August 29, 2001

7:27 AM

Banned books are nothing new, but this is just ridiculous.
"Those modern classics and seven other books have come under routine fire for profane language, unpleasant racial themes and references to homosexuality." Considering this , why is it an issue. [see no evil]
posted by hotdoughnutsnow (52 comments total)

This stuff still happens? Ironic, as I was just reading about this this morning.
posted by transient at 7:37 AM on August 29, 2001

Well, they're probably trying to build on the wild success stories of previous book banners in making wanton teens behave and creating a culture free of dirty words, homosexuals and non-Jesus believing.
posted by UncleFes at 7:38 AM on August 29, 2001

They've been trying to ban books from school children for years. Remember all the hub-bub about Huckkeberry Finn. People often think that by banning things (books, movies, music, video games, etc...) they will prevent their children from being exposed to these things and their children will be better for it and therefore they will qualify as good parents. This is of course ridiculous. Not that you should drag your kids to R rated movies all the time to teach them about the facts of life or whatever, but banning these items is really BAD parenting. You need to guide your children through all that they will encounter in life to make sure they grasp what it is that is going on around them. Banning these items will only add an air of mystery to these things so that when your child runs into them (which they inevitably will, you can't shield them 24/7) their curiosity will be even more heightened and stimulated.

Hmmm... It seems to me I've had to make this argument to people before. Why do we never learn?!
posted by bob bisquick at 7:41 AM on August 29, 2001

In Brunswick, Ga., the school board is discussing getting rid of Catcher in the Rye.

That's where I went to high school my senior year. I can count on my toes how many people went to college after graduation, and I can count on my hand how many actually made it through.
posted by jennak at 7:44 AM on August 29, 2001

I am continually shocked at the inclusion of To Kill a Mockingbird on these banned books lists. Have these people read the book? Do they not realise that the "unpleasant racial themes" in the book are within the context of a story which is clearly a pointed anti-racism message?

Seems like all of these parents who want to stop their children from reading ought to do a little reading themselves.
posted by Dreama at 7:45 AM on August 29, 2001

Nice logic, there in the article. "We've banned certain words from school grounds so we HAVE to ban books containing those words." A few small steps from there and the library is filled with "The Continuing Adventures of Bernard, the Boy Who Sat Quietly"
posted by L. Fitzgerald Sjoberg at 8:00 AM on August 29, 2001

I'm in favor of banning Catcher in the Rye. That book is a piece of *&%@.
posted by Beefheart at 8:04 AM on August 29, 2001

> It seems to me I've had to make this argument to people
> before. Why do we never learn?!

Oh come on. It's because the human population is constantly turning over and the same lessons have to be taught over and over again to a new crowd.
posted by jfuller at 8:07 AM on August 29, 2001

The situation with To Kill A Mockingbird kills me because it boils down to a group of people who are too lazy or scared to teach their children about issues of race. Another article on this story illustrates this: "We didn't want to put any kids in an uncomfortable situation."
posted by zedzebedia at 8:12 AM on August 29, 2001

The only book mentioned I haven't read is "To Kill a Mockingbird". They were all pretty good, but I still think that people should be able to exclude them from the curriculum. This isn't a matter of free speech.

In the US, we have compulsory education. That said, some parents do not want their children to read these works. Firstly, does anyone actually think the kid isn't going to be that much worse off if (s)he never reads that book? I think most people can get by just fine without reading any of them. (as long as they read other great works)

Secondly, public education techniques/curriculum should be acceptable to as many people as possible and ought to offend as few people as possible. Thus, if a book is banned, we keep the objectors content, and if anyone objects to this ban, they can go to the freakin' bookstore and buy the damn book for 4.95 and have their child read it at home.

Problem solved.

The most interesting part in all of this is that those that preach "tolerance" and "inclusion" on other issues refuse to tolerate and include the views of those that simply object to a few books and would rather have their children reading other great works.
posted by Witold at 8:14 AM on August 29, 2001

Hell, my dad handed me his favorite sci-fi books when i was 12, and lots of them contained "bad language" and sex in them. The bad language I had already seen before, and the sex parts I didn't quite understand, so I skipped them.

The thing about reading is that it tends to expand the mind, and there =are= things that are inappropriate for elementary school kids to read, but there's few things I would keep from a high schooler. Heck, I got my hands on Fanny Hill in high school, and had a good laugh. I think kids should be =forced= to read and analyze these books, as it will squeeze any possible titillating enjoyment out of it for them.

