53% More Book Banning Incidents In US Schools This Year

vikingpower writes "Isabel Allende's The House of The Spirits. Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Toni Morrison's The Bluest Eye. Ralph Ellison's The Invisible Man. What do these titles have in common? They are banned at a school in the U.S. Yes, in 2013. A project named The Kids' Right to Read Project (by the National Coalition Against Censorship ) investigated three times the average number of incidents, adding to an overall rise in cases for the entire year, according to KRRP coordinator Acacia O'Connor. To date, KRRP has confronted 49 incidents in 29 states this year, a 53% increase in activity from 2012. During the second half of 2013, the project battled 31 new incidents, compared to only 14 in the same period last year. 'It has been a sprint since the beginning of the school year,' O'Connor said. 'We would settle one issue and wake up the next morning to find out another book was on the chopping block. The NCAC also offers a Book Censorship Toolkit on its website."

Comments

The 21st Century is

[Anonymous Coward]

the new 15th Century.

Re:The 21st Century is

[lgw]

Ellison's Invisible Man is banned? Dammit, I was forced to read that (very slow-paced book about racism) in high school. Hours of my life I'll never get back! Why couldn't you have banned it earlier? Whyyyy?

Actually, that one baffles me: unlike, say, Huck Finn, Invisible Man is primarily about racism: of course it depicts racism and racial stereotypes; illustrating just how messed up we were was the point of the story (the man was "invisible" in the sense that no one ever noticed he was a person, deserving basic consideration).

Re:The 21st Century is

[SuricouRaven]

Politics, probably. There's a lot of backlash against political correctness - some people would see reading such a book in schools as 'liberal indoctrination' intended to make white people feel guilty about being white.

Re:The 21st Century is

[lgw]

I'd give you odds it's the reverse - that someone searched through an eBook library and banned every one with racial epithets regardless of context.

Re:The 21st Century is

[Penguinisto]

Gotta agree with sibling... most school districts are far more enamored with stomping out all hallmarks of what most of us refer to as the real world.

Can't have harsh terminology, can't have depicted violence... hell, they can't even stand to have some wayward little boy kissing a girl, or pointing a finger at a classmate while saying "bang".

With all the zero tolerance BS going around? I can almost assure you that the censorship isn't coming from some drooling caricature of the "Right Wing" (cue ominous music), but more a result of overly-anxious officials scouring the libraries to expunge anything that could remotely intrude on what they assert is the "best" way to teach a child.

Re:The 21st Century is

[EdIII]

Why wouldn't it make us uncomfortable?

That teacher made no effort to make the distinction between the actions of people in the past, and the young white men in the room. That's a huge effin problem. Let's discuss racism, and stereotypes, and prejudice, but do it in a way that is not racist in of itself.

Do you think it was only white men that had slaves and were racist? Puhleeeze.

Black people can be the most racist people on the planet now. Look at genocide happening in Africa. Christians and Muslims in Syria. Racism, slavery, and those associated evils are not the exclusive domain of white men. Black people sold each other into slavery in Africa. People tend to forget that. Slaves were picked up at the coast, but it was not white men hunting them to bring them to port.

That's what is so damn offensive about those "libs", "teachers", whatever dealing with children. I just call them arrogant racist assholes.

I was passionate about history, but I would have been deeply hurt and offended if there was too much emphasis on white men being the problem, and not enough attention paid towards creating a distinction that the young white men in the room are not inherently evil.

It's fucking hurtful. It creates a divide. It perpetuates the problem.

I totally understand the thinking behind the book ban. The "white man" is unfairly demonized well after we are supposed to getting rid of this shit. Does anyone think it's a really good idea to create judgement and negative emotions in a young person solely based on the color of their skin?

Children should not suffer the sins of the parents. I am not my parents.

Re:The 21st Century is

[darnkitten]

Politics, probably. There's a lot of backlash against political correctness - some people would see reading such a book in schools as 'liberal indoctrination' intended to make white people feel guilty about being white.

