I was fully prepared to dive into our first Supreme Court case, but then I got sucked into the comments about books bans on social media and decided I need to back up a few steps and address some issues. Whenever Annie’s Foundation posts about books bans and the right to read, the responses on social media follow a predictable pattern. Almost immediately, we encounter the following reactions:
It’s not a ban! If you can get it at the public library or buy it at a bookstore, it’s not a ban!
We just want to keep pornography out of schools!
Movies have age ratings, the FCC censors television so of course schools should have age ratings on books.
I try not to give into my instincts and respond to these comments, but sometimes I just can’t resist. I get sidetracked from a productive use of time and try, just once more, to reason with the detractors. After writing and rewriting responses over and over again in my head, and putting off writing this blog, I decided that I’m just going to address the trolling with a link to this blog. I know that these people are trying to provoke a reaction, yet they can be hard to ignore.
If you’ve landed here because I shared the link in response to a comment that you’ve made echoing the sentiments described above, welcome. Hopefully you will learn something here about the misinformation that you are spreading!
Before delving into the intricacies of defining bans and pornography, let’s take a step back and consider why any of this matters. On the one hand, we have people who argue that it’s crucial to offer kids access to a diverse array of books, vetted by educators and librarians, and aligned with the library’s mission to cater to the interests of all individuals. On the other side, there are those who advocate for removal of books they deem objectionable, often those depicting LGBTQ+ themes and people of color, under the guise of “protecting the children.” Instead of simply regulating access to these objectionable books for their own children, they seek to restrict access for all children.
Those who perpetuate the myth that schools need to censor their book selections to safeguard children often simultaneously bemoan low standardized test scores and advocate for a return to traditional education focused on reading, writing and arithmetic. For instance, Moms for Liberty (the SPLC-designated anti-government extremist organization) highlights the country’s supposed declining math and reading scores and calls for the need to “Get Back to the Basics!”
Shouldn’t a group advocating for improved reading skills encourage students to read more rather than less? Yet, in this perplexing logic, reading books is portrayed as an impediment to academic success. In a particularly gross social media post, the Linn County, Iowa chapter of Moms for Liberty shared an image insinuating that reading books featuring LGBTQ+ hinders children’s proficiency in reading, math, science and history.
Shouldn’t a group advocating for improved reading skills encourage students to read more rather than less? Yet, in this perplexing logic, reading books is portrayed as an impediment to academic success. In a particularly gross social media post, the Linn County, Iowa chapter of Moms for Liberty shared an image insinuating that reading books featuring LGBTQ+ hinders children’s proficiency in reading, math, science and history.
Just to clarify, the advocates for banning books somehow want to improve students’ reading scores by….making it harder for them to read books. We currently live in an upside-down world where a small minority has weaponized the act of reading. The book banners are throwing up impediments that make it more difficult for kids to read on their own. Access to books is closely linked to academic success, with research finding a strong correlation between book availability and educational attainment. Kids who have access to books, including in school, demonstrate higher levels of reading proficiency, academic achievement, and lifelong learning. Depriving children of books exacerbates educational inequalities, perpetuating cycles of poverty, illiteracy and social disadvantage.
Research consistently shows that kids who read for fun have higher literacy skills, enhanced writing abilities, and more diverse vocabularies compared to kids that don’t. And, as reading time increases, so does proficiency, resulting in higher-achieving students both in the classroom and on standardized assessments. In addition, kids who indulge in recreational reading often exhibit enhanced social skills, including heightened empathy and a deeper understanding of other cultures.
It’s evident that children who voluntarily engage in reading are more likely to excel in school, so it defies logic to suggest that we can bolster academic achievement by impeding children’s access to reading materials.We’ve previously discussed the book Teens Choosing to Read: Fostering Social, Emotional and Intellectual Growth Through Books, a 2023 book about what actually happens when teens read for pleasure. When given the freedom to select their reading materials from a diverse array of options, including books addressing challenging themes and complex characters (many of which have been removed from our school libraries under Iowa law), teenagers exhibited a surge in reading activity, achieved notably higher test scores, and reported increased levels of empathy, moral fortitude and overall happiness.
