Banning books is a really bad idea

[Kyriakos]

Apparently schools in the US (and elsewhere) ban books written "more than 70 years ago", arguing that they include racist and other corrupt ideas which will harm the children.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-homer-gets-mobbed-11609095872?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

A sustained effort is under way to deny children access to literature. Under the slogan #DisruptTexts, critical-theory ideologues, schoolteachers and Twitter agitators are purging and propagandizing against classic texts—everything from Homer to F. Scott Fitzgerald to Dr. Seuss.

Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular—especially those “in which racism, sexism, ableism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hate are the norm,” as young-adult novelist Padma Venkatraman writes in School Library Journal. No author is valuable enough to spare, Ms. Venkatraman instructs: “Absolving Shakespeare of responsibility by mentioning that he lived at a time when hate-ridden sentiments prevailed, risks sending a subliminal message that academic excellence outweighs hateful rhetoric.”

The subtle complexities of literature are being reduced to the crude clanking of “intersectional” power struggles. Thus Seattle English teacher Evin Shinn tweeted in 2018 that he’d “rather die” than teach “The Scarlet Letter,” unless Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel is used to “fight against misogyny and slut-shaming.”

Outsiders got a glimpse of the intensity of the #DisruptTexts campaign recently when self-described “antiracist teacher” Lorena Germán complained that many classics were written more than 70 years ago: “Think of US society before then & the values that shaped this nation afterwards. THAT is what is in those books.”

Jessica Cluess, an author of young-adult fiction, shot back: “If you think Hawthorne was on the side of the judgmental Puritans . . . then you are an absolute idiot and should not have the title of educator in your twitter bio.”

An online horde descended, accused Ms. Cluess of racism and “violence,” and demanded that Penguin Random House cancel her contract. The publisher hasn’t complied, perhaps because Ms. Cluess tweeted a ritual self-denunciation: “I take full responsibility for my unprovoked anger toward Lorena Germán. . . . I am committed to learning more about Ms. Germán’s important work with #DisruptTexts. . . . I will strive to do better.” That didn’t stop Ms. Cluess’s literary agent, Brooks Sherman, from denouncing her “racist and unacceptable” opinions and terminating their professional relationship.

The demands for censorship appear to be getting results. “Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take the Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash),” tweeted Shea Martin in June. “Hahaha,” replied Heather Levine, an English teacher at Lawrence (Mass.) High School. “Very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!” When I contacted Ms. Levine to confirm this, she replied that she found the inquiry “invasive.” The English Department chairman of Lawrence Public Schools, Richard Gorham, didn’t respond to emails.

“It’s a tragedy that this anti-intellectual movement of canceling the classics is gaining traction among educators and the mainstream publishing industry,” says science-fiction writer Jon Del Arroz, one of the rare industry voices to defend Ms. Cluess. “Erasing the history of great works only limits the ability of children to become literate.”

He’s right. If there is harm in classic literature, it comes from not teaching it. Students excused from reading foundational texts may imagine themselves lucky to get away with YA novels instead—that’s what the #DisruptTexts people want—but compared with their better-educated peers they will suffer a poverty of language and cultural reference. Worse, they won’t even know it.

Mrs. Gurdon writes the Journal’s Children’s Books column.

Literature isn't politics. If you limit what children read to "books published less than 70 years ago" you just teach something not valuable next to what others would be learning. Besides, you can't erase any notion, at best you'll block the refined expression of it and leave your students with their own means; one has to suppose the smarter ones will just dismiss your books, but they wouldn't have better models to work with.
Maybe they should also ban math stuff produced more than 70 years ago, it'd be an equally good idea.

One would do well to realize that if an idea is more valuable, it will still shine through others. Banning books cause you are afraid they may influence people is just the fear of the incompetent.
Also reminds me of the nice starting paragraph of Borges' story "The Theologians":

After having razed the garden and profaned the chalices and altars, the Huns entered the monastery library on horseback and trampled the incomprehensible books and vituperated and burned them, perhaps fearful that the letters concealed blasphemies against their god, which was an iron scimitar.

