We hate hearing about "book bans" because our minds jump at once to Nazi book burnings, 1984, and the like. The press knows it fires us up and so they can't help but use it any time anyone says they won't allow a book somewhere. It's too loose. Consider this categorization of bans I made up just now:
- Level A: Government disallows public elementary schools to use it.
- Level B: Government disallows public middle schools to use it.
- Level C: Government disallows public high schools to use it.
- Level D: Government disallows public libraries to stock it.
- Level E: Government disallows retailers to sell it.
- Level F: Government penalizes publishers for printing it.
- Level G: Government punishes anyone who possesses it. (eg the Koran in V for Vendetta)
- Level H: Government punishes writers for writing it (eg Galileo)
Maybe I'm old school, but when I hear "book ban" my mind jumps somewhere between D and H depending on my mood. Yet almost every article (copied the name of some below) I see is talking about school libraries (levels A,B,C). Still, it's "BOOK BAN". Are schools "banning" books? Yes, but heres the thing: they should. Good, reasonable people disagree on which books don't belong in, say, a 2nd grade classroom, but none maintain that all 7-year olds ought to have access to every book ever published. We don't let them see all the movies, listen to all the music, and we don't let them read all the books.
What's worse, this numbing use of "book ban" too often distracts from what matters more; what the kids are actually reading. Kids have never read every book in the library and so it matters less the ones which aren't there than the ones the schools choose to have them read. It would be much more enlightening to see a headline that says "Local school to have every kid read Iliad/Poet X/Captain Underpants", but of course that doesn't get our blood pumping, so "book ban" it is.
Anything Level D or above is, of course, shameful and unbecoming of a free society. We should call out such book bans wherever we see them and whether they're de facto or de jure. At the same time we need to keep our rhetoric lukewarm when a school district decides they don't want a book in their classrooms for some reason. We can disagree with it, and take it on its merits, but if we shout "book ban!" every time then people will be so numb from all the level A-C that they'll think level D-H is more of the same.
Here are some recent titles from r/books for reference:
- Utah outlaws books by Judy Blume and Sarah J Maas in first statewide ban
- US public schools banned 10,000 books in most recent academic year
- It's now illegal for Minnesota libraries to ban LGBTQ+ books under this new law
- Florida school board pays over $100K to defend ban on book about same-sex penguin pair
- Oklahoma revokes license of teacher who gave class QR code to Brooklyn library in book-ban protest
- Bible ban? Florida lawmakers respond to calls to have Bible removed from schools: "After some say recently passed education legislation targets minority and LGBTQ books, Pop singer Pink will give away 2,000 banned books at Miami area concerts this week
- Illinois House passes bill prohibiting book bans
- Book Bans Are Surging in Florida. So Lauren Groff Opened a Bookstore. (Gift Article)
by pchrisl
1 Comment
>Maybe I’m old school, but when I hear “book ban” my mind jumps somewhere between D and H depending on my mood. Yet almost every article (copied the name of some below) I see is talking about school libraries (levels A,B,C). Still, it’s “BOOK BAN”.
If you accept that there are multiple versions of what a book ban look like, then what is the issue here?
If a person steals a candy bar from a 7-11 or if they steal $100million from a bank, both are still examples of theft. The fact that they are at different scales is irrelevant.