Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools(pen.org)
pen.org
Banned in the USA: The Growing Movement to Censor Books in Schools
https://pen.org/report/banned-usa-growing-movement-to-censor-books-in-schools/
84 comments
Both political parties are removing access to books. When this book is widely available in local bookstores and presented in schools whenever other material related to minority sexual and gender identity is discussed, I will gladly change my mind.
https://www.amazon.com/Irreversible-Damage-Transgender-Seduc...
Everybody is a fascist because I'm challenged about my personal opinions.
Everybody is a fascist who doesn't want their kids to learn that it's OK to be born different or to learn foundational science that conflicts with their religious dogma. This is different from challenging me about my favorite color.
The irony here is that my university quietly "delisted" a bunch of books from far-right extremists (Ann Coulter, Bill Oreilly, Jordan Peterson) but then launched protests over banned books in schools.
If they did so quietly, how do you know it happened? Give us a link.
I had a discussion about it with the school librarian.
But I just went to their online catalogue to confirm if that's still the case - of all the authors mentioned, I could only find a single copy of a Jordan Peterson book in a psychology library at a satellite campus. Interestingly, they have a dozen books about Jordan Peterson (both pro and anti, interestingly enough).
Although it's worth pointing out that the article only considered external acts as "banning". Actions of librarians to maintain their collections are not considered censorship and are not publicly tracked anyway.
But I just went to their online catalogue to confirm if that's still the case - of all the authors mentioned, I could only find a single copy of a Jordan Peterson book in a psychology library at a satellite campus. Interestingly, they have a dozen books about Jordan Peterson (both pro and anti, interestingly enough).
Although it's worth pointing out that the article only considered external acts as "banning". Actions of librarians to maintain their collections are not considered censorship and are not publicly tracked anyway.
History curriculum is routinely modified to match the modern ethics. They don't call this banning, but it really is. Out with an old version, in with a new.
That's the privilege of institutional power - you can control reading lists and access to books, and it doesn't register as a ban.
Book bans just feel silly and antiquated in the age of the Internet. If kids want to read something, they can get it on their phones—that and probably much worse than anything that would ever end up in any school library.
I feel like banned books act as a litmus test for the broader political and social landscape. If a group were successful in banning works on, say, critical race theory, it might both be a signifier that the broader cultural tolerances are shifting, or if unsuccessful, that there's an eager audience with a clear 'perspective' that can be targetted by politicians.
At the very least, it seems like a punching bag or soap-box for those pushing their own agendas.
At the very least, it seems like a punching bag or soap-box for those pushing their own agendas.
Also... the growing movement to sexualize other people's children.
There _already_ is and has ben censorship of books in schools for decades upon decades....adult sex novels are not included in the average school library and for good reason, and thats exactly what this is about as well, as you point out.
I'd like a bit more differentiated discussion on this - does LGBTQ actually mean sexual topics or does it include a book where having same-sex parents is shown as normal? From skimming the article that wasn't quite clear to me.
The latter. There's an entirely different category for sexual content. If you look at the bar chart, you'll see that these bans are predominantly targeting books that have LGBTQ characters. And books that have non-white characters.
One school board wouldn't let a parent read a except from one of the books due to the content being deemed inappropriate for children: https://www.foxnews.com/us/parent-reading-sexual-content-sch...
This is misleading.
It was a high-school level book being read over a broadcast which they wanted to make available for children not at a high school level.
It was being read by a mother of children who weren't in high school, and did not have access to the book.
It was a high-school level book being read over a broadcast which they wanted to make available for children not at a high school level.
It was being read by a mother of children who weren't in high school, and did not have access to the book.
Why would a mere depiction of gay characters be inappropriate for young children?
I don't know. I didn't suggest it, nor did I make any mention or provide any opinion on the matter.
I read the article you published as evidence, and provided the context showing how you were misrepresenting the story to suit whatever false narrative you were pushing. I'm not sure what agenda you have here, but lying to demonstrate something is never a good sign.
I read the article you published as evidence, and provided the context showing how you were misrepresenting the story to suit whatever false narrative you were pushing. I'm not sure what agenda you have here, but lying to demonstrate something is never a good sign.
I don't know how you interpret this as "a mere depiction of gay characters."
The given quote in the video you linked to was:
"Excited now, he pushed into her, and she squeezed her eyes as tightly as she could, her tongue circling her lips. He pushed harder, his breath heavy and labored. She scratched his back, and he cried out. She bit his ear and pulled his hair."