Though I do remember my 8th grade teacher promising to explain all the sexual innuendo in Romeo and Juliet if we read the play ahead of time.
posted by meep at 8:17 AM on August 29, 2001

meep: that's probably the most amiable solution to this situation and the solution I'm trying to argue. Cut objectionable stuff at school, so that everyone is happy, and let the parents take some responsibility to educate their kids. After all, if a parent depends solely on the school to educate his/her child, it's a lost cause from the start.

(BTW, my parents did the same thing as your dad.)
posted by Witold at 8:31 AM on August 29, 2001

I am very disturbed that people on this list are Okaying the banning of books. Metafilter is a rather intellectual environment and I am shoked that people who think on this level would be OK with banning books. In the age of television and mass consumerism and the general dumbing down of the country, kids should be encouraged to read when ever possible. On top of that, children all over the country read these books. You will be depriving your children of the type of education other children their age receive. Personally, I find this completely on par with the Kansas school board banning the teaching of evolution. You're hamstringing kids and their future education.
posted by bob bisquick at 8:35 AM on August 29, 2001

bob, I think what is being said is that, you don't have to deprive your children of reading any book they want. Barnes & Nobles and Borders, have done a great job of carpeting the US with bookstores. Go buy your kid 'Catcher in the Rye' if its so important to read. I picked it up on amazon for $2-3 on its 50th anniversary.

Now that being said, I don't necessarily argree with the argument, but I do understand the points being made.
posted by jbelshaw at 8:43 AM on August 29, 2001

Here’s the sentiment I’m opposed to in all of this: "public education techniques/curriculum should be acceptable to as many people as possible and ought to offend as few people as possible." Public education should be about exposure and the development of relative skills, a forum for kids to determine what they like and then equip themselves to chase it.

If you attempt to pear things so that they serve public opinion, you end up with conclusions like this (also the words of a randomly oppressed American author): "...Teachers of children in the United States of America wrote this date on blackboards again and again, and asked the children to memorize it with pride and joy: 1492. The teachers told the children that this was when their continent was discovered by human beings. Actually, millions of human beings were already living full and imaginative lives on the continent in 1492. That was simply the year in which sea pirates began to cheat and rob and kill them."

The problem with book banning is that it stems from tired belief systems. There are crotchety people who think that kids are bringing guns to school because they feel alienated by things they've been exposed to, and these people want to reduce the likelihood of future tragedies without having to really deal with them. They wake up and realize their kids are psychotic, or their ethics are in shambles, and they're looking to blame someone for the shitty situations they've found themselves in. The result: skew your kids into a headspace that you understand and can control by reducing it’s potential.

Furthermore, what's really wrong with being offended? I've learned oodles from the experiences that upset me or compromised my beliefs, and nothing from the ones which kept me ignorant.
(Sorry if this is all a little scattered)
posted by crapchute at 8:48 AM on August 29, 2001

There all a bunch of god damn phonies . . .
posted by aladfar at 8:49 AM on August 29, 2001

I have to agree with bob. There's a difference between not including a book on the curriculum and banning a book from the library. Maybe a family doesn't have the disposable income to buy books for recreational reading (there are families who can't afford books!). So the kid goes to the library to read Catcher in the Rye. Only it's been banned, because some close-minded person who was offended by the word "fuck" decided that NO ONE should read that word. Don't teach the book, fine. Ban it completely from the school? Hell, no! That's stupid, head-in-the-sand thinking that creates more ignorant, hateful, close-minded people who want to ban books and make bob repeat himself.
posted by starvingartist at 8:51 AM on August 29, 2001

And would somebody care to name a "great work" that wouldn't qualify as objectionable? Just running through my own area of specialization--eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British literature--I can't think of a single important novel that wouldn't offend some group (especially Catholics, Jews, and anti-child abuse activists).
posted by thomas j wise at 8:53 AM on August 29, 2001

And would somebody care to name a "great work" that wouldn't qualify as objectionable? who's criteria? Anything can be objectionable. Would an eighteenth century jew complain about the content matter of a novel?(an individual perhaps, but not a group in my eyes).
posted by clavdivs at 9:06 AM on August 29, 2001

forgot to put qoute marks on j wises sentence-sorry, new keyboard
posted by clavdivs at 9:07 AM on August 29, 2001

Yes, the problem with banning these books is really, where does it end? There's always going to be something objectionable. I mean, To Kill A Mockingbird? It's not like they're assigning D.H. Lawrence to 11 year olds, here.