Note: This topic was first posted in the thread about General Politics, but I think it does deserve its own thread. Thanks (also) to @Birdjaguar for providing the full text of the article. If he didn't, this thread couldn't exist, so in a way he is the enemy of the proponents of banning books so they should attack him, not me

 

[Arwon]

Yeah that's probably not really a thing, and even if it were, selecting a cirriculum isn't banning the things that aren't on it?

 

[Kyriakos]

Yeah that's probably not really a thing, and even if it were, selecting a cirriculum isn't banning the things that aren't on it?

I don't think this is a good idea, and that it got any traction at all (visible by the publishing houses paying attention & forced apologies) is already rather alarming.

 

[r16]

the power of the younger generation always stem from the cruel natural law that everybody invariably gets old and loses percentages of abilities . lf you were to sabotage the future by driving it into tasteless behaviour the pains of change could be less , along with a decreased chance of being "overthrown" along the way . Also , the thing that every story has been already written . How will the younger generation of authors will make a living ? Unless the past is erased and a new market is created ?

 

[Gorbles]

Literature isn't politics.

Disagree, literature is inherently political.

But there's a lot of this that already goes on in the US and that all seems to go off without much coverage. What's uniquely bad about allegedly choosing to leave arguably racist text out of a curriculum?

Is this not the natural evolution of allowing creationism in schools, and other such actions? If you want to tackle this specific thing, you need to be aware of the wider context.

 

[Kyriakos]

Disagree, literature is inherently political.

But there's a lot of this that already goes on in the US and that all seems to go off without much coverage. What's uniquely bad about allegedly choosing to leave arguably racist text out of a curriculum?

Is this not the natural evolution of allowing creationism in schools, and other such actions? If you want to tackle this specific thing, you need to be aware of the wider context.

One of the racist texts omitted is the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Seems to be the case that the teachers just can't teach anything serious, so want to be in their safe zone of presenting tv flamewars as literature.

If literature was politics, it wouldn't be its own thing, rest assured. (to say that it's inherently political is, imo, verging on being a platitude, no? When something is inescapable it doesn't define something, much like you wouldn't describe someone's oration by saying it made sounds; you would mention extreme noise if it was there, however, much like with explicitly political literature such as the one written to invade Poland)

 

[Gorbles]

One of the racist texts omitted is the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.
Seems to be the case that the teachers just can't teach anything serious, so want to be in their safe zone of presenting tv flamewars as literature.

If literature was politics, it wouldn't be its own thing, rest assured. (to say that it's inherently political is, imo, verging on being a platitude, no?)

* allegedly.

But what about answering my question? How is this worse than what already exists, and how do you prevent it considering other such things aren't prevented? It all stems from the choice of the academic or school in question.

EDIT

Right-wing academics exist. Conservative-leaning school (and university) administrations exist. Do you think they teach everything freely and fairly?

Do you want to take that choice away from the academic or school in question?

 

[Kyriakos]

* allegedly.

But what about answering my question? How is this worse than what already exists, and how do you prevent it considering other such things aren't prevented? It all stems from the choice of the academic or school in question.

It doesn't matter if it is some isolated case. But surely it won't be beneficial if important works of literature get pushed aside just cause they were written more than 70 years ago. Writing doesn't begin with the US civil-rights movement; before Poe no one really bothered with US literature either

 

[Gorbles]

It doesn't matter if it is some isolated case. But surely it won't be beneficial if important works of literature get pushed aside just cause they were written more than 70 years ago. Writing doesn't begin with the US civil-rights movement; before Poe no one really bothered with US literature either

I'm not interested in how beneficial it is - that's a very subjective topic (that goes into personal ideology and so on).

I'm asking how you'd address this considering that it's not new and exists in other forms already. I'm not saying "it's okay because other forms of it exist". I'm asking how you'd solve the perceived problem considering other forms also exist. I also asked why this particular instance is so bad (that it warrants a thread)?

 

[Kyriakos]

I'm not interested in how beneficial it is - that's a very subjective topic (that goes into personal ideology and so on).

