I had a lot typed here, but realized that I don’t know anything, so I deleted it. Twice. Learning about ideas and viewpoints is good. Needless exposure to explicit material is not.
I think that’s fair, especially when it comes to kids. Parents have the right to influence the educational experience of their kids, and at least some of the banning activity is protesting sexually explicit material, some of which includes imagery. I’m certainly not advocating for more of that in classes or school libraries. Schools should exercise greater selectivity on the front end.
I’m really perplexed by the idea that a school not providing a particular book equates to a ban. I read Youth in Revolt as a senior in high school. I bought the book myself and read it at lunch time. I read particularly raunchy parts out loud to friends between rounds at debate tournaments. But it would be pretty ballsy to demand that the school library carry the book. Not funding access to certain material is not the same as banning it. We’ve got to to keep that distinction clear and have a proactive discussion about what schools are supposed to provide to the community and that the answer to that is ultimately going to be different in different communities, and that’s ok.
That’s a legitimate point. The truth is if librarians were more selective on the front end some of these issues would be avoided entirely because once the book hits the library, the stakes go up for removing it—even if there are legitimate reasons to do so.
A final note on that, I seek out older editions of books because they can provide extra historical context. Like my old copy of Fahrenheit 451 with Bradbury’s afterward where he describes explicitly how the popular hunger for censorship motivated him to write the book. Everyone who has read it knows that the book burning didn’t start with government directives, but due to popular demand.
The popular demand is what bothers me most about politicians calling for banning or worse—in the case of the Missouri politician quoted in the piece—burning. Politicians play to the crowd. Crowds worry me.
Yep. Very sad. We’ve seen the progressive left shift over the past decade from believing in democracy to becoming arbiters of censorship. It’s amazing how much tap-dancing people on the New Left will do to rationalize creating an illiberal, censorious environment. This latest iteration of banning startled culturally on the left circa 2013. Very few lefties said a word about cancellations, de-platforming authors, books being pulled, etc. Then far-right extremists start doing it legally (also bad) and suddenly the left is outraged. I don’t care what side it comes from: it’s anti-American. Art has always been offensive and transgressive. Writers don’t write to be safe; we write to explode society’s assumptions. People are *supposed* to get “triggered.” (By the way I really loathe New Age Millennial Woke language like “problematic” and “trigger.” Can’t people see how this makes a whole generation sound like toddlers?)
I don't think it's accurate to describe "a school board’s decision to remove To Kill a Mockingbird from eighth grade curriculums" as "banning" the book. Only a small number of books are included in the curriculum; all the rest are not "banned," simply not selected. Did the school board forbid students to read the book, or to bring the book onto school property? If not, the book has not been banned, and I think it's misleading to call this "censorship."
That’s fair. It’s certainly debatable. PEN defines a ban as “any action taken against a book based on its content . . . that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.”
In the specific Biloxi case, the book was removed from the curriculum because “it makes people uncomfortable.” It wasn’t simply not selected; it was actively deselected, removed from the list. Though the book is available in the library, pulling it from the curriculum over its contents would seem to me to count as diminished—that’s the difference between hundreds of copies in circulation an probably one or two.
The point of including the example is that the book is both particularly helpful in discussing difficult issues and a repeated target for removal, going back shortly after its publication.
Thanks for the further explanation. I wasn't aware that PEN had altered the definition of "ban" to suit its own purposes. I still think it's misleading. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and exploration of the issues.
I would agree it’s somewhat expansive. And in a free country anyone can buy and read the book if they choose. But I think PEN’s focus and concern is legitimate. I also think Micah Mattix’s point is valid that some of the numbers are stretched and the whole debate has been co-opted for culture-war reasons; that’s frustratingly true for both sides.
Also, if it were in the school library it obviously wouldn't be a banned book. I have seen this one on particular list of banned books. In certain schools in certain states, but not all.
Thanks as always for a thoughtful discussion. It’s something I’ve wrestled with so much as a parent (in theory at the moment-my oldest is 3 haha) the balance between guiding my children to read books that are developmentally appropriate, and helping to form them as people of character, but also not wanting to shield them from things that are uncomfortable or controversial. I think a lot of issues would also be solved if parents just focused on curating their home libraries and having honest conversations with their kids about what they read/bring home rather than going straight to the school board. I read books in high school and college (both for school and out of my choice) that contradicted moral and theological truths my parents sought to instill in me. But I found my faith and beliefs were ultimately stronger for honestly confronting objections to them and wrestling with what that meant. But it’s a tough tough issue. Especially on the side of sexual ethics and content, I think there’s much more gray area to be figured
I had a lot typed here, but realized that I don’t know anything, so I deleted it. Twice. Learning about ideas and viewpoints is good. Needless exposure to explicit material is not.