This is a description of what appears to be heterosexual characters. Nor does it appear to be a "mere depiction". I would reserve that for something like "Heather Has Two Mommies" (a mere description of a homosexual couple) or "Mr. and Mrs. Brown" (a mere description of a heterosexual couple who have befriended a bear from darkest Peru).
The given quote in the video you linked to was:
"Excited now, he pushed into her, and she squeezed her eyes as tightly as she could, her tongue circling her lips. He pushed harder, his breath heavy and labored. She scratched his back, and he cried out. She bit his ear and pulled his hair."
This is a description of what appears to be heterosexual characters. Nor does it appear to be a "mere depiction". I would reserve that for something like "Heather Has Two Mommies" (a mere description of a homosexual couple) or "Mr. and Mrs. Brown" (a mere description of a heterosexual couple who have befriended a bear from darkest Peru).
I am responding to: "these bans are predominantly targeting books that have LGBTQ characters. And books that have non-white characters."
My assertion is that I wouldn't expect a book that simply had a gay character in it to receive that response from the school board.
My assertion is that I wouldn't expect a book that simply had a gay character in it to receive that response from the school board.
Your link had nothing to do with LGBTQ characters, "predominantly" is certainly not the same as "universally", and books meant for high school student may contain topics not appropriate for younger children.
Think of how George shoots Lennie in "Of Mice and Men", or the racism in "To Kill a Mockingbird", or why Hester Prynne must wear a scarlet "A", or when Anne Frank talks about her menstruation. Or the details of the meatpacking industry described in "The Jungle".
They are all taught to high school-aged kids. I don't think most people would want all those details described to elementary school kids.
I can't figured out why your assertion is relevant.
While it may be true, surely you don't think that only white hetereosexuals can be portrayed as something other than milquetoast-bland in high school literature.
Think of how George shoots Lennie in "Of Mice and Men", or the racism in "To Kill a Mockingbird", or why Hester Prynne must wear a scarlet "A", or when Anne Frank talks about her menstruation. Or the details of the meatpacking industry described in "The Jungle".
They are all taught to high school-aged kids. I don't think most people would want all those details described to elementary school kids.
I can't figured out why your assertion is relevant.
While it may be true, surely you don't think that only white hetereosexuals can be portrayed as something other than milquetoast-bland in high school literature.
That response from the school board was for a high school book (not about LGBT characters) being read by some unhinged mother in a place with elementary age children.
I think the debate is not whether same-sex parents are depicted, but when they openly manifest their sexuality towards each other (like kissing) - some parents object to this.
May I ask where you're seeing this?
The fight is with the parents vs. educators. They can't stand that parents have ability to choose what books their kids should (or shouldn't) read.
No, this is just parents who are afraid of their personal worldview being challenged by their own kids (oh the insolence!).
Nobody came to these parents to tell them "your kid should not be reading X". If parents don't trust/like the curriculum of their local school, AFAIK homeschooling is still an option in the US.
Nobody came to these parents to tell them "your kid should not be reading X". If parents don't trust/like the curriculum of their local school, AFAIK homeschooling is still an option in the US.
Parents already have that. They are now trying to limit it for other children.
Why should I be allowed to deny your children access to books at school?
Why should I be allowed to deny your children access to books at school?
Ah, so these parents should be able to say their child shouldn't read a biology textbook that discusses the theory of evolution?
Nonono. They’re saying your child shouldn't read a biology textbook that discusses the theory of evolution.
Ah yes, the slipper slope. Let's be honest, librarians and educators have a ton of power and no oversight in indoctrinating children into the views that they want. Now that parents are challenging them, all of sudden, PEN America believes that parents should have no say on the material their kids read.
It's not a slippery slope. That is literally what you are advocating. The same parents who don't want their children to know what Ruby Bridges went through or that gay people exist also don't want their children to learn about evolution.
Libs of Tiktok posts a lot of this stuff trying to bring awareness about it.
And to trans other people's children. Children need be protected from activists with weird sexual fetishes. https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/canadian-transgender-t...
Why is it that many of the same people complaining about having their speech suppressed online are also pushing to suppress speech in the library? If we must allow all views to be expressed online, regardless of how abhorrent they are, mustn't we also permit all views to be expressed at the library? Online content managers really have no control over how old the consumers of their content are, for all we know, it's kids consuming the racist content online.
At the end of the day, those who fight for "free speech" are really fighting to control which speech is free and which isn't.