I'm asking how you'd address this considering that it's not new and exists in other forms already. I'm not saying "it's okay because other forms of it exist". I'm asking how you'd solve the perceived problem considering other forms also exist. I also asked why this particular instance is so bad (that it warrants a thread)?

I suppose all other world problems should be solved before making a thread about a bad trend
And "what other forms" are you thinking of?

edit: if you mean "right-wing academicians", I thought the classic works of literature sort of are above individual people, let alone individual teachers. Surely no one claims that just cause x teaches (say) Shakespeare, they are of the same level or importance for literature.

 

[Gorbles]

I suppose all other world problems should be solved before making a thread about a bad trend
And "what other forms" are you thinking of?

edit: if you mean "right-wing academicians", I thought the classic works of literature sort of are above individual people, let alone individual teachers. Surely no one claims that just cause x teaches (say) Shakespeare, they are of the same level or importance for literature.

I explicitly mentioned teaching creationism in schools, for one. I pointed out this all stems from the same choice (that Arwon also pointed out).

I want to know how you'd solve this apparent problem considering it isn't just limited to the examples in the OP. You seem to be objecting to one particular version of it, based on the observation that this version targets arguably offensive text (or authors). That's too narrow, and would lead to legislating against progressives for being progressive. Dangerous territory, no? Which is why I was referring to the problem on the whole.

So if you could answer the questions, that'd be great. Otherwise I've said all I can say.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The only reason this is news is because the book banners are PC. lefties.
No hard facts on how common or widespread this is in the US.

Heres a list of the 10 most banned books in the US education system from 2019.

1. George by Alex Gino
   Reasons: challenged, banned, restricted, and hidden to avoid controversy; for LGBTQIA+ content and a transgender character; because schools and libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion”; for sexual references; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint and “traditional family structure”
2. Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out by Susan Kuklin
   Reasons: challenged for LGBTQIA+ content, for “its effect on any young people who would read it,” and for concerns that it was sexually explicit and biased
3. A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo by Jill Twiss, illustrated by EG Keller
   Reasons: Challenged and vandalized for LGBTQIA+ content and political viewpoints, for concerns that it is “designed to pollute the morals of its readers,” and for not including a content warning
4. Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg, illustrated by Fiona Smyth
   Reasons: Challenged, banned, and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content; for discussing gender identity and sex education; and for concerns that the title and illustrations were “inappropriate”
5. Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack, illustrated by Stevie Lewis
   Reasons: Challenged and restricted for featuring a gay marriage and LGBTQIA+ content; for being “a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children” with the potential to cause confusion, curiosity, and gender dysphoria; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint
6. I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas
   Reasons: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content, for a transgender character, and for confronting a topic that is “sensitive, controversial, and politically charged”
7. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
   Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity and for “vulgarity and sexual overtones”
8. Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier
   Reasons: Challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and for concerns that it goes against “family values/morals”
9. Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
   Reasons: Banned and forbidden from discussion for referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goals
10. And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson illustrated by Henry Cole
    Reason: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content

List taken from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10

Notice a pattern?

 

[Sarin]

The only reason this is news is because the book banners are PC. lefties.
No hard facts on how common or widespread this is in the US.

Heres a list of the 10 most banned books in the US education system from 2019.

1. George by Alex Gino
   Reasons: challenged, banned, restricted, and hidden to avoid controversy; for LGBTQIA+ content and a transgender character; because schools and libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion”; for sexual references; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint and “traditional family structure”
2. Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out by Susan Kuklin
   Reasons: challenged for LGBTQIA+ content, for “its effect on any young people who would read it,” and for concerns that it was sexually explicit and biased
3. A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo by Jill Twiss, illustrated by EG Keller
   Reasons: Challenged and vandalized for LGBTQIA+ content and political viewpoints, for concerns that it is “designed to pollute the morals of its readers,” and for not including a content warning
4. Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg, illustrated by Fiona Smyth
   Reasons: Challenged, banned, and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content; for discussing gender identity and sex education; and for concerns that the title and illustrations were “inappropriate”
5. Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack, illustrated by Stevie Lewis
   Reasons: Challenged and restricted for featuring a gay marriage and LGBTQIA+ content; for being “a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children” with the potential to cause confusion, curiosity, and gender dysphoria; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint
6. I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas
   Reasons: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content, for a transgender character, and for confronting a topic that is “sensitive, controversial, and politically charged”
7. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
   Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity and for “vulgarity and sexual overtones”
8. Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier
   Reasons: Challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and for concerns that it goes against “family values/morals”
9. Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
   Reasons: Banned and forbidden from discussion for referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goals
10. And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson illustrated by Henry Cole
    Reason: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content