I'd give you odds it's the reverse - that someone searched through an eBook library and banned every one with racial epithets regardless of context.

Usually, anymore, it is an organization that specializes in book or curriculum challenges. It will have a list of "objectionable" materials; downloadable complaints; challenges with page numbers and everything included; and all the press releases needed. The parent/teacher/administrator/pastor/insert authority figure does not even have to read the book.

Check out the Parents Action League's Book Alert Page (sorry, can't remember how to insert a link) for an example.

Re:The 21st Century is

[rmdingler]

Morgan Freeman sounds good narrating my grocery list.

Re:The 21st Century is

[Pseudonym Authority]

With all the zero tolerance BS going around?

Zero tolerance = zero thinking. It's a way to remove the responsibility out of school administrators and pin it on some other government body, probably one with lawyers. It's a "Just following orders" for education.

Re:The 21st Century is

[LWATCDR]

While I am a really tired of PC I do not think that is the reason.
Of course my school didn't ban books. It had a far better solution. In my Jr. High School they had a small book shelf that had books that required parents permission. One of the books on that shelf was Brave New World which I will never understand being restricted since it was anti drug and anti casual sex. It was not a problem for me since my parents gave me permission to read what ever.
In High School they put the books like Catch 22 and Slaughter House 5 in the "young adults room". You had to be in 11th or 12th grade to go in but for some reason it was never open. They where always using it for projects and such. Very effective way to not have the books cause a problem.

Re:The 21st Century is

[EdIII]

Bullshit.

When you are trying to teach something in a room with young people, and you bring up history in such a way that you label and isolate some young people in the room based on skin color, THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE

More racism does not cure racism.

For all of those that do feel oppressed, taking it out on young white men by telling them that they are evil and do evil things, is not a very smart way to move forward in society.

From those labels comes sadness & resentment. From that you get depression and anger. From that you get young people abused, taken advantage of, and then tattooed, shaved, and handed a neo-nazi jacket.

Talk about uncomfortable things all you want. For those children that is part of growing up and I would not want to shelter them. Just don't isolate a group of them and make them feel bad about something they have no power to change.

We can't change the past. We are not responsible for the entirety of the present. We can't change our skin color. Michael Jackson was a one-off.

Re:The 21st Century is

[MightyMartian]

I'm sorry. I don't actually believe there is a thing called "cultural Marxism". That's just another meaningless descriptor brought to you by the sick twisted minds that insist climatologists are communists and a functional useful government is impossible and no one of wealth owes the civilization in a damned thing.

Re:The 21st Century is

[EdIII]

You misunderstand like most other people here. It's not about covering up history. It's 100% about the delivery and the attitudes of those that would impart the information to our youth.

First, teach about how we made useless, baseless, and extremely harmful distinctions between people based on their skin color, religion, gender, etc. You don't need to single out white people to do it at all. We can reference a huge amount of history and disparate races and cultures. The Greeks, Romans, Celts, large parts of Africa, the Dutch slave trade, indentured servitude laws, religious persecution in Europe, the Inquisition, the Mongols, and yes, slavery in the US. Teach that slavery and racism are not the exclusive domain of white men, but very old practices that we no longer tolerate in evolved societies.

Secondly, emphasize that this is not how we do it today. It's 100% not acceptable behavior at all. All forms of racism, including gender related behavior. That they may notice some older people still doing it, but that they are not as mature, and yes, have fallen victim to old bad habits. Make it abundantly clear that the children in the room don't bear any of the responsibility and blame for what happened in the past, and they're our future. The best way to stamp out racism is to refuse to participate. Literally, stop thinking about it and it will stop.

Thirdly, be proactive in NOT making racial distinctions as much as possible. When you do reference it, be sure to reference it as something from the past. Anytime you speak about a contemporary person, don't mention race. Children don't need to know Obama is black and the first black President. Why? There should be no value whatsoever in the information, and to find value, means to find value in those racially supported distinctions. All they need to know is that he was/is President, and was a complete and utter fucking disappointment, which had nothing to do with his skin color. That's left up to history to judge though. I have my own opinions about that total pussy.

