary functions pursuant to such policies, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the strictures of the Fourth Amendment."" (NJ v TLO) Meaning: schools have the right (and responsibility) to take steps necessary for the safety of children, but those rights are rather limited compared to those of parents, because they must also satisfy the limits set by constitution for all acts of the state and its representative. Banning books is an excellent example since it is almost the textbook definition of a restriction of free speech at the same time as having exceptionally weak arguments for its necessity, ostensibly to prevent psychological harms, which is a dubious concept to begin with.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    > It makes sense to be conservative in deciding what material to put in the school library. It really doesn't. School is one of the best places we can have people encounter challenging idea and works for the first time. If we coddle people on school and then they are exposed to those ideas on their own (which they will be) then they have fewer resources to aid in processing those ideas and are more likely to end up confused and misinformed.
KarlKemp 5y ago
I don't believe the article is denying the schools' right and responsibilities in protecting children from harm. It is just assuming as much as commonly accepted. Then, it does the same with regards to the "harmfulness" of these books. Or, more specifically, it names some books (Beloved etc) as well as concepts (health education) in a way that assumes its audience will tend to agree that these aren't harmful to children. That it doesn't necessarily extend that belief to all books is clear from the distinction it makes when it separates some books from others that have been "caught up in this net [such as] books about health education, teen pregnancy, civics, philosophy, religion,..."
- drivers99 5y ago
  Sorry to highjack an unrelated comment but your previous one to Scott Adams was to the wrong Scott Adams. You thought he was the author of Dilbert and the one doing the AMA is actually a programmer of classic text adventure games. I couldn’t reply there because that comment was flagged/dead.
barry-cotter 5y ago
> What kinds of ideas cross this line of appropriateness you or I may disagree on, but the point is that it exists in a school setting, which the article seems to pretty much miss altogether. I doubt it. If you consider censorship bad then different justifications for it all add up to [justifications for banning books which can be repurposed as needed]. Reading Clive Barker, Stephen King and history books did me no harm as a pre-teen and I see no reason to believe reading more graphic things would do harm either. Plenty of people reject your argument as nonsense.

Spooky23 5y ago

Local school districts frequently do this sort of thing. It sucks for the kids, but it is a good signal for you when you’re looking for a place to live, as the school board is controlled by provincial idiots.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Sometimes it's entire states.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  That just makes it a stronger signal.

Cpoll 5y ago

> I am not a fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy I've been thinking about this lately, and I'm not sure where I stand. I'm against book burning, but I feel like there are also problems with unchecked dissemination of ideas. I think this is flawed logic in a few ways, but I'll put it down anyway: 1. Is there a difference between an undiscerning student (i.e. young, impressionable, hasn't been taught critical thinking, doesn't have sufficient experience to evaluate the validity of what they're learning) reading Ayn Rand on their own and being taught Ayn Rand by a teacher? 2. Would you consider it acceptable to teach Rand's novels non-critically as part of the curriculum (heck, why not, there are more than a few Senators that cite her books as inspiration). The problem I run up against is how do you "objectively" decide which books to restrict. As you said, "school libraries curated by legislators with an agenda seem like a Really Bad Idea," but everyone has some sort of agenda. Everyone thinks it's obvious what should and shouldn't be taught in school, but of course it's not the same "obvious" for everyone.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
Frankly? The best is when a child can read Ayn Rand and then be in a safe enough environment where they can discuss the ideas with adults who can greatly contextualize the discussion around that piece of literature.
- Cpoll 5y ago
  I'm completely in agreement. I think I danced around this in my post. The main things that bother me, in general: 1. Undiscerning student (i.e. young, impressionable, hasn't been taught critical thinking, doesn't have sufficient experience to evaluate the validity of what they're learning). 2. Things taught non-critically. I think this even applies to the "obvious" stuff like algebra and heliocentrism. My experience with public schooling was that there was too much rote memorization and appeal to authority and not enough "learning." If either of those are fixed (and I think they go hand-in-hand) I don't care if the curriculum/school library has Rand, an unannotated Mein Kampf, or $insert_book_promoting_an_agenda.
  - 5y ago

rch 5y ago

I grew up in Texas, and disagreements about the harm certain content (exactly which varies) can do to society, in or out of classrooms, could become heated in a hurry. I believe it's appropriate to err on the side of openness, and keep context in mind. That hasn't always been popular.

austincheney 5y ago
I grew up in Texas too. I can remember loud parents crying about censorship for certain books. They were always just one or two at a time and everybody thought they were extreme wackos, but the school district has to avoid controversy before lawyers get involved and really screw it up.

rayiner 5y ago

Schools are for the socialization of children. Fundamentally a different context than other libraries.