List taken from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10

Notice a pattern?

And just to bring this list into perspective: I remember at least the Harry Potter controversy causing similar reaction. And none of these had even a fraction of impact that Homer or Shakespeare had and continue to have on cultures across the world.

 

[amadeus]

The only reason this is news is because the book banners are PC. lefties.

I can only speak for myself but I’ve heard of the “Moral Majority” types trying to get books banned from schools many times because of content they found offensive.

 

[Patine]

Apparently schools in the US (and elsewhere) ban books written "more than 70 years ago", arguing that they include racist and other corrupt ideas which will harm the children.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/even-homer-gets-mobbed-11609095872?mod=hp_opin_pos_1



Literature isn't politics. If you limit what children read to "books published less than 70 years ago" you just teach something not valuable next to what others would be learning. Besides, you can't erase any notion, at best you'll block the refined expression of it and leave your students with their own means; one has to suppose the smarter ones will just dismiss your books, but they wouldn't have better models to work with.
Maybe they should also ban math stuff produced less than 70 years ago, it'd be an equally good idea.

One would do well to realize that if an idea is more valuable, it will still shine through others. Banning books cause you are afraid they may influence people is just the fear of the incompetent.
Also reminds me of the nice starting paragraph of Borges' story "The Theologians":



Note: This topic was first posted in the thread about General Politics, but I think it does deserve its own thread. Thanks (also) to @Birdjaguar for providing the full text of the article. If he didn't, this thread couldn't exist, so in a way he is the enemy of the proponents of banning books so they should attack him, not me

Yeah that's probably not really a thing, and even if it were, selecting a cirriculum isn't banning the things that aren't on it?

the power of the younger generation always stem from the cruel natural law that everybody invariably gets old and loses percentages of abilities . lf you were to sabotage the future by driving it into tasteless behaviour the pains of change could be less , along with a decreased chance of being "overthrown" along the way . Also , the thing that every story has been already written . How will the younger generation of authors will make a living ? Unless the past is erased and a new market is created ?

Disagree, literature is inherently political.

But there's a lot of this that already goes on in the US and that all seems to go off without much coverage. What's uniquely bad about allegedly choosing to leave arguably racist text out of a curriculum?

Is this not the natural evolution of allowing creationism in schools, and other such actions? If you want to tackle this specific thing, you need to be aware of the wider context.

The only reason this is news is because the book banners are PC. lefties.
No hard facts on how common or widespread this is in the US.

Heres a list of the 10 most banned books in the US education system from 2019.

1. George by Alex Gino
   Reasons: challenged, banned, restricted, and hidden to avoid controversy; for LGBTQIA+ content and a transgender character; because schools and libraries should not “put books in a child’s hand that require discussion”; for sexual references; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint and “traditional family structure”
2. Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out by Susan Kuklin
   Reasons: challenged for LGBTQIA+ content, for “its effect on any young people who would read it,” and for concerns that it was sexually explicit and biased
3. A Day in the Life of Marlon Bundo by Jill Twiss, illustrated by EG Keller
   Reasons: Challenged and vandalized for LGBTQIA+ content and political viewpoints, for concerns that it is “designed to pollute the morals of its readers,” and for not including a content warning
4. Sex is a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg, illustrated by Fiona Smyth
   Reasons: Challenged, banned, and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content; for discussing gender identity and sex education; and for concerns that the title and illustrations were “inappropriate”
5. Prince & Knight by Daniel Haack, illustrated by Stevie Lewis
   Reasons: Challenged and restricted for featuring a gay marriage and LGBTQIA+ content; for being “a deliberate attempt to indoctrinate young children” with the potential to cause confusion, curiosity, and gender dysphoria; and for conflicting with a religious viewpoint
6. I Am Jazz by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings, illustrated by Shelagh McNicholas
   Reasons: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content, for a transgender character, and for confronting a topic that is “sensitive, controversial, and politically charged”
7. The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood
   Reasons: Banned and challenged for profanity and for “vulgarity and sexual overtones”
8. Drama written and illustrated by Raina Telgemeier
   Reasons: Challenged for LGBTQIA+ content and for concerns that it goes against “family values/morals”
9. Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
   Reasons: Banned and forbidden from discussion for referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goals
10. And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson illustrated by Henry Cole
    Reason: Challenged and relocated for LGBTQIA+ content

