Color me one disgusted lesbian, retired journalist and former librarian. Between gender ideology, this completely age-inappropriate content and other disgusting culture captures/indoctrinations of TQIA++ two-spirited narcissists, I want to vomit every time I see the alphabet acronym that allegedly -- and wrongly -- includes me and other gay people who are likewise opposed. I swear, I'm developing externalized homophobia.
What is WRONG with these people? Do they care only for their own ideological agenda? (That's rhetorical.)
The ALA's claim that so many books are banned/censored is certainly an interesting take. Curation is a necessary feature of libraries, particularly school libraries. There are a lot of books that are unavailable while there is abundant availability of books that promote one view of a controversial topic.
In my local library I cannot find any copies of Fragile Neighborhoods by Seth Kaplan, Abigail Shrier's Bad Therapy or Batya Ungar Sargon's Second Class (not even on-order). At the same time there are many copies of White Rural Rage and the books named in this article. I understand that not everything can be purchased in quantities that meet the entire systems need, but the recurrent discourse over book availability is one we need to examine more thoughtfully.
Libraries do not have infinite resources, but to say that something is banned when it is available in the system is untrue. Instead of talking about the ALA bans, let's talk about what happens when you cannot get the book at all, through Marina, through Inter-Library Loans, through state exchange consortiums, or through the LOC. Only then would a book be truly "Banned".
RHGB: I wonder if we share the same library! In my library and its sister-sites (are we allowed to say that?), I have access to 30 some-odd versions of Ibram X Kendi’s books, and last I checked, ONE copy of Coleman Hughes’ recent release on the concept of being colorblind. Same kind of imbalance when I look at Robin D’Angelo vs Abigail Shrier. Clearly these libraries are choosing what is on their shelves. Are they willing to admit their actions closely resemble what they describe as book banning?
Former high school English teacher here. Not at all surprising that the ALA is manipulating data in order to stay relevant. Public libraries - at least those here in Chicago - have become mostly after-school babysitting centers and/or homeless person internet and bathroom access points. But it's a little surprising that anyone would be so blinded by progressive ideology that they would defend putting a book with illustrations of oral sex in the YA section of a school library. Wow. But The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? And Gone With the Wind? They've gotta go.
Why the determination to get graphic sexual content to kids so young? Are adults to provide no boundaries? I would prefer not to have Playboy magazine in the school library, but that's not 'banning' Playboy. Every year, I look over the summer reading list the schools publish for my children, and without fail, they are stories that represent the two obsessions of the teachers: racism, and bullying. That they have an agenda when picking books is beyond doubt, but are they that determined to include graphic sexual content?
The Left tries to make content it doesn't like unavailable to anyone anywhere at any price.
The Right doesn't want tax dollars to be used to force feed toxic propaganda to children.
The two are not the same.
What the Lefties call "banned books" are prominently displayed in "Banned Books" sections in bookstores, for Pete's sake.
Also, why is it that whenever a parent tries to read from a "banned book" at a school board meeting, the Lefty organizers stop the parent and accuse the parent of inappropriate content?
Everyone involved in the production of these lists is most likely a Democrat. Should that matter?
If they were all white, it would matter. If they were all male, it would matter. If they were all Jews or all Christians, it would matter. But it never seems to matter when they are all Democrats.
Here's the full text from ALA's Methodology section for their list. The full text doesn't make it any better or worse, in my opinion, but in cases like this I think it's helpful to get the full text of things rather than rely on someone else's summary:
Methodology
ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States. Because many book challenges are not reported to ALA or covered by the press, the data compiled by ALA represents a snapshot of book censorship.
A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict access to materials or services based upon the objections of a person or group. A challenge to a title may result in access to it being retained, restricted, or withdrawn entirely. Restrictions on access may include relocating the book to a section of the library intended for an older age group than the book is intended for, labeling it with a prejudicial content warning or rating, taking it out of the online catalog so it has to be requested from a staff member, removing it from open and freely browsable stacks, or requiring parental permission to check it out.
Challenges do not simply involve people expressing their point of view, but rather are an attempt to remove materials from curricula or libraries, thereby curtailing the ability of others to access information, views, ideas, expressions, and stories. A formal challenge leads to the reconsideration of the decision to purchase the material or offer the service. This process is governed by a board-approved policy and includes review of the material as a whole to assess if it is aligned with the library or school's mission and meets the criteria delineated in its selection, display, or programming policy (as applicable).