Take the fundamentalist Christians mentioned earlier in the thread, the ones who want to ban Harry Potter from schools. They want their children to read the Bible. Hello? There is a hell of a lot more objectionable stuff in the Bible than in any Harry Potter book.

For example: rapes, murders, revenge, fathers sleeping with daughters, men slaughtering a bunch of other men after making them get circumcised (that's a doozy of a story), demons, misogyny, racism, ah, the list goes on and on. Oh yes, that's good Christian reading.
posted by witchstone at 9:11 AM on August 29, 2001

And would somebody care to explain why banning books doesn't qualify as a freedom of speech issue (see Witold's post)?

Shit, good literature should be taught in schools irrespective of what a bunch of people who in all likelihood have never read the book think. Why the fuck do we keep catering to the lowest common denominator in education?
posted by Option1 at 9:13 AM on August 29, 2001

What better way to get kids to read than to "ban" the material and make it seem like a rebellious thing to do? The school districts that ban certain books are making these books all the more tempting. Kids will be primed to spend their time reading a "banned" book rather than reading the exact same book as a homework assignment.
posted by borgle at 9:16 AM on August 29, 2001

The "banning" issue is about filtering. "Censorship" has become a bad word because it is associated with a narrow-minded conservatism, but in some shape and form, especially as it relates to public schooling, we all believe in censorship. Since the Civil Rights Movement, there has been plenty of books that have been "censored" from public schools, and rightly so. Books that referred to the African-Americans as "niggers" or implied that they were of less value than white Americans. I'm sure if an extreme book from the radical right that advocated violence towards Jews, homosexuals, and non-believers was in the library people would protest. So the real question is, what are the criteria for selecting books for public schools?
posted by jacknose at 9:17 AM on August 29, 2001

The children! We've GOT to PROTECT the CHILDREN!!!

...okay, protect your children from the world. But be prepared to have to keep protecting them for their entire lives, because you sure won't have prepared them to deal with anything by themselves.
posted by Poagao at 9:34 AM on August 29, 2001

NPR did a story on this earlier this month: Click here to read/listen.
posted by Hankins at 9:43 AM on August 29, 2001

because you sure won't have prepared them to deal with anything by themselves

I've known a fair number of people who were, in childhood, sheltered from the harsher and uglier aspects of the world (to various degrees, but often quite strongly). In my experience, they have consistently been just as well prepared to deal with things as anyone else. Indeed, they have often been better prepared--not having to fight off constant threats in childhood gives them time to peacefully develop the strength they will need to face them as adults.

(For what it's worth, I've got mixed feelings about banning books from school libraries. On the one hand, I think there are some books that children aren't prepared to deal with, and that would do more harm than good. While prohibiting children from reading these books would just make them more appealing, I see nothing wrong with trying to set up an environment in which they won't come across them by accident, which is what removing a book from a library is usually meant to accomplish. On the other hand, attempts to ban books often show really atrocious judgment about what books to ban. If we are to ban books from school libraries, then someone has to decide to ban them, and I'm not sure there's anyone I'd trust with that power.)
posted by moss at 10:03 AM on August 29, 2001

This seems to touch on a more fundamental question. Who's responsibility is it to educate our children? If that responsibility falls to society, then banning books is a terrible evil, because it weakens the educational foundation of our future (and for the other reasons listed more eloquently by other posters.)

If, however, you believe as I do that parents have the fundamental right and responsibility to educate their children in the way that they see fit, and that the school is there to help society meet that goal, then "banning" is just the natural extension of parental authority. If you want your child to read a book that a substantial portion of the school finds objectionable, that's just great. I doubt that $4.50 to buy Catcher in the Rye is going to break anybody's budget. The educational process should reflect the desires of parents to the greatest extent possible.

Some of the posters here repeat what I believe to be a classic liberal mistake. You assume that because you think that something is good, that it is good. You never question the appropriateness of enforcing your desires on others, who may have a different value system than you do.
posted by gd779 at 10:10 AM on August 29, 2001

Upon further consideration, I realize that I have actually known families for whom $4.50 would break the budget. However, that is why we have public libraries.
posted by gd779 at 10:17 AM on August 29, 2001

i think one of the main goals of public education should be to expose kids to more than their parents want them to be exposed to...worked for me. Helped me break out of a narrow-minded dogmatic belief system.

and, i'll add...as the middle child out of 7, there wasn't a big book budget. At home i read what my older siblings had read, at school i read whatever i wanted.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:31 AM on August 29, 2001

From one of the classic Liberals: I don't think it's enforcing your desires on others that presents a problem, not so much as protecting the principle of desire itself. If you're in an environment with no means to discover alternatives, then your ability to persue something lapses by default.

