That's fair, but most of these books have NOT been removed entirely from the libraries. They are included in some listings of banned books even when they have merely been age restricted. In some cases, the mere fact that they have been challenged gets them on the list, even if ultimately they stayed on the shelf.
That's fair, but most of these books have NOT been removed entirely from the libraries. They are included in some listings of banned books even when they have merely been age restricted. In some cases, the mere fact that they have been challenged gets them on the list, even if ultimately they stayed on the shelf.
True. But the author listed “removing the book entirely” as one of the “things that people are calling a ban.” The way it was worded, it seemed he was implying that the things on the list were not actual bans, just things that people were calling bans. The thrust of the article seemed to be that people were saying that books were being banned, but they really weren’t. And then he goes and includes “removal of the book” on his list of “things people are calling bans”, without noting that this is, in fact, a ban. I expected the list to be followed by a sentence like “only the third thing is an actual ban.” It wasn’t.
Your right Me. It seems that the article is pointing out how the ALA conflates things to inflate numbers to their liking. Then, sadly, the author goes on to do the same thing....
That's fair, but most of these books have NOT been removed entirely from the libraries. They are included in some listings of banned books even when they have merely been age restricted. In some cases, the mere fact that they have been challenged gets them on the list, even if ultimately they stayed on the shelf.
True. But the author listed “removing the book entirely” as one of the “things that people are calling a ban.” The way it was worded, it seemed he was implying that the things on the list were not actual bans, just things that people were calling bans. The thrust of the article seemed to be that people were saying that books were being banned, but they really weren’t. And then he goes and includes “removal of the book” on his list of “things people are calling bans”, without noting that this is, in fact, a ban. I expected the list to be followed by a sentence like “only the third thing is an actual ban.” It wasn’t.
Your right Me. It seems that the article is pointing out how the ALA conflates things to inflate numbers to their liking. Then, sadly, the author goes on to do the same thing....