Is It “Banning” To Reject the Book in the First Place?

We hear a lot about book “banning,” especially when “we” maintain Cato’sPublic Schooling Battle Map, but probably lots of other people hear it, too. Indeed, it just so happens that we are inBanned Books Week right now, an event that highlights challenges to books stocked by public libraries, including in public schools. But what is suddenly getting attention is not the Week, but a Cambridge, Massachusetts public school librarianrejecting a bunch of Dr. Seuss books that First Lady Melania Trump selected the district to win. Which raises two questions: Is it not just as much “banning” when public librarians choose not to stock books as when parents or citizens ask that those already stocked be removed? And isn’t it a threat to basic freedom to have librarians or anyone else decide for taxpayer-funded institutions—government institutions —what constitutes acceptable art or thought?The first answer is of course it is just as much “banning” for public institutions to reject books in the first place as to remove them later on. The ultimate result is the same: not making a book available for the public to borrow. Of course, this is not really banning, which would be to prohibit people from reading a book at all—making it illegal to purchase or possess—not refusing to let people borrow it for free. But if people want to misapply the term, they should misapply it equally.Which takes us to the root problem: Public institutions force all taxpayers to fund dec...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs