On the topic of "banning books is lame" (which I tend to agree with - especially in light of many ridiculous such overreactions prevalent in the States), I've found something interesting.
I work at a middle school with a library that holds a "we don't ban books" philosophy. Now, I don't know if this is legally written into the policy of the school, or if it's just a personal preference of the librarian (she's gung-ho with the concept, and she's also a very level-headed person, so it makes for a legitimate discussion, in my mind).
This got me to thinking about the ramifications of such a standard. We all have ideologies and biases which affect our beliefs and opinions, and I suspect most all of us would admit that we would feel uncomfortable if our children (if/when we have any) were allowed to pick up just anything at the school library to read during quiet time, without adult (specifically "our") consent.
Children are impressionable; I doubt Christian parents would want their child reading frank (persuasive?) descriptions of Satanism or Wiccan any more than an athiest would like for their child to read propaganda books about Mormonism, Scientology or Intelligent Design. There are books like this written to appeal to children. Certain other themes are simply too adult for very young minds to understand and "appreciate" (for lack of a better term), even if written at their level (the Holocaust, marital infidelity, rape, etc).
I don't mean to take this beyond it's intended scope, but you have to think that even the most liberal adults (in this sense) would find certain forms of ... "literature" ... wholly inappropriate for 6th graders. A line must be drawn somewhere.
So, the question is: where would you draw that line? If banning books isn't the answer, would you be prepared to implement the opposite extreme? If not, where's your happy medium?
__________________
|