> it’s important to note that they are to the end of positive social change
The end does not justify the means.
Name me one single objectively bad political movement which internally thought of themselves as bad or negative. There isn't one. They all claim and for the largest part of their membership believe to serve the greater good. Therefore I find this argument of the author extremely weak. Surely they can come up with some less naive arguments?
To move away from sophistry and towards some concrete understanding, which of the sample books they provided for that blurb would you say is "true negative"? Others which aren't explicitly highlighted would also be acceptable.
- Enough! 20 Protesters Who Changed America
- Gays and Mental Health: Fighting Depression, Saying No to Suicide
- I am Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights
- Tomorrow Will Be Different: Love, Loss, and the Fight for Trans Equality
> They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process at schools and libraries. Standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves while irregular bans do not have robust processes and can be influenced by interest groups or local officials.
Seems like when the book is removed from library using an opaque, bureaucratic process, it’s called “standard exclusion”, and when it is removed using different, more public and democratic process, it’s called “banning”. Otherwise, there is no difference in the actual outcome: whether it is “standard exclusion” or “banning”, the end result is simply that book is removed from library (or prevented from being added) all the same.
Therefore, I agree that the “bans” are “ideologically driven”, because the reason this democratic process of excluding books from libraries is called “banning” is indeed very much ideological.
This might also be useful to non-Americans, who aren’t necessarily intimately familiar with US politics and language games: no book have actually been banned in US in the standard meaning of this word. Every single book on the banned list is completely legal and typically easy to obtain and possess. Even in the schools where these “banned” books were removed from libraries, I believe that the students are entirely free to possess and read these “banned” books: I never heard of schools actually treating these books as contraband. This whole “banning” narrative is simply describing removal of books from libraries through democratic instead of bureaucratic process, and the choice of the word is meant to invoke mental connotations of some sort of authoritarian/totalitarian state.
> whole “banning” narrative is simply describing removal of books from libraries through democratic instead of bureaucratic process
Put another way, through a political versus administrative process. That's rightfully problematic. It's not a ban, but we purposely ring-fence libraries from politics.
Hm, seems pretty similar to me. Especially when the article itself identifies only 1.6% of the books as having a 17+ rating.
[edit] Anyone who believes in freedom of expression and the first amendment should recognize this as a negative step, and a clear thin-edge issue. These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. "Will someone think of the children" is a well worn path. There's plenty of books about this kind of thing, like The Giver, but you know, it's probably on the list.
Perhaps not, but for people in most other countries, the idea that some public schools will just ban whatever they want in an ad hoc fashion amounts to the same thing as saying that it’s the government doing it.
From an international-vs-US perspective, education being state-run or locally-governed is really more of a technicality than anything, because education policy is largely a national concern.
In many (or most?) other developed countries, there is a public-private divide where there is a pretty well established expectation that the government doesn’t ban things it deems “merely immoral”, an expectation exemplified by the separation of church and state. Private institutions on the other hand are given more leeway on that front, because their services are opt-in.
Sadly, the word "ban" has been used all too inapropriatley lately. And this website doesn't seem to help as nowhere did I see exactly what they meant by banned, who banned them, or exactly what the ban entails.
Banning, in this case, means removal from libraries. Sometimes it is by state order, sometimes it is via independent action taken by the school district (although that is usually also in an attempt to adhere with state board of education guidelines).
The linked data source cited for this article provides ban classifications for each and every book they list as banned.
> Standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves while irregular bans do not have robust processes and can be influenced by interest groups or local officials.
Overgeneralized.
For example, Lord of the Flies is on the list. The standard "violence" filters weren't enough to filter that one out, apparently.
One of the books is literally titled "Sex & Violence." Again, "standard exclusions" didn't filter that out.
Am I blind? Where are the reviews? The website is also utterly broken on my device...
What I always find interesting is what exactly "banned" means. Certainly there is no government which punishes distribution, printing or reading of those books.
