There are some great posts here, adding additional insight. Per @Sil_lis, jobs threatened, initial professional recommendations overturned by an ad hoc oversight 'committee;' and per @Hellmark, the initiating complaint coming from a person
not associated with the school, parents or students. The plot thickens... Then we have the spot-on post from @DiapDealer questioning the graph found by @EatingPie, which effectively suggests that the stated reasons for banning are often a superset of an ulterior undercurrent (we shouldn't be using the "R" word in this forum). It's sad that professional educators here have possibly been held hostage to their own jobs by a vocal but apparently powerful and influential community person or minority who didn't like the first decision and made up his/her/their own committee to change the verdict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
it's obvious that getting rid of books for controversial content may not be censorship; it could just be that the library can get better use out of that space with a book that's accessible to more students.
|
Yes, you're right.
Slaughterhouse 5 is a real shelf-breaker, right next to
War and Peace 
If it's on the shelf, it's accessible to students. If it's removed, it's effectively banned by that school. I would suggest that books not on shelves are not banned by their absence, but if they had been on the shelves and were intentionally removed to avoid student access, then they have effectively been banned, regardless of what label we use.
If it looks like duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ...
Good thread. I'm going back to my novel ...