A book is banned when it is entirely removed from a collection in response to a formal or informal challenge.
Any reduction in access to library materials based on an individual or group's believe that they are harmful or offensive is an act of censorship. ALA does not consider weeding of an item based on criteria defined in a library or school district's policy to be a ban, nor do we characterize a temporary reduction in access resulting from the need to review materials to be a ban.
When I was young we had health classes in order to alert us to the danger of ending up with throat cancer. Now we have people wanting to protect a book that teaches kids how to catch it.
I'm really glad to see this. I've been complaining about this dishonest and stupid "banned books" thing for years. Oh wait: dishonest, stupid, and hypocritical, and repellently self-righteous. I refer to their "Banned Books Week" as "Librarians Hate It When You Question Their Judgment Week".
The echo chamber persists - going to B&N and seeing a section labeled Banned Books infuriates me. The sad truth is that many who hollar and scream don’t know the full gist of the story. Uninformed masses inculcated by the thought police.
Age appropriate is necessary. Thank God I had a mother who opted out when I was in school. The context meant more when I was old enough to have a fully functioning frontal cortex.
First off, always check if they have a copy of Fahrenheit 451. If they don't then ask why. If they say it is inappropriate, then the school library definitely has a problem with banning books. If you don't know why, read it and research its history.
"It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick... Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics."
"But you can’t make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up under them.'”
‘Remember, the firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord.'”
WSJ ran an article boosting the ALA's propaganda as news and I cancelled my subscription. I've read enough dishonest 'news' like that for a lifetime over the last decade. It's a stunning display of dishonesty to claim these books are being moved from one place to another due to identity politics. These idealogues have captured institutions with zero credibility: academia, NGOs, Hollywood, the DNC, federal bureaucracy... They may have salaries & benefits to leech, but zero social capital.
Color me one disgusted lesbian, retired journalist and former librarian. Between gender ideology, this completely age-inappropriate content and other disgusting culture captures/indoctrinations of TQIA++ two-spirited narcissists, I want to vomit every time I see the alphabet acronym that allegedly -- and wrongly -- includes me and other gay people who are likewise opposed. I swear, I'm developing externalized homophobia.
What is WRONG with these people? Do they care only for their own ideological agenda? (That's rhetorical.)
The ALA's claim that so many books are banned/censored is certainly an interesting take. Curation is a necessary feature of libraries, particularly school libraries. There are a lot of books that are unavailable while there is abundant availability of books that promote one view of a controversial topic.
In my local library I cannot find any copies of Fragile Neighborhoods by Seth Kaplan, Abigail Shrier's Bad Therapy or Batya Ungar Sargon's Second Class (not even on-order). At the same time there are many copies of White Rural Rage and the books named in this article. I understand that not everything can be purchased in quantities that meet the entire systems need, but the recurrent discourse over book availability is one we need to examine more thoughtfully.
Libraries do not have infinite resources, but to say that something is banned when it is available in the system is untrue. Instead of talking about the ALA bans, let's talk about what happens when you cannot get the book at all, through Marina, through Inter-Library Loans, through state exchange consortiums, or through the LOC. Only then would a book be truly "Banned".
RHGB: I wonder if we share the same library! In my library and its sister-sites (are we allowed to say that?), I have access to 30 some-odd versions of Ibram X Kendi’s books, and last I checked, ONE copy of Coleman Hughes’ recent release on the concept of being colorblind. Same kind of imbalance when I look at Robin D’Angelo vs Abigail Shrier. Clearly these libraries are choosing what is on their shelves. Are they willing to admit their actions closely resemble what they describe as book banning?
Rating movies is not banning movies. Rating books is not banning books either. Unless you are on the Left.
Former high school English teacher here. Not at all surprising that the ALA is manipulating data in order to stay relevant. Public libraries - at least those here in Chicago - have become mostly after-school babysitting centers and/or homeless person internet and bathroom access points. But it's a little surprising that anyone would be so blinded by progressive ideology that they would defend putting a book with illustrations of oral sex in the YA section of a school library. Wow. But The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? And Gone With the Wind? They've gotta go.