I wonder what the methodology is. If I mail a copy of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" to some NYC school, and they decline to devote library space to it, does that mean it's "banned"? Or does it require an existing inclusion, and subsequent politically-motivated "banning" by upset parties?
Glancing at the list, it looks like quite a bit of the usual leftist propaganda, but also some bland stuff like "14 Cows for America". No one is really "banning" that in a sincere way. You want "banned" look for some David Irving down at your public school library.
I wonder how the authors feel about restrictions on books such as The Bell Curve or others. I don't particularly like or agree with those sorts of ideas, but I am curious of there is a double standard or if these people are generally interested in and/or opposed to the banning of books generally.
Book banning seems like a strange red line to have forgotten. If your kid is going to be corrupted by going into a library and finding a book that's naughtier than your taste, they're probably ahead of their similarly-corruptible peers who aren't in a library at all.
Their findings are that the book bannings are really for the purpose of
Virtue signal by people in positions of institutional power to voting-age parents interested in school choice, parental rights, and wedge social issues to the detriment of non-voting age students
Reject and exclude topics that challenge a perceived status quo from the public discourse (e.g. non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted
and that
Fortunately, book bans are widely unpopular amongst parents across the ideological spectrum.
It would make sense though given that reading can be transformative for some people but realistically I think most folks are worried about everyday problems like teen pregnancy and substance abuse or getting into fights - and to your point if they are off reading unbearable moral philosophy in some library they aren't out screwing around.
> Book banning seems like a strange red line to have forgotten
Has book banning ever been a red line? Many Western countries, from Canada to France through US and New Zealand have banned many books for most of their existence.
Not sure why virtue signal is being used ironically? Every political and social group is capable of virtue signaling. Plenty of folks left, right, and center who Virtue Signal their beliefs.
IMO, it's a useless term, since it's essentially saying, "someone did something they didn't genuine believe in", but there's little to no ability to demonstrate someone's actual intent.
Call people hypocrites (if that matters from you) or unauthentic.
npstr|2 years ago
The end does not justify the means. Name me one single objectively bad political movement which internally thought of themselves as bad or negative. There isn't one. They all claim and for the largest part of their membership believe to serve the greater good. Therefore I find this argument of the author extremely weak. Surely they can come up with some less naive arguments?
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
femiagbabiaka|2 years ago
- Enough! 20 Protesters Who Changed America
- Gays and Mental Health: Fighting Depression, Saying No to Suicide
- I am Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Peaceful Fights for Equal Rights
- Tomorrow Will Be Different: Love, Loss, and the Fight for Trans Equality
unknown|2 years ago
[deleted]
xyzzyz|2 years ago
> They are supplemental to and fall outside of the standard book exclusion process at schools and libraries. Standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves while irregular bans do not have robust processes and can be influenced by interest groups or local officials.
Seems like when the book is removed from library using an opaque, bureaucratic process, it’s called “standard exclusion”, and when it is removed using different, more public and democratic process, it’s called “banning”. Otherwise, there is no difference in the actual outcome: whether it is “standard exclusion” or “banning”, the end result is simply that book is removed from library (or prevented from being added) all the same.
Therefore, I agree that the “bans” are “ideologically driven”, because the reason this democratic process of excluding books from libraries is called “banning” is indeed very much ideological.
This might also be useful to non-Americans, who aren’t necessarily intimately familiar with US politics and language games: no book have actually been banned in US in the standard meaning of this word. Every single book on the banned list is completely legal and typically easy to obtain and possess. Even in the schools where these “banned” books were removed from libraries, I believe that the students are entirely free to possess and read these “banned” books: I never heard of schools actually treating these books as contraband. This whole “banning” narrative is simply describing removal of books from libraries through democratic instead of bureaucratic process, and the choice of the word is meant to invoke mental connotations of some sort of authoritarian/totalitarian state.
