More on that Banned Books Issue
Remember that board of trustees that scratched a bunch of books from a to-purchase list drawn up by a team of parents and teachers?
Turns out the trustees hadn’t read the books they axed.
“When it came time to say which were acceptable and which ones weren’t, they picked a bloc of books that had Clifford and Disney, that they really had no problem with, but they were in the same group that they did have concerns about,” trustee Maurice Kunkel said.
Now that is something that really, really gets my goat: people who make judgments about books without having read them—that is, judgments that affect whether other people can or will read the books in question. Obviously, we all make private judgments every time we decide whether to read or not to read a particular book. But those who make public judgments, those affecting policy decisions or reader opinion, have a responsibility to make informed decisions.
Camille has more. So does Becky.
(I do still see a difference between not buying and banning. But this board of trustees had no business overriding parent/teacher choices without even troubling themselves to read the books in question.)
Tags: children’s literature, kidlit, children’s books, books, banned books
Amy (Dandelion Seeds) says:
Please spread the word…
In Him,
Amy
On March 23, 2006 at 10:13 am
Mary Beth Patnaude says:
Gets my goat too, especially when people(who have never read it) want to ban the Bible.
On March 23, 2006 at 10:39 am
Liz B says:
Thanks for the update! And I’ll also add that not every removal from a library is banning. It’s entirely possible that a book more appropriate to a high school somehow ends up on an elementary school shelf. That being brought to the attention of a librarian, and fixed, is not banning.
On March 23, 2006 at 3:22 pm