I think that’s fair, especially when it comes to kids. Parents have the right to influence the educational experience of their kids, and at least some of the banning activity is protesting sexually explicit material, some of which includes imagery. I’m certainly not advocating for more of that in classes or school libraries. Schools should exercise greater selectivity on the front end.
I’m really perplexed by the idea that a school not providing a particular book equates to a ban. I read Youth in Revolt as a senior in high school. I bought the book myself and read it at lunch time. I read particularly raunchy parts out loud to friends between rounds at debate tournaments. But it would be pretty ballsy to demand that the school library carry the book. Not funding access to certain material is not the same as banning it. We’ve got to to keep that distinction clear and have a proactive discussion about what schools are supposed to provide to the community and that the answer to that is ultimately going to be different in different communities, and that’s ok.
That’s a legitimate point. The truth is if librarians were more selective on the front end some of these issues would be avoided entirely because once the book hits the library, the stakes go up for removing it—even if there are legitimate reasons to do so.
Speaking of which:
https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6964332
Speaking of librarians, that is.
Oh my gosh, I know. I almost included that story. I just couldn’t quite fit it in. So crazy.
A final note on that, I seek out older editions of books because they can provide extra historical context. Like my old copy of Fahrenheit 451 with Bradbury’s afterward where he describes explicitly how the popular hunger for censorship motivated him to write the book. Everyone who has read it knows that the book burning didn’t start with government directives, but due to popular demand.
The popular demand is what bothers me most about politicians calling for banning or worse—in the case of the Missouri politician quoted in the piece—burning. Politicians play to the crowd. Crowds worry me.
Yep. Very sad. We’ve seen the progressive left shift over the past decade from believing in democracy to becoming arbiters of censorship. It’s amazing how much tap-dancing people on the New Left will do to rationalize creating an illiberal, censorious environment. This latest iteration of banning startled culturally on the left circa 2013. Very few lefties said a word about cancellations, de-platforming authors, books being pulled, etc. Then far-right extremists start doing it legally (also bad) and suddenly the left is outraged. I don’t care what side it comes from: it’s anti-American. Art has always been offensive and transgressive. Writers don’t write to be safe; we write to explode society’s assumptions. People are *supposed* to get “triggered.” (By the way I really loathe New Age Millennial Woke language like “problematic” and “trigger.” Can’t people see how this makes a whole generation sound like toddlers?)
Hypocrisy.
Here’s my piece on book banning on both sides.
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/p/book-banning-happens-on-both-sides
So much helpful, thoughtful ideas here.
Thanks, Jen!
I don't think it's accurate to describe "a school board’s decision to remove To Kill a Mockingbird from eighth grade curriculums" as "banning" the book. Only a small number of books are included in the curriculum; all the rest are not "banned," simply not selected. Did the school board forbid students to read the book, or to bring the book onto school property? If not, the book has not been banned, and I think it's misleading to call this "censorship."
That’s fair. It’s certainly debatable. PEN defines a ban as “any action taken against a book based on its content . . . that leads to a previously accessible book being either completely removed from availability to students, or where access to a book is restricted or diminished.”
In the specific Biloxi case, the book was removed from the curriculum because “it makes people uncomfortable.” It wasn’t simply not selected; it was actively deselected, removed from the list. Though the book is available in the library, pulling it from the curriculum over its contents would seem to me to count as diminished—that’s the difference between hundreds of copies in circulation an probably one or two.
The point of including the example is that the book is both particularly helpful in discussing difficult issues and a repeated target for removal, going back shortly after its publication.
Thanks for the further explanation. I wasn't aware that PEN had altered the definition of "ban" to suit its own purposes. I still think it's misleading. Anyway, I appreciate the discussion and exploration of the issues.
I would agree it’s somewhat expansive. And in a free country anyone can buy and read the book if they choose. But I think PEN’s focus and concern is legitimate. I also think Micah Mattix’s point is valid that some of the numbers are stretched and the whole debate has been co-opted for culture-war reasons; that’s frustratingly true for both sides.
Also, if it were in the school library it obviously wouldn't be a banned book. I have seen this one on particular list of banned books. In certain schools in certain states, but not all.
Thanks as always for a thoughtful discussion. It’s something I’ve wrestled with so much as a parent (in theory at the moment-my oldest is 3 haha) the balance between guiding my children to read books that are developmentally appropriate, and helping to form them as people of character, but also not wanting to shield them from things that are uncomfortable or controversial. I think a lot of issues would also be solved if parents just focused on curating their home libraries and having honest conversations with their kids about what they read/bring home rather than going straight to the school board. I read books in high school and college (both for school and out of my choice) that contradicted moral and theological truths my parents sought to instill in me. But I found my faith and beliefs were ultimately stronger for honestly confronting objections to them and wrestling with what that meant. But it’s a tough tough issue. Especially on the side of sexual ethics and content, I think there’s much more gray area to be figured