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
Put another way, through a political versus administrative process. That's rightfully problematic. It's not a ban, but we purposely ring-fence libraries from politics.
fwjlwo|2 years ago
[deleted]
jiveturkey42|2 years ago
doingmaths|2 years ago
1) "Books that were banned, somewhere within the US"
2) "Books that were banned, across the US"
In this case, at the behest of state and municipal governments, there are books that fit into reading one.
arcticbull|2 years ago
[edit] Anyone who believes in freedom of expression and the first amendment should recognize this as a negative step, and a clear thin-edge issue. These are ideological decisions made by partisans with the goal being to shape the corpus of thinking of youth. "Will someone think of the children" is a well worn path. There's plenty of books about this kind of thing, like The Giver, but you know, it's probably on the list.
epgui|2 years ago
From an international-vs-US perspective, education being state-run or locally-governed is really more of a technicality than anything, because education policy is largely a national concern.
In many (or most?) other developed countries, there is a public-private divide where there is a pretty well established expectation that the government doesn’t ban things it deems “merely immoral”, an expectation exemplified by the separation of church and state. Private institutions on the other hand are given more leeway on that front, because their services are opt-in.
systemtest|2 years ago
maxerickson|2 years ago
smrtinsert|2 years ago
gmiller123456|2 years ago
femiagbabiaka|2 years ago
The linked data source cited for this article provides ban classifications for each and every book they list as banned.
hotpotamus|2 years ago
paulddraper|2 years ago
> Standard exclusions prevent books that promote violent, hateful, or mature/17+” topics from being placed on school bookshelves while irregular bans do not have robust processes and can be influenced by interest groups or local officials.
Overgeneralized.
For example, Lord of the Flies is on the list. The standard "violence" filters weren't enough to filter that one out, apparently.
One of the books is literally titled "Sex & Violence." Again, "standard exclusions" didn't filter that out.
dshacker|2 years ago
constantcrying|2 years ago
Am I blind? Where are the reviews? The website is also utterly broken on my device...
What I always find interesting is what exactly "banned" means. Certainly there is no government which punishes distribution, printing or reading of those books.
doingmaths|2 years ago
Yes, state and municipal level governments have banned books in the US?
Here's a list of some example laws in, e.g., education: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Tj5WQVBmB6SQg-zP_M8u...
mynameishere|2 years ago
Glancing at the list, it looks like quite a bit of the usual leftist propaganda, but also some bland stuff like "14 Cows for America". No one is really "banning" that in a sincere way. You want "banned" look for some David Irving down at your public school library.
friend_and_foe|2 years ago
JumpCrisscross|2 years ago
burnished|2 years ago
Virtue signal by people in positions of institutional power to voting-age parents interested in school choice, parental rights, and wedge social issues to the detriment of non-voting age students Reject and exclude topics that challenge a perceived status quo from the public discourse (e.g. non-heteronormativity, non-cis identity, non-traditional gender roles, and non-Judeo-Christian books are targeted
and that
Fortunately, book bans are widely unpopular amongst parents across the ideological spectrum.
It would make sense though given that reading can be transformative for some people but realistically I think most folks are worried about everyday problems like teen pregnancy and substance abuse or getting into fights - and to your point if they are off reading unbearable moral philosophy in some library they aren't out screwing around.
shakow|2 years ago
Has book banning ever been a red line? Many Western countries, from Canada to France through US and New Zealand have banned many books for most of their existence.
thfuran|2 years ago
peepeepoopoo9|2 years ago
[deleted]
panick21_|2 years ago
People feel powerless and have no actual control, but going after the local book-shelf gives a feeling of accomplishment.
Not at easy to ban content from TikTok or Youtube.
tmaly|2 years ago
Are half the books banned for references to sexual material? It is hard to tell.
sys32768|2 years ago
teachrdan|2 years ago
aSithLord|2 years ago
pfannkuchen|2 years ago
[deleted]
slackfan|2 years ago
[deleted]
version_five|2 years ago
[deleted]
version_five|2 years ago
[deleted]
doingmaths|2 years ago
IMO, it's a useless term, since it's essentially saying, "someone did something they didn't genuine believe in", but there's little to no ability to demonstrate someone's actual intent.
Call people hypocrites (if that matters from you) or unauthentic.