To ban a book is to reduce the chances of exposure. To argue against banning books (for whatever reason you choose), is arguing for the opportunity to explore your mind, the world, and relationship between the two. To argue for the ban is to support the judgement by a small group (or one person) as to an idea's worthiness for consumption. To say that arguing for one of the two (or another viewpoint all together) is wrong does nothing but ignore the issue at hand. This is liberal structure at work, not liberal structure imposing its will.

Different values systems are integral to making society interesting, and I think that us classic liberals are simply arguing to keep those systems accessible.
posted by crapchute at 10:36 AM on August 29, 2001

I'd be curious, in reference to gd779's remark about public libraries above, to find out how much of this book-banning activity has spread there. My suspicion is that most folks who are really on the warpath about certain books aren't willing to stop at the school library. Anyone have any stories in that regard? I recall there was something about Alice Walker's story "Roselily" being used on a CA standardized test a few years back.

For those who are interested in which books top the ban list, the top 100 banned/challenged books of the last decade as compiled by the ALA.
posted by raku at 11:08 AM on August 29, 2001

May I suggest that the writers of Great Literature attack this problem en masse, and colaborate on some really objectionable material for the purposes of distracting the book banners. Let them worry about "Potty Mouth, the God-Hating Gay-Lover", while better books slip under their radar.
posted by D at 11:21 AM on August 29, 2001

raku: I just called my local library, and they said that they said that if a book had ever been banned from the public library system, they were not aware of it. But even if it did, I would argue that the proper response would be to fix the public library system, not violate the goals of the public school system.

crapchute: If you were talking about the literal banning of books (ie, the inability to procure the book in all of society without unreasonable effort) then I would agree with you. But we're talking about a parent-led decision to remove a book from a particular school's library and curriculum, while leaving both Barnes & Noble and the public library system very much free. If you want exposure, there are still ample opportunities. The question is, should parents be forced, against their will, to expose their children to material that violates their value system? And should a "right thinking" school bureaucrat be allowed to make that decision for parents?

I suppose that you could keep the book in the curriculum and let parents that object "opt-out". Assuming that only a small number of parents object, that might work. But that contradicts with liberal thinking on other issues, such as prayer in schools. Why is it okay to force one type of idea upon a student (exposure to "bad" books) but not another (school prayer)?

I am opposed to prayer in schools for the same reason that I support "banning" books. Parents should have the right to choose what ideas and subjects their children are exposed to. If a significant number of parents or students are made uncomfortable by a school's practice, that practice should be reformed if at all possible.
posted by gd779 at 11:24 AM on August 29, 2001

Instead of being afraid to teach "objectionable" material, I think it's all the more important to tackle the problems head-on. If a kid encounters a "bad" word on a playground, I think a good parent would sit down with that kid, explain what the word means, and explain why the household is not an appropriate place for the word.

Similarily, wouldn't it be a courageous teacher who, even if s/he had problems with the book, taught it anyway, explaining what parts of the book were uncomfortable and why? I mean, if history textbooks started eliminating discussion of Nazism because it was "too disturbing" or whatever, what would we say to that? Would we still think that was OK, as long as the majority of parents agreed?

Oh, but of course, Nazism happened to other people, so it's ok. But god forbid we address some American wrong like slavery or racism. We wouldn't want to look bad. We wouldn't want to make kids feel bad.

The banning books debate is but a symptom of an overall "protecting children's morals" movement which gave us the dumb movie rating system and the seven words you can't say on television, not to mentiona some truly bad kids' programming and Disney movies which changed the endings of classic works. I'm not sure that's the right way to treat children. In this case I think it might be the culture of American parenting which needs an attitude adjustment.

Folks not from the U.S., care to comment?

(and by the way, gd779, banning a book is an expression of ideology, so you are subjecting students to it already. It's not a "neutral" act by any means.)
posted by mjane at 11:27 AM on August 29, 2001

aladfar took the words out of my mouth.

now why can't we be introduced to titus andronicus in high school? dismemberment and feeding meat pies made of one's own sons? great stuff! maybe shakespeare will be "filtered" all-together because he may have been puffin' nuggets.
posted by adampsyche at 11:37 AM on August 29, 2001

lol, the top banned book is the scary stories series... does anyone remember those freaky pictures?
posted by lotsofno at 11:55 AM on August 29, 2001