Why the determination to get graphic sexual content to kids so young? Are adults to provide no boundaries? I would prefer not to have Playboy magazine in the school library, but that's not 'banning' Playboy. Every year, I look over the summer reading list the schools publish for my children, and without fail, they are stories that represent the two obsessions of the teachers: racism, and bullying. That they have an agenda when picking books is beyond doubt, but are they that determined to include graphic sexual content?
The Left tries to make content it doesn't like unavailable to anyone anywhere at any price.
The Right doesn't want tax dollars to be used to force feed toxic propaganda to children.
The two are not the same.
What the Lefties call "banned books" are prominently displayed in "Banned Books" sections in bookstores, for Pete's sake.
Also, why is it that whenever a parent tries to read from a "banned book" at a school board meeting, the Lefty organizers stop the parent and accuse the parent of inappropriate content?
Everyone involved in the production of these lists is most likely a Democrat. Should that matter?
If they were all white, it would matter. If they were all male, it would matter. If they were all Jews or all Christians, it would matter. But it never seems to matter when they are all Democrats.
Death to the Democratic Party of America...!
Here's the full text from ALA's Methodology section for their list. The full text doesn't make it any better or worse, in my opinion, but in cases like this I think it's helpful to get the full text of things rather than rely on someone else's summary:
Methodology
ALA compiles data on book challenges from reports filed by library professionals in the field and from news stories published throughout the United States. Because many book challenges are not reported to ALA or covered by the press, the data compiled by ALA represents a snapshot of book censorship.
A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict access to materials or services based upon the objections of a person or group. A challenge to a title may result in access to it being retained, restricted, or withdrawn entirely. Restrictions on access may include relocating the book to a section of the library intended for an older age group than the book is intended for, labeling it with a prejudicial content warning or rating, taking it out of the online catalog so it has to be requested from a staff member, removing it from open and freely browsable stacks, or requiring parental permission to check it out.
Challenges do not simply involve people expressing their point of view, but rather are an attempt to remove materials from curricula or libraries, thereby curtailing the ability of others to access information, views, ideas, expressions, and stories. A formal challenge leads to the reconsideration of the decision to purchase the material or offer the service. This process is governed by a board-approved policy and includes review of the material as a whole to assess if it is aligned with the library or school's mission and meets the criteria delineated in its selection, display, or programming policy (as applicable).
A book is banned when it is entirely removed from a collection in response to a formal or informal challenge.
Any reduction in access to library materials based on an individual or group's believe that they are harmful or offensive is an act of censorship. ALA does not consider weeding of an item based on criteria defined in a library or school district's policy to be a ban, nor do we characterize a temporary reduction in access resulting from the need to review materials to be a ban.
I don’t know, but seems to me that “removing a book entirely from the library” is…a ban. Just me?
When I was young we had health classes in order to alert us to the danger of ending up with throat cancer. Now we have people wanting to protect a book that teaches kids how to catch it.
I'm really glad to see this. I've been complaining about this dishonest and stupid "banned books" thing for years. Oh wait: dishonest, stupid, and hypocritical, and repellently self-righteous. I refer to their "Banned Books Week" as "Librarians Hate It When You Question Their Judgment Week".
The echo chamber persists - going to B&N and seeing a section labeled Banned Books infuriates me. The sad truth is that many who hollar and scream don’t know the full gist of the story. Uninformed masses inculcated by the thought police.
Age appropriate is necessary. Thank God I had a mother who opted out when I was in school. The context meant more when I was old enough to have a fully functioning frontal cortex.
First off, always check if they have a copy of Fahrenheit 451. If they don't then ask why. If they say it is inappropriate, then the school library definitely has a problem with banning books. If you don't know why, read it and research its history.
"It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick... Today, thanks to them, you can stay happy all the time, you are allowed to read comics."
"But you can’t make people listen. They have to come round in their own time, wondering what happened and why the world blew up under them.'”
‘Remember, the firemen are rarely necessary. The public itself stopped reading of its own accord.'”
“A book is a loaded gun."
Its 1958, I want to check out The Untouchables (because of the TV show) from my library. I was to young the librarian told me.
Times have changed.
WSJ ran an article boosting the ALA's propaganda as news and I cancelled my subscription. I've read enough dishonest 'news' like that for a lifetime over the last decade. It's a stunning display of dishonesty to claim these books are being moved from one place to another due to identity politics. These idealogues have captured institutions with zero credibility: academia, NGOs, Hollywood, the DNC, federal bureaucracy... They may have salaries & benefits to leech, but zero social capital.