List taken from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10

Notice a pattern?

And just to bring this list into perspective: I remember at least the Harry Potter controversy causing similar reaction. And none of these had even a fraction of impact that Homer or Shakespeare had and continue to have on cultures across the world.

I can only speak for myself but I’ve heard of the “Moral Majority” types trying to get books banned from schools many times because of content they found offensive.

Banning books, regardless of where or when, who is doing it and where on the socio-political spectrum and ideological grid they sit, their CLAIMED reasons for doing so, and they're actual achieved level of success or not, is not actually about "morals," "promoting progressive ideals or conservative values," "protecting children from - anything, really," "decolonization or reclamation of history," "dealing with ideals found offensive in modern times," or any other garbage like that. It is a social, political, psychological, and anthropological power play, an attempt to artificially "conquer the past," through the illusion and pretense of what is read today, to arbitrarily decide what is appropriate from a cherry-picked menu of the actual scope of history, literature, and the human experience. Whether it is the Vatican Codex of Forbidden and Heretical Books, Puritanical proscribed readings, books publicly burned by the Nazis, "anti-social and anti-revolutionary," texts in the USSR, books targeted in the Cultural Revolution in China, haram publications in various Islamic Fundamentalist regimes, or banned books lists coerced by American Conservatives or Progressives, and everything else of that sort, it is an intolerable, unacceptable, immoral, and reactionary overreach and attack on the very collective experience of humanity - in essence, a non-violent CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY - and must be vigorously opposed, regardless of whom the transgressors may be, and how much or how little they have yet accomplished - by anyone with any ethical fibre or integrity. "Big Brother," in Orwell's novel, "1984," had the fact he'd practically re-written history, thoroughly, and completely controlled all access to any sort of old publications as one of his biggest pillars of power.

 

[amadeus]

I think a lot of them are just self-important busybodies who need to exert control over something, and since they have peaked at the highly-prestigious level of local school board [] getting a token measure forbidding some book they probably didn't read is an exercise in ego rather than creeping Orwellism.

See: Sayre's law

 

[Arwon]

I'm being censored because my book isn't being taught in schools.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm being censored because my book isn't being taught in schools.

Yes, real censorship occurs all the time in US schools without the WSJ taking any notice, but let a teacher or a school board decide the curriculum won't include some DWM and its an outrage.

 

[Patine]

I'm being censored because my book isn't being taught in schools.

Your book having never made it onto a school ciriculum list in the first place due to lack of promotion, visibility, and relevance to a lesson program is VERY different than cutting a long established book of such pedigree for the kind of reasons (or CLAIMED reasons) above, are VERY different issues. And I fully believe you know this very well...

Yes, real censorship occurs all the time in US schools without the WSJ taking any notice, but let a teacher or a school board decide the curriculum won't include some DWM and its an outrage.

As I said, the socio-political ideology of the ones demanding the ban are irrelevant in the end. It's the same phenomenon, and must be stood up to, regardless.

 

[JPetroski]

Having an American Literature class where you "never quite get around to" mentioning Mark Twain, F. Scott Fitzgerald, or Hemingway is basically akin to having an American History class where you forget to mention the Declaration of Independence.

Censorship or not, it's a lousy curriculum.