Is choosing not to have a certain book included in a particular library because someone who has the authority to select books decides it does not belong in that library the same thing as banning that book?
When national lists are circulated of books to be eliminated and they are then challenged frequently by people who have never read the books, that is book banning. The attack on Ruby Bridges book is part of a concerted nationwide effort to get any discussion of African-Anerican history out of the schools.
You choose a book you think is, ie feelings, should be available to everyone. Because others don’t think the same you feel it is appropriate to claim banning when it hasn’t been banned, only restricted from the younger audience.
Who circulated that list you are talking about? Was it a federal agency or was it a group of private individuals who made a critique and explained why they believed it wasn’t appropriate in some circumstances.
If it was private citizens, would they have a first amendment right to express their opinions?
When books are removed from library shelves, how is that not banning. And when a book is written for early grades, making it available to old people is equivalent to banning it.
Who’s stopping anyone from reading the book mentioned in your rant? It can still be bought, it can still be read by any parent in the U.S. to any child they wish. Y’all have a problem understanding choice vs a captive audience (classroom) and being forced to listen to something and hear only what one person (teacher) chooses to expound upon. If your bloomers are in such a.bunch over it, send a.polite letter to each parent in the school districts informing them they are quite able to read the book to their childrenn if it’s so damned important they are exposed to it.