5 ms·

This is the fifth or sixth time someone has started a thread with this “gotcha,” and the answer is still no: curation is a logistical concern, not a doctrinal o

This is the fifth or sixth time someone has started a thread with this “gotcha,” and the answer is still no: curation is a logistical concern, not a doctrinal one. Banning is a consequence of doctrine; curation is a consequence of books being expensive to categorize and store.

mattmaroon 3y ago
I disagree that the fact that it is removed from a shelf for doctrinal reasons is banning. It’s only banning if it’s actually banned, meaning you can’t have it at all, like Mein Kampf in Germany. There’s surely a more accurate term than banning or curation here.
- laserdancepony 3y ago
  Mein Kampf has never been banned from possession in Germany. It just has not been published in the post-WW2 decades because the copyright holder, the Free State of Bavaria, decided to just not publish it and withhold the right to do so from anybody else. One could readily purchase, sell, or trade old copies at an antiquarian bookstore. It's now in the public domain, so one could even set up a little publishing company and publish it oneself. And it's an incredibly awful book, measured to all the 'fame' it holds in certain circles.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  We have adjectives for this: a possession ban, a sales ban, a distribution ban, and so forth.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I recently looked up one of these books that was on the "banned" list. Someone had scanned it in on archive.org. I just checked, and it was either the #1 banned book on most lists, or made the top 10. Gender Queer by Kobabe. You can see it for yourself. https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-kobabe-z-lib.org/page/168/mode/2up 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.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be. Maybe you wouldn't, but be honest with yourself - how many parents want their school to hold and keep pornographic material? If you want to show your kids sexually graphic images, then sure, fine, have at it. You're complaining that you can't show these images to other people's kids, and you're complaining that those parents are a problem?
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      I think my adjacent comment addresses this adequately.
    - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
      Then you tell your librarian that your child may not check this book out specifically. I seriously don’t understand the problem here. Maybe another child will appreciate a depiction of healthy communication in sexual interactions, because highschool teens are definitely having sex, but if you don’t want your child learning boundaries and healthy communication that’s ok too!
      - lelanthran 3y ago
        [flagged]
        SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        You didn’t answer my question why can’t adults pick and choose what material is appropriate for their children only? If you don’t think it’s appropriate just don’t let your own children get their hands on it. I don’t understand why this has to be a debate. I’m actually not that invested in ideology or whatever. You’re prescribing something to me I don’t really care about. I’ve read the book for fun, as an adult, didn’t feel titillated or aroused at all. It’s about as sexual as putting a condom on a banana, and I was definitely doing that in highschool. But even then parents who were uncomfortable could sign a thing preventing their children from attending sex ed. I think we parents can do the same thing for sex ed related books! No big deal.
imgabe 3y ago
Nonsense. Curation is not purely logistical. It requires some judgment to select which books they believe are good and appropriate for their audience. Otherwise you wouldn’t need a librarian at all, just a random number generator to randomly select however many books will fit in the library out of all the books available. Obviously they pick some books and not others for some reasons. If you like their reasons you call it curation, if you don’t like their reasons you call it banning.
- woodruffw 3y ago
  That reason is called popularity. Librarians discard books that aren’t frequently requested so that they can bring in books that are frequently requested. Randomly selecting books for rotation would bias by sheer publication volume. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my local library to be 40% Atkins Diet by volume, regardless of how positive I might feel about it.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    I'm sure if they filled the school library with pornography and comic books, that would be really popular with 13-17 year olds, but they don't do that. Obviously there are considerations aside from purely what is popular that go into deciding which books to put in the school library.
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      School libraries are filled with comic books, and they are popular. Nobody is talking about pornography; not everything that contains sex or violence is pornographic in nature (much less obscene).
lelanthran 3y ago
> This is the fifth or sixth time someone has started a thread with this “gotcha,” 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 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.
- pas 3y ago
  Context matters. The context is the reactionary attempt to erase gender-is-a-spectrum and similar LGBT concepts from "public" life, in its many forms. Restrictions come in many forms. It used to be marriage is special, then WC symbols are sacred, now we're back to think-of-the-children and their precious little minds. And one particular form is that some books are now banned from school libraries. I wholeheartedly support the demand for more correct wording, but unfortunately it doesn't really matter.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > The context is the reactionary attempt to erase gender-is-a-spectrum and similar LGBT concepts from "public" life, in its many forms. Maybe. Maybe the "reactionary attempt" would have been non-existent if the advocates weren't using sexually graphic material, as linked in the thread above. Do you also think that teaching of sex ed should include videos from pornhub?
smsm42 3y ago
Of course it's a doctrinal concern. The books are not chosen at random. Some will make it, some not. Somebody is going to make a choice, according to somebody's own (or external - like recommendations) judgement. The question is who has the power to control the choice, and who gets to say "my opinion is common sense, your opinion is dangerous ideological extremism".
- woodruffw 3y ago
  Removing the 57th copy of The Atkins Diet because nobody has checked it out since 1999 is not a doctrinal concern.
  - smsm42 3y ago
    Do you genuinely don't see the difference between 56 copies and zero copies, or just low effort trolling?
    - woodruffw 3y ago
      The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal. Doctrinal censorship might masquerade as curation, but curation itself is a normal part of running a useful library. There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet. Framing that as “banning” is ridiculous, since it falsely implies a doctrinal intent where only ignorance or concern for stated demands exists.
      - smsm42 3y ago
        > The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal. What you said is not curation, it's just managing the stock. Having 57 copies or 56 copies does not substantially alter availavbility. If somebody removed all copies of Atkins books, because "nobody needs them anymore" - then yes, this would be a doctrinal decision. Admittedly, since diets (for some reason) aren't part of culture wars (yet?), not a very controversial or scandalous one, but if some Atkins die-hards occupied a political position, or, in the contrary, Atkins were declared racist for some reason, it could become one. > There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet But how I can "request" a book that isn't in the library? Most libraries I've used do not have this function, not at least any that I could locate as a regular patron. On the contrary, I am reasonably sure most of the books featured on my local library's home page, aren't there because some patron came to them and asked for this specific book, which previously wasn't part of the collection and wouldn't be unless specifically requested (in fact, again, I know no way of doing this). Looking at their published collection developing policy I see (among others): Provide a diverse and inclusive collection that contains content by and about a wide array of people and cultures Consider the appropriateness to scope of the collection as it is developed Content created by and representative of marginalized and underrepresented groups Attention of critics, reviewers, awards and public Suitability for intended audience Literary or stylistic quality Tell me these are non-doctrinal criteria. Of course they are - one's high quality suitable inclusive book is another's offensive bigoted trash. Again, it's about who has the power to make such decisions. Of course, the librarians, seeing themselves as The Experts (TM) would claim exclusive right to make such decisions on behalf of people paying for their library. But are they entitled to that, absent any control and supervision?