Fourthly, and this isn't hard, fill text books with examples of great people from all over the world and different cultures. When you show children that our greatest and most revered people came from so many different backgrounds, and look so different, it subtly reinforces the idea that skin color really doesn't matter. You and I know that it doesn't. We need to show them that great people come from all walks of life equally.

Fifth.... DON'T BRING THE DIRTY LAUNDRY AND NEGATIVE FILTH FROM YOUR OWN PAST AND LIFE EXPERIENCES INTO THE CLASSROOM TO INFECT AND TAINT THE YOUTH OF TOMORROW.

I'm sorry. I just can't fucking stand it. When I hear about some liberal piece of shit trash woman (yes, she is black) shit talking and going on and on about the "white man" in a classroom in 2013 with children in there it drives me insane. How dare she harm those young children and inflict her own bullshit on them.

I learned about the word nigger when I was almost a teenager, and it was the most confusing day of my life. I actually told the boy that it was okay. I was a nigger too, as I thought it meant something like nerd. I grew up not understanding anything about skin color, or racism. The more people wanted to teach me, the more I found them having resentment towards white men in the present and then, as ridiculous as it sounds, conflating it and associating it with me.

Then I learned about the complete logical fallacy that was Affirmative Action. Why I was being punished because of my skin color? Why does Greg get all of these things, not because of his accomplishments, but because of his skin color?

No. I refuse to participate in the rest of many people's delusions. I will teach kids about the logical fallacy that is racism and I will do it in such a way that I don't associate them with events of the past.

Racism does not cure racism.

Re:The 21st Century is

[tlambert]

I'm sorry. I don't actually believe there is a thing called "cultural Marxism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

Actually, it dates back to at least 1933, although I'm going to guess that given the context, the GP is probably referring to Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School and its influence in Britain during the 1960's during "The Cultural Revlution", which drove a lot of the adoption of the P.C. mindset in institutions of higher learning.

BTW: the adoption of the term and its application by conservatives pretty much owes itself to the William S. Lind book "Who stole our culture?", and is rarely used by conservative thinkers outside his clique.

Reverse psychology?

[Anonymous Coward]

Best way to make people want something is to ban it.

More people have died

[WOOFYGOOFY]

More people have been persecuted, hounded, ruined, tortured, burned, murdered, and just exterminated en-masse because of a book called the Bible than any other document in human history including Mein Kampf and Das Capital put together.

Just sayin' .

Re:More people have died

[sconeu]

This "Bible" book condones a hell of a lot of stuff:

• Incest (Lot & his daughters)
• Terrorism (see the 10 plagues)
• Biological warfare (again, see the 10 plagues)
• Genocide
• Rape

It clearly should be banned.

Re:More people have died

[Mr D from 63]

So, in your opinion, everything bad a person does is based on religion, and everything good is human nature? I think there is plenty of "evil" in human nature as well as "good". I am athiest, so I could care less if we are talking Christians or Buddhists, or assigning blame to one religion or another, but to choose to only assign the negative to religious influence seems to be more a matter of convenience to your own arguments.

Religions have cropped up in almost all societies. There is a reason for that, and its not "evil". It is because there was a need. Its an interesting exercise to think about that societal need. Much more interesting than just blindly casting fault on religions for many of our problems.

Re:Ban or Censor?

[Shadow of Eternity]

The difference is whether or not you agree with the people doing the banning.

Less than 50 incidents for the whole country?

[jandrese]

This headline seems rather sensational since the numbers are so small. The US has roughly 100,000 public schools. The fact that only 49 of them (well, probably some of these are full districts, so the number of schools will be greater) are banning books should be celebrated. This is people fighting the good fight against highly local ignoramuses, not some big national problem. I'm glad they're doing what they're doing, but I'm more glad that it's almost unnecessary.

Re:Less than 50 incidents for the whole country?