Author John Green said it best in a reaction regarding his first novel, Looking for Alaska being targeted for a ban[0]:
> There's this surreality of the organization in question being called "Moms for Liberty" when what they're trying to do is restrict the liberty of other people's kids to read what librarians and teachers deem appropriate for those other people's kids to read
0: https://www.tiktok.com/@literallyjohngreen/video/71418040147...
At the end of the day, those who fight for "free speech" are really fighting to control which speech is free and which isn't.
Author John Green said it best in a reaction regarding his first novel, Looking for Alaska being targeted for a ban[0]:
> There's this surreality of the organization in question being called "Moms for Liberty" when what they're trying to do is restrict the liberty of other people's kids to read what librarians and teachers deem appropriate for those other people's kids to read
0: https://www.tiktok.com/@literallyjohngreen/video/71418040147...
Because it's for children. Surely you don't think anything goes in a children's library?
> Surely you don't think anything goes in a children's library?
Children's libraries are curated by librarians and teachers. There's never been a point in history where "anything goes" in a children's library.
And the internet is not for children? That's my point, social media is targeted at kids. Why is it that people scream "free speech" when hateful content is banned online while at the same calling for the banning of books? They're mad that they can't say whatever they want while simultaneously feeling that other people shouldn't.
Children's libraries are curated by librarians and teachers. There's never been a point in history where "anything goes" in a children's library.
And the internet is not for children? That's my point, social media is targeted at kids. Why is it that people scream "free speech" when hateful content is banned online while at the same calling for the banning of books? They're mad that they can't say whatever they want while simultaneously feeling that other people shouldn't.
[flagged]
>The nerve of those people, wanting a say in their children's education.
But they're making a say in my child's education also. Let parents opt their children out of checking books out. Don't ban my kid from reading them too.
But they're making a say in my child's education also. Let parents opt their children out of checking books out. Don't ban my kid from reading them too.
Your kid is going to be influencing other, conservative kids.
I don't want my kids being influenced by hateful content that proliferates on social media. Why is my support for banning hate speech online wrong while banning books in libraries is OK? "Think of the children" only gets thrown around in a school context but kids are some of the biggest users of social media.
Parents can opt their own children out of reading material that conflicts with their beliefs. The issue is that those same parents don't want ANY children reading those books.
> So what makes this different?
You're seriously comparing the banning of books from libraries to kidnapping and brainwashing kids? Nobody is trying to "genocide a culture" here, people just want to have their own views represented and are being denied. That is an absurd comparison to make.
> So what makes this different?
You're seriously comparing the banning of books from libraries to kidnapping and brainwashing kids? Nobody is trying to "genocide a culture" here, people just want to have their own views represented and are being denied. That is an absurd comparison to make.
Go howl at the moon.
The list of banned books is incomplete.
For instance, Gone with the Wind was banned in ~~Alameda~~ Anaheim[0], but California is listed as having no banned books.
Students should have access to any books they are likely to have heard of or are of educational value.
[0] https://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/column/2013/04/07/ba...
For instance, Gone with the Wind was banned in ~~Alameda~~ Anaheim[0], but California is listed as having no banned books.
Students should have access to any books they are likely to have heard of or are of educational value.
[0] https://bbark.deepforestproductions.com/column/2013/04/07/ba...
The source says it was banned in 1978. I suspect that the ban may not still be in effect.
It'd be interesting to see what books each school library makes available to confirm; I'm not aware of a way to find that information.
Slightly different, but more recently in Burbank several other books were banned from being included in curricula amid parent outcry:
https://abc7news.com/to-kill-a-mockingbird-ban-book-bank-bur...
Slightly different, but more recently in Burbank several other books were banned from being included in curricula amid parent outcry:
https://abc7news.com/to-kill-a-mockingbird-ban-book-bank-bur...
Your article doesn't say that Alameda County banned Gone with the Wind. Alameda County has multiple school districts within it. Which one are you claiming banned the book, and where is the evidence?
Misread, thanks for the correction; it was Anaheim, not Alameda. Early morning brain fart, but the point still stands.
I'll be honest. I'm really struggling to charitably interpret the reasons behind why a person might choose to flag this particular post. The article is well researched and contains a potential reading list, for those interested.
To dang et al part of moderation/admin - Does this post really not meet HN guidelines? Also as a suggestion, whenever a person might choose to flag a post, it would help if there were a drop down menu that listed some options like "Flag it for...<insert frequent reason>", that might indicate to the OP on what the perceived transgression might be; without revealing the name of the flagger, of course. At the time of writing there is just "flag" or "unflag", which lacks nuance. It's been ~24 hours, the flagged status hasn't been lifted, and I'm none the wiser on why.