This is exactly what gets lost in the narrative about book bans—the undeniable reasons why we should be doing everything we can to encourage kids to read.
How do kids develop a love of reading where they choose to read in their free time? They get connected with books that are a good fit for them. Can you think of a better way to find books that resonate than by visiting the school library—a resource conveniently situated within the very building where they spend most of their days—and consulting with a trained professional?
School librarians fulfill a vital role in helping students find books that match their interests, reading levels and educational needs. They are important people in our kids’ lives; they invest time in getting to know our kids, engaging them in conversations to understand their interests, preferences and reading abilities. Based on what they learn about their students, librarians provide tailored recommendations, suggesting books that align with students’ individual tastes and needs. Librarians serve as an invaluable resource for our kids, and help guide them in discovering, selecting, and enjoying books that help foster a long-term love of reading.
Here’s the crucial question in this debate: why does it matter when a librarian is forced to remove books from the school library because certain people don’t like what’s in them, particularly considering that a majority of challenged books feature diverse representation? Such actions undermine librarians’ ability to connect students with books that resonate with them, ultimately hindering their ability to help kids develop a love of reading. Imagine a scenario not too far from reality: a student in the Winterset School District drops by the high school library and strikes up a conversation with the librarian about her favorite subject, history, and her newfound interest in the Red Scare. The librarian, aware of a popular, award-winning YA historical fiction book titled The Last Night at the Telegraph Club, tells her about the plot–a story set in 1950s San Francisco, following a Chinese-American girl grappling with racism and the fear of her father’s deportation for supporting communism. Unfortunately, the book has been removed from the library under Iowa law because the main character is gay. All the librarian can do is provide the title and suggest seeking it elsewhere. However, with no public library card and limited resources to purchase books, the student walks out empty-handed.
Consider these other hypotheticals:
- In Woodward-Granger, a student who loves graphic novels visits the library seeking Heartstopper, the source material for a favorite Netflix show. However, Heartstopper was pulled out of the school library because it depicts two boys kissing, so the disheartened student leaves without a book and doesn’t return again.
At Alta-Aurelia, a girl requests the latest book by Rick Riordan, author of the Percy Jackson series, only to learn that The House of Hades has been removed under SF496. When the librarian asks what other books she might be interested in, she expresses interest in adventure stories where the main character is Black. Unfortunately, two perfect options, Cinderella is Dead and Ace of Spades have also been removed. Frustrated, the student leaves without finding a good fit.
School districts across Iowa have purged hundreds of books from their libraries in an attempt to adhere to SF496. It’s impossible to know how many missed opportunities there have been to connect a student with a book that is a good fit for them, but it’s not hard to see that erecting barriers between kids and access to books at school is an effective way to discourage them from reading.
As a parent, I absolutely want my kid to be able to walk into the school library and have access to all of its resources. She should be able to talk to a librarian, who will help her find books that resonate with her. When kids have easy access to books and the guidance of a trusted adult to help them discover titles they genuinely enjoy, they are more likely to develop the habit of reading for pleasure. This, in turn, leads to the myriad of positive benefits associated with reading.
Let me be clear: parents absolutely have the right to have a say in the books their children read. This goes both ways—it’s great to recommend books to your child, read together, and talk about books. However, it’s also perfectly acceptable to determine that certain books may not be suitable for your child. If your child brings home a book from the library that you feel uncomfortable with, that’s alright too. As a parent, it’s well within your rights to tell the school that you prefer your child not to check out that particular book or not have access to the library at all. It’d probably be a good idea to speak to your child about your concerns with that particular book so that they don’t get the impression that all books are bad.
I’ll make this absolutely clear: demanding that schools remove books simply because you personally dislike them is, under no circumstances, acceptable. It’s also not okay to advocate for laws that would limit access to entire categories of books in public school libraries for everyone. You are not the arbiter of morality for other people’s children, and you do not have the right to impose your standards on everyone else.
Against that backdrop, the next posts will clarify the meaning of a few words that are often used loosely during conversations about censoring books, including “ban” and “pornography.”