I just called my local library, and they said that they said that if a book had ever been banned from the public library system, they were not aware of it. But even if it did, I would argue that the proper response would be to fix the public library system, not violate the goals of the public school system.


gd779: The link in raku's post that you were responding to claims the following institutions being challenged:
School: 2025
School library: 2013
Public library:1462
The book banners aren't doing it for the chiiiiiiiildren. They're doing it because those books are *BAD*, and they don't want anyone reading them. Chiiiiiiildren are just handy scapegoats.
posted by swell at 12:07 PM on August 29, 2001

Please continue shielding your children; it makes them easier to manipulate.
posted by aramaic at 12:13 PM on August 29, 2001

I wonder if it would work to NOT have a library in the public school, but offer convenient access to the public library for school children? When I was a kid the school library didn't have a good selection anyway -- I usually walked the three or four blocks to the "big" library.
I remember as a kid being frustrated because at 12 I was not allowed to check out "adult" books (anything outside of the kids or young adult sections). My mom had to go to the library with me, wait around, and then check out "The Six Wives of Henry VIII" and "Anna Karenina" for me. I found it all profoundly silly.
Kids will read what they are able to read and what interests them. If it is inappropriate it will not interest them ... and even if it is Inappropriate, what harm ever came to anyone from a book? Even if my six-year-old cousin picked up a copy of Penthouse Forum I don't think she would suffer irreparable harm. She would probably become bored and quit reading before she even got to the good parts. ;)
I remember some of the most brainless kids in my class getting hooked on DH Lawrence and some of the other racy books. A couple of them became avid readers ... I frankly don't care if kids are reading sci-fi or romances or the classics... there are benefits to be gained from any sort of reading.
posted by Johannahh at 12:15 PM on August 29, 2001

I will think twice before reading my 2.5-year-old son (warning: blatant offspring link) his book about buses tonight in light of the recent use of them as a weapon. wouldn't want junior getting any ideas.
posted by adampsyche at 12:20 PM on August 29, 2001

On the topic of not having a library in the school: The problem is that school libraries and public libraries serve different user communities and different purposes. Assuming that school libraries were funded properly (one can dream), the students would use it for school assignments and recreational reading, and they'd use the public library for recreational reading and supplemental material on topics not covered in school (lots of sexuality stuff here, probably, and more in-depth coverage of things).

The other point to the school library is that it can cope with grade 10 working on an assignment, but if the curriculum is standardized, the public library system can't cope with the entire city's grade 10s working on the same assignment. There are a lot more schools than there are public libraries.

As to banning books, I'm all in favour of parents saying, "That's not appropriate for my child." I'm NOT in favour of parents saying, "That's not appropriate for your child", which is what the 'banners' are trying to do.
posted by djfiander at 12:39 PM on August 29, 2001

I just checked out some of the top 100 banned books, and i am in a way appalled by some of the books. Take THe Giver for example: i read that book like 5 years ago, and my only guess as to why it mihgt be banned is because it might cause kids to want to have a world where everyone's the same. Well, if these people had enough intelligence, they're realize that it is a book against what the book is about (makes sense, aye?). And A LIght in the Attic (Silversrtein), i'm not even go into what's wrong w/ wanting to ban that book. I find it ironic that of all the books i noticed, there is one, The Anarchist Cookbook that actually teaches kids to make bombs and other such stuff. THink about it...would we rather have out kids reading hours of Harry Potter (which generally keeps them out of trouble) or read a book make to get people into trouble???
posted by jmd82 at 12:50 PM on August 29, 2001

I just checked out some of the top 100 banned books, and i am in a way appalled at some of the books on the list. Take THe Giver for example: i read that book like 5 years ago, and my only guess as to why it mihgt be banned is because it might cause kids to want to have a world where everyone's the same. Well, if these people had enough intelligence, they're realize that it is a book against what the book is about (makes sense, aye?). And A LIght in the Attic (Silversrtein), i'm not even go into what's wrong w/ wanting to ban that book. I find it ironic that of all the books i noticed, there is one, The Anarchist Cookbook that actually teaches kids to make bombs and other such stuff. THink about it...would we rather have out kids reading hours of Harry Potter (which generally keeps them out of trouble) or read a book made to get them into trouble???
posted by jmd82 at 12:51 PM on August 29, 2001

