[SpaceManNabs]

> Yeah this sounds false.

I have quite a few teacher friends in Georgia and NYC, and I can tell you that this is the case for them. Organizations that represent teachers have said so themselves. Hard evidence is best though. Do you have numbers to dismiss their claims?

[tigen]

What is the case, they literally are not allowed to have (any) books in the classroom? Can you be specific as to the mechanism here? Do you yourself have any link to any evidence? You (the article) are making the claim.

[lostlogin]

I think the argument is quite subtle.

There is a lot of book banning occurring and the rate seems to be increasing fast (see links below).

There are penalties in some jurisdictions and zero teachers want to face the kind of shit that has gone on with parents and politicians, churches and local body meetings.

So rather than search out each book they have and keep track of its status, then recheck a few weeks later, just remove the lot. Teachers do not have time for this crap, and why risk their jobs?

It’s chilling and it’s hard to see how this isn’t the aim. ‘Who ever needed more than a bible?’

https://pen.org/report/narrating-the-crisis/

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/16/books/book-bans-public-sc...

[tivert]

> So rather than search out each book they have and keep track of its status, then recheck a few weeks later, just remove the lot.

That doesn't pass the smell test. The only way I can see that being even remotely true is if the teacher's goal is mainly to push up against someone's line, politically.

Even in the most hostile environment, I doubt you'd run afoul of anyone with a well-stocked library of widely beloved classic children's books.

[lostlogin]

> The only way I can see that being even remotely true is if the teacher's goal is mainly to push up against someone's line, politically.

Doesn’t this swing both ways? Surely banning books is seen as a fairly extreme and intended to impose your views on someone else. What other interpretation is there?

[tivert]

> Doesn’t this swing both ways? Surely banning books is seen as a fairly extreme and intended to impose your views on someone else. What other interpretation is there?

No. I was only responding to the false hyperbole that teachers can't keep books in their classrooms anymore.

Also, the whole controversy around "banning books" is stupid and full of dumb propaganda. That extends to the term "book ban" itself, which is a bit of manipulative, misleading spin that rivals "death tax." If anyone was really against "book bans," they should demonstrate their commitment by fighting for a Hustler subscription and some "gender critical" books for every classroom. It's really a fight about who gets to do the banning.

[monknomo]

"widely beloved" by whom? "classic" in what sense?

[nickd2001]

I'd think Tolkein's "The Hobbit" would fit this description? Or CS Lewis Narnia series, one-offs like "The Secret Garden", Also Edith Nesbit, fantastic children's author, "The Railway children" probably her most famous. century old at least.

[monknomo]

This is why I ask beloved by whom and classic by what standard.

Look, Narnia has witchcraft in it and depicts Christ as a lion. It's probably blasphemous (though, yes, I get that it is intended as a regular Christian allegory and is not supposed to be blasphemous). It is not universally loved in the evangelical community and is a possible target for a book ban. It's also got racially insensitive stereotypes depicted and that's a target for complaints from a different direction.

The Hobbit is indeed a popular book, that has repeatedly been the subject of book bans, again for the magic/wizardry/witchcraft thing.

The point is, if your job is to be an elementary school teacher and people try to get you fired for having a book they find objectionable, it's a lot keep on top of. The books people object to vary wildly.

Additionally, when people make these classic book lists, they suffer from what I think of as "classic books that adults believe children ought to like" syndrome. Sometimes these books overlap with what kids actually like, sometimes not.

[SpaceManNabs]

The Hobbit is banned by multiple school districts. It actually pissed off a lot of teachers too. It is books like that being banned that make teachers not want to have a library at all. It is really easy to have a banned book, and teachers do not have the time to source each book in their already existing libraries.

But I guess in their words:

> the teacher's goal is mainly to push up against someone's line, politically

[janalsncm]

Sure, but then you’re just reinforcing the attitude that reading is just for stodgy old people rather than a way to understand the world as it is today.

[tigen]

That pen.org article focuses on "number of bannings" but mixes together state law (predominantly Florida alone) and individual school district policy choices.