[Idarubicin]

The fact that only 49 of them (well, probably some of these are full districts, so the number of schools will be greater) are banning books should be celebrated.

The concern I would have here is that we have no way of knowing what fraction of all book bannings come to the attention of NCAC. Particularly if a ban is implemented by a single school, banning a book from the curriculum may only directly affect one or two classrooms' worth of children. Not all of those students (or even their parents) may necessarily be aware that a ban has been applied. In subsequent years, no one may have any inkling that the ban exists; the book will have silently disappeared from the curriculum. The syllabus doesn't usually include a list of the books that aren't being taught. So for those reasons, I suspect that the number given - 49 instances - represents a very significant under-reporting.

On the other hand, that same under-reporting gives me a (small) measure of comfort with respect to the other number in the summary: the purported 53% year-over-year increase in bannings. Without ready access to more data, it's entirely possible that the increase in cases is not due to an increase in bannings (undoubtedly a bad thing) but due to an increase in awareness regarding the NCAC and their Kids' Right to Read Project which would make these incidents more likely to be reported and challenged when they do occur (which would be a good thing).

Re:Ban or Censor?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Kids can get any of those books via their parents if they want.

Yeah, that's privilege speaking.

The people who most rely on public institutions are the ones who are least able to replace them with their own money. Average middle-class kid and just get his mom to order the book on amazon. Average lower-class kid's mom is working 60 hours a week just to pay the rent and keep food on the table. She doesn't even have a computer to order from amazon and couldn't afford to if she did.

OTT headline?

[YrWrstNtmr]

"53% More Banning Incidents"

No, they're investigated 53% more requests. The linked article says nothing about how many were actually banned.
And the majority of requests were from parents or library patrons, not school districts or state/local govts.

49 cases. Is that idiocy? Are these idiots? Sure. But good grief....49 cases out of how many million kids and parents?

Alternate non-OTT headline - "0.002% of parents in the US have requested a book be banned in their local school library."
You could find a greater percentage of people complaining about just about anything.

Re:OTT headline?

[Gh0st_Preacher]

Actually decided to brave the comments section to post just this - the headline is wrong. This system (at least where I live in Northern California) works something like this: 1. Parent finds "objectionable material" in a book their child was assigned. 2. Parent ignores the packet they got before the school year started that tells them the reading list and letting them know that if they don't approve of any book/material for their child, they can work with the teacher for an alternative. 3. Parent goes to local school district and files an official complaint. 4. After processing said complaint, the district must pull all copies of said book while it is under "review". 5. Parent feels morally justified. 6. Book returns to shelves for the whole cycle to restart. That's probably the kind of "incident" the article was originally referencing.

Re:School officials will likely confiscate it

[SuricouRaven]

That's because they are. Try keeping a class focused on their lesson when half of them have a phone hidden under the desk to check their facebook page.

bad reportage/bad stats/just plain bad

[turkeydance]

and we take their word for it.

Yawn

[sideslash]

Schools in general act "in loco parentis", and decide what material young people should be exposed to in order to have a good education. Schools may make good or bad choices, but they do make choices. I am not surprised that a book is banned at a school library. It is no more or less appropriate than a ban on taking kids to a field trip to a strip club. I as a parent would happily ban my children from attendance at a strip club, and a school (acting, again, in loco parentis) may do the same if it decides it's best.

Don't like that? Then homeschool your kids and be responsible for their welfare yourself.

For what it's worth, I homeschool my own kids. I won't show slasher movies to a 3 year old. I expect an 18 year old to be prepared to be an adult. At some point in there a transformation has taken place; every child is different, but parents can and do mess it up by exposing their kids to junk when they're not ready for it. Such junk could be bad friends (learning to be racists/dishonest/etc.) or (yes, Slashdot) bad media for their age and emotional maturity.

Re:Ban or Censor?

[bickerdyke]

If it was a money problem, public libraries would offer a convinient solution.

The true luxury that "privileged" kids have are parents who manage to get them intrested in reading.