This is the proper solution but it also shifts the goal posts in a way that is dramatically easier for the certain groups to attack and win. You also have to e

This is the proper solution but it also shifts the goal posts in a way that is dramatically easier for the certain groups to attack and win. You also have to equip the teachers with the materials and skills for that conversation and they have to be up to that task. There are bad teachers that just want to have the kids read books and then test them on content. There are also different theories of interpretation, there is a school of thought the divorces the artist from the art and wants to study the art on its own merit regardless of the views of the artist. I think it's dramatically easier to attack a particular conversation about the artist and historical views and fight to remove that from a class than to "ban a book." There are efforts like the 1619 project which basically exist because of that. I think there are also a lot of class rooms where the teachers don't want to have those conversations just due to classroom culture and dynamics; think a suburban class room with 19 white, probably heterosexual, middle class kids and 1 black kid; how do you have that discussion and not single that student out? Roald Dahl is a very interesting target here, editing "fat" out of the description of Augustus Gloop, I assume, was to be more gentle towards more portly folks. The character seemed to have a real eating disorder though, those are real issues that real people also suffer with. Does a discussion of bulimia and anorexia need to accompany Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? Is it read at an age appropriate for that? Was this edit even material? It seems like the real theme is one of greed and humbleness and the eating disorder is just a foil.