To dang et al part of moderation/admin - Does this post really not meet HN guidelines? Also as a suggestion, whenever a person might choose to flag a post, it would help if there were a drop down menu that listed some options like "Flag it for...<insert frequent reason>", that might indicate to the OP on what the perceived transgression might be; without revealing the name of the flagger, of course. At the time of writing there is just "flag" or "unflag", which lacks nuance. It's been ~24 hours, the flagged status hasn't been lifted, and I'm none the wiser on why.
So freedom, except for books some people don't like?
Huckleberry Finn? Anarchist's Cookbook? are we arguing over which books should be banned or that no books should be banned? 'cuz I'm on the "no bans" side, myself. Seems to be the less common position.
Books that are actually banned aren't in school libraries, reading lists, and Amazon won't carry them [1]. But the temptation to feel like a rebel for buying a "banned book", prominently advertised in a large corporate chain bookstore, is just too great.
That is when they're not accusing free speech of being a white supremacist value.
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/after-activist-pressure-amazon...
That is when they're not accusing free speech of being a white supremacist value.
[1] https://truthout.org/articles/after-activist-pressure-amazon...
So... this is not a new thing. Schools have always been filtering books in libraries for age appropriateness since forever. My school libraries growing up never had Kama Sutra or Mein Kampf (probably for good reasons).
I don't know what part of the "movement" is growing - is it that more books are being filtered than before, there are more books to sort through but the same ratio is being ratio, or there is just more outside attention on the process?
I don't know what part of the "movement" is growing - is it that more books are being filtered than before, there are more books to sort through but the same ratio is being ratio, or there is just more outside attention on the process?
The page addresses how this is different than filtering books for appropriateness:
> It is important to recognize that books available in schools, whether in a school or classroom library, or as part of a curriculum, were selected by librarians and educators as part of the educational offerings to students. Book bans occur when those choices are overridden by school boards, administrators, teachers, or even politicians, on the basis of a particular book’s content.
> It is important to recognize that books available in schools, whether in a school or classroom library, or as part of a curriculum, were selected by librarians and educators as part of the educational offerings to students. Book bans occur when those choices are overridden by school boards, administrators, teachers, or even politicians, on the basis of a particular book’s content.
Related discussion from yesterday: "US librarians face unprecedented attacks amid rightwing book bans", The Guardian. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32915214
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Great Bible Battle
https://www.patreon.com/posts/40531144
https://www.patreon.com/posts/40531144
CedarMills(5)
growing movement to portray same-sex marriage to ages 4-7 repeatedly
Yeah, it's not like I ever saw a heterosexual married couple when I was 4-7. That'd be traumatic.
"portray same-sex marriage" is a pretty weird way to describe parents existing.
In a few centuries, it may catch up with the movement to portray different-sex marriage to ages 4-7 repeatedly.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
let's step back and observe this moment
I see the words "trauma" "weird" "wrong" "disgusting" "sexually" and others in the many replies below, at the same time as multiple downvotes for saying this directly..
I see the words "trauma" "weird" "wrong" "disgusting" "sexually" and others in the many replies below, at the same time as multiple downvotes for saying this directly..
I'm also flabbergasted by that. This movement to ban books is just the pendulum swinging in the other direction, because it was moved too far up to the other side.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. This is the good fascism we've been looking for. That durn pendulum of freedom has swung too far in the direction of the gays and the crossdressers. We have to ban books to fix it!
Fascism!? Do you believe any book is okay in a CHILDREN'S library?? Of course the books need to be reviewed and decided if they are appropriate.
Brave new world.
At some point freedom just becomes hedonism. Eventually hedonism starts to enforce hedonistic mantras on the whole society, it becomes yet another flavor of fascism.
At some point freedom just becomes hedonism. Eventually hedonism starts to enforce hedonistic mantras on the whole society, it becomes yet another flavor of fascism.
Kids knowing that same-sex marriage exists (and is okay!) isn’t going to hurt them
Schools are taxpayer run and can't provide every single book. So how do we decided which books are taught? Seems up to elected officials, school boards etc?
One political party is removing access to books. They're doing it in the easiest place they can. They will never come for you because you have money and are an adult.
But this is fascism and the people in the thread who are defending it are cool with fascism. They like it because it hurts people they don't like. They will defend fascism with their lives, and many of the people you work with are these people.