mattmaroon 3y ago

I disagree that the fact that it is removed from a shelf for doctrinal reasons is banning. It’s only banning if it’s actually banned, meaning you can’t have it at all, like Mein Kampf in Germany. There’s surely a more accurate term than banning or curation here.

laserdancepony 3y ago
Mein Kampf has never been banned from possession in Germany. It just has not been published in the post-WW2 decades because the copyright holder, the Free State of Bavaria, decided to just not publish it and withhold the right to do so from anybody else. One could readily purchase, sell, or trade old copies at an antiquarian bookstore. It's now in the public domain, so one could even set up a little publishing company and publish it oneself. And it's an incredibly awful book, measured to all the 'fame' it holds in certain circles.
woodruffw 3y ago
We have adjectives for this: a possession ban, a sales ban, a distribution ban, and so forth.

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

I recently looked up one of these books that was on the "banned" list. Someone had scanned it in on archive.org. I just checked, and it was either the #1 banned book on most lists, or made the top 10. Gender Queer by Kobabe. You can see it for yourself. https://archive.org/details/gender-queer-a-memoir-by-maia-kobabe-z-lib.org/page/168/mode/2up 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.

woodruffw 3y ago
I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > I would not bat an eye at this in a high school library, no. I checked out books that were substantially more adult in nature than this appears to be. Maybe you wouldn't, but be honest with yourself - how many parents want their school to hold and keep pornographic material? If you want to show your kids sexually graphic images, then sure, fine, have at it. You're complaining that you can't show these images to other people's kids, and you're complaining that those parents are a problem?
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    I think my adjacent comment addresses this adequately.
  - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
    Then you tell your librarian that your child may not check this book out specifically. I seriously don’t understand the problem here. Maybe another child will appreciate a depiction of healthy communication in sexual interactions, because highschool teens are definitely having sex, but if you don’t want your child learning boundaries and healthy communication that’s ok too!
    - lelanthran 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - SamoyedFurFluff 3y ago
        You didn’t answer my question why can’t adults pick and choose what material is appropriate for their children only? If you don’t think it’s appropriate just don’t let your own children get their hands on it. I don’t understand why this has to be a debate. I’m actually not that invested in ideology or whatever. You’re prescribing something to me I don’t really care about. I’ve read the book for fun, as an adult, didn’t feel titillated or aroused at all. It’s about as sexual as putting a condom on a banana, and I was definitely doing that in highschool. But even then parents who were uncomfortable could sign a thing preventing their children from attending sex ed. I think we parents can do the same thing for sex ed related books! No big deal.