I just checked out some of the top 100 banned books, and i am in a way appalled at some of the books on the list. Take THe Giver for example: i read that book like 5 years ago, and my only guess as to why it mihgt be banned is because it might cause kids to want to have a world where everyone's the same. Well, if these people had enough intelligence, they're realize that it is a book against what the book is about (makes sense, aye?). And A LIght in the Attic (Silversrtein), i'm not even go into what's wrong w/ wanting to ban that book. I find it ironic that of all the books i noticed, there is one, The Anarchist Cookbook that actually teaches kids to make bombs and other such stuff. THink about it...would we rather have out kids reading hours of Harry Potter (which generally keeps them out of trouble) or read a book made to get them into trouble???
posted by jmd82 at 12:52 PM on August 29, 2001

When I went to Catholic K-8 school, we had all of the classics, as well as the "self-discovery books" (God, are you there? It's me, Margaret and even Forever). However, the books were divided into age-appropriate groups, and if your mom and dad wanted you to be able to read those books sooner, they could bring in a note or call the principal.

Did you notice that ALA's Banned Books Week is a month from today?
posted by jennak at 12:54 PM on August 29, 2001

I normally just read the comments, as I feel that responding would lower me to your level. Notwithstanding, everyone here is missing the point. If your parents let you read The Catcher in the Rye say at 10 or 11 (when you really start to wonder why in the hell do we have guns?) you might have turned out a bit differently than had you read that book at 16 or 17. What I am trying to say is that every has a domino effect. In the former case the novel might have motivated you to deeply think and that in effect changed your life (as opposed to reading the book at 17 and saying, "Not bad, not bad, everyone's read it at some point so it's a sure icebreaker if I've got nothing say."
Oh by the way my nick was registered before this story appeared, there is no pun intended, in fact I am reading a translation of the famous in Russian right now (hacing read it in English twice; the clever one will make a point that I am reading it for the 3rd time and that it has certainly influenced me, having fully realized that, after the first read, I don't deny your assumption)

-16 y/o from Pencey......(even if I wasn't lying you would think I was :)
posted by HoldenCaulfield at 5:59 PM on August 29, 2001

Nice name Holden.

I think one of the points that need to be made here is that parents and teachers don't give kids any benefit of the doubt. When I was a kid and I read something that had a word like ni**er in it, I tried to figure out what it meant, and why it was being said. Tom and Huck used this word because it was a common word. Yes, it was oppressive, but it wasn't really a touchy feely society back then, was it?

I would rather my kids read about it and understand why it is wrong before they learn it from some 'older kid' that has influence over them. A teacher explaining why these "unpleasant racial themes" are wrong is going to make a big impression on them.
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 6:21 PM on August 29, 2001

I suppose that you could keep the book in the curriculum and let parents that object "opt-out".

At the k-12 school library I run (as a volunteer--our district thinks a student body of 80 is too small to need to know how to read), our circulation software includes a feature that brings up a custom popup with any parental restrictions when a kid goes to check out a book. In the three year's we've been running it, not one parent has come in to enter a restriction, even though there are very conservative parents whose children attend the school.

I do practice several small forms of censorship. I trade (donated--which is the most typical way the budgetless library gets books) bodice-rippers and violence=plot to the public library for sci-fi or fantasy or classics: I just don't feel the school's role is to provide every possible form of mindless entertainment. I also redirect kids who try to check out books I know are too mature (we have everything from James Joyce to Dr. Seuss to quite a few of the banned authors/titles) or are spectacularly out of sync with their parents' views (although I'll challenge kids to defend their choice and will grant it if they do so convincingly) to things that are more in line with their family's values. I also have been known to offer disclaimers and challenges to kids taking out things like Huck Finn or other socially-dated novels. That's all part of my job as I see it.

Since we have one teacher who refuses to even have the words "Harry Potter" uttered aloud in her classroom ever since a fundamental Christian radio show told her it was evil and Satanic, and another who wants me to put up a "Banned Books Week" display, the child of THE most conservative parents just checked out two "Goosebumps" books (babygoth reading for the second grade set), and the custodian just had a hiss when she saw I'd ordered a book about how to (safely) get tatooed/pierced, I have to say that life as a school librarian on the bleeding edge of the banning question is very exciting.

I would prefer that parents do their own job of raising their kids in accordance with their beliefs, whatever they are. Absent that, I'll just go on quietly subverting young minds with decent reading. Every chance I get.
posted by salt at 7:40 PM on August 29, 2001

Rock on salt!
posted by hotdoughnutsnow at 7:48 PM on August 29, 2001

I'm intrigued by these people who want to ban books for the sake of our children, but are quite happy to have their darlin' little kiddies watching people blowing each others' brains out on TV. It's a sick world in which we live.
posted by Option1 at 8:13 PM on August 29, 2001