It also avoids discussing which age is appropriate for these topics. Most of the support for including explicit sexual violence seems to be about high school, and even there it's not clear that explicit content is necessary to these purposes (I'm not familiar with the books in question).

Then there are the books by Kendi etc. and an example where that was required reading in an AP course (college-level). Sure, that's debatable but isn't of much relevance to reading, reading for enjoyment in particular, by young kids, which is the topic of this HN post.

The pen.org article says "books aren’t harmful—censorship is." So it gives no credence to any kind of concern about age-appropriate topics.

[lostlogin]

> It also avoids discussing which age is appropriate for these topics.

A professional with training and some sort of certification could decide this, based on the child’s age and development level. A teacher for example.

[lelanthran]

> So rather than search out each book they have and keep track of its status, then recheck a few weeks later,

This sounds like nonsense.

Sure, they may have to do this for books that are close to crossing the line, or they could simply leave out any controversial book.

Does that mean that the school library won't have some books? Well, yes, but they already don't stock "every book ever written".

My school, back in the 80s, did not keep Nabakov's Lolita. The public library had it, though.

School's aren't there to "teach the controversy". I said it back when the controversy not being taught was Intelligent Design, I stand by it in 202x when the controversy not being taught is LGBT.

[SpaceManNabs]

Teachers are leaving the profession en masse because they feel unsafe, unsupported, underpaid, and harassed by national organizations.

Teacher unions list book bans as one of the primary reasons for leaving. They have data and testimony backing that up. We see legislation and organizations all over America.

Here is a quick article describing the number of books being banned and the effects it has on teachers [1]. It list numbers. There are numerous articles all over the internet from well respected organizations like the NYT saying the same stuff.

The numbers are already presented by them. We see the teachers leaving. We know education is suffering from systematic national pressures from both political sides. Feel free to look it up. hell on first principles, book banning has a direct effect on libraries teachers can have when they include such classics. Again, what numbers do you have? Or just first principles logic to dismiss them at all?

[1] : https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/educators-fi...

[tigen]

From first principles, it is normal to ban material. The ages and exact policies are debatable but these articles are entirely one-sided.

It appears that most of the handwringing is about politically disagreeing with the bans, not hardships of obeying bans. There are always bans. But they want this material (sexuality, gender, "race theory") available even to pretty young children because of their societal goals/agenda. Others do not want that. Fight.

This recent WSJ article mentions primarily reasons of salary and student behavior, as any layman would guess from first principles. It did mention "political battles over issues such as how race and gender are discussed". Well, this is not going away -- the battle is fought from multiple directions. Another direction is the industry profits from institutions being morally obligated to buy a lot of new diversity-related books.

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/education/teachers-leaving-quitt...

[7952]

There seems to be a lot of "first principles" thinking in this debate which leaves out essential factors. It ignores that children have brains of their own with likes and dislikes who will readily decide for themselves how much they like a book. It gives no benefit of the doubt or generosity to school staff. And it ignores the fact that good libraries are historically a mix of lots of different content that is clearly not all good.

[SpaceManNabs]

> From first principles, it is normal to ban material.

Sure.

> It appears that most of the handwringing is about politically disagreeing with the bans, not hardships of obeying bans

That is not true. The ban list is overly broad. The hobbit is banned in some locations. Harry potter and asoiaf... Maybe high schoolers and middle schoolers shouldn't be reading that stuff. Multiple teachers in multiple districts have been disciplined over books they did not expect. It is far more sustainable for teachers to avoid this issue.

> But they want this material (sexuality, gender, "race theory") available even to pretty young children because of their societal goals/agenda

I am not going to judge this statement's veracity. Let's take it as true. As I mentioned before, the issue would then be that they are also banning other books that have nothing to do with this, and that still makes the jobs of teachers difficult. It is not feasible to have this much overhead on book bans because of political battles and also expect teachers to manage this overhead.

Thanks for sharing your first principles argument. If you have the time, please share some numbers.