imgabe 3y ago

Nonsense. Curation is not purely logistical. It requires some judgment to select which books they believe are good and appropriate for their audience. Otherwise you wouldn’t need a librarian at all, just a random number generator to randomly select however many books will fit in the library out of all the books available. Obviously they pick some books and not others for some reasons. If you like their reasons you call it curation, if you don’t like their reasons you call it banning.

woodruffw 3y ago
That reason is called popularity. Librarians discard books that aren’t frequently requested so that they can bring in books that are frequently requested. Randomly selecting books for rotation would bias by sheer publication volume. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my local library to be 40% Atkins Diet by volume, regardless of how positive I might feel about it.
- imgabe 3y ago
  I'm sure if they filled the school library with pornography and comic books, that would be really popular with 13-17 year olds, but they don't do that. Obviously there are considerations aside from purely what is popular that go into deciding which books to put in the school library.
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    School libraries are filled with comic books, and they are popular. Nobody is talking about pornography; not everything that contains sex or violence is pornographic in nature (much less obscene).

lelanthran 3y ago

> This is the fifth or sixth time someone has started a thread with this “gotcha,” 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 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.

pas 3y ago
Context matters. The context is the reactionary attempt to erase gender-is-a-spectrum and similar LGBT concepts from "public" life, in its many forms. Restrictions come in many forms. It used to be marriage is special, then WC symbols are sacred, now we're back to think-of-the-children and their precious little minds. And one particular form is that some books are now banned from school libraries. I wholeheartedly support the demand for more correct wording, but unfortunately it doesn't really matter.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > The context is the reactionary attempt to erase gender-is-a-spectrum and similar LGBT concepts from "public" life, in its many forms. Maybe. Maybe the "reactionary attempt" would have been non-existent if the advocates weren't using sexually graphic material, as linked in the thread above. Do you also think that teaching of sex ed should include videos from pornhub?

smsm42 3y ago

Of course it's a doctrinal concern. The books are not chosen at random. Some will make it, some not. Somebody is going to make a choice, according to somebody's own (or external - like recommendations) judgement. The question is who has the power to control the choice, and who gets to say "my opinion is common sense, your opinion is dangerous ideological extremism".

woodruffw 3y ago
Removing the 57th copy of The Atkins Diet because nobody has checked it out since 1999 is not a doctrinal concern.
- smsm42 3y ago
  Do you genuinely don't see the difference between 56 copies and zero copies, or just low effort trolling?
  - woodruffw 3y ago
    The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal. Doctrinal censorship might masquerade as curation, but curation itself is a normal part of running a useful library. There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet. Framing that as “banning” is ridiculous, since it falsely implies a doctrinal intent where only ignorance or concern for stated demands exists.
    - smsm42 3y ago
      > The point was that curation is trivially not doctrinal. What you said is not curation, it's just managing the stock. Having 57 copies or 56 copies does not substantially alter availavbility. If somebody removed all copies of Atkins books, because "nobody needs them anymore" - then yes, this would be a doctrinal decision. Admittedly, since diets (for some reason) aren't part of culture wars (yet?), not a very controversial or scandalous one, but if some Atkins die-hards occupied a political position, or, in the contrary, Atkins were declared racist for some reason, it could become one. > There are many reasons to have no copies of a book, with the simplest being that nobody has requested it yet But how I can "request" a book that isn't in the library? Most libraries I've used do not have this function, not at least any that I could locate as a regular patron. On the contrary, I am reasonably sure most of the books featured on my local library's home page, aren't there because some patron came to them and asked for this specific book, which previously wasn't part of the collection and wouldn't be unless specifically requested (in fact, again, I know no way of doing this). Looking at their published collection developing policy I see (among others): Provide a diverse and inclusive collection that contains content by and about a wide array of people and cultures Consider the appropriateness to scope of the collection as it is developed Content created by and representative of marginalized and underrepresented groups Attention of critics, reviewers, awards and public Suitability for intended audience Literary or stylistic quality Tell me these are non-doctrinal criteria. Of course they are - one's high quality suitable inclusive book is another's offensive bigoted trash. Again, it's about who has the power to make such decisions. Of course, the librarians, seeing themselves as The Experts (TM) would claim exclusive right to make such decisions on behalf of people paying for their library. But are they entitled to that, absent any control and supervision?