154
submitted 11 months ago by stopthatgirl7@kbin.social to c/news@lemmy.world

There is now enacted or pending legislation in more than 30 U.S. states prohibiting certain kinds of books from being in schools – mostly LGBTQIA+ titles and books that engage with the presence of racism in our country. Because Scholastic Book Fairs are invited into schools, where books can be purchased by kids on their own, these laws create an almost impossible dilemma: back away from these titles or risk making teachers, librarians, and volunteers vulnerable to being fired, sued, or prosecuted.

To continue offering these books, as well as even more high interest titles, we created an additional collection called Share Every Story, Celebrate Every Voice for our U.S. elementary school fairs. We cannot make a decision for our school partners around what risks they are willing to take, based on the state and local laws that apply to their district, so these topics and this collection have been part of many planning calls that happen in advance of shipping a fair.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago

The US has had a recent spat of legislative movement in some states that's been nicknamed "Don't Say Gay" bills. Effectively they outlaw discussion or inclusion of topics deemed inappropriate for children in educational settings. What this translates to is basically 'if you teach children that anyone other than heterosexual people exist you can be fined, fired, and potentially sued by the parents of your students.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Parental_Rights_in_Education_Act?wprov=sfti1

[-] AkaBobHoward@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Got that one, up to date on the book bannings, but it seemed that it was being suggested that by complying with that law Scholastic would be violating a federal law, this is an interesting argument, especially if is has some application to interstate commerce, or even if it would be a violation of individual state law to have an agreement predetermined with the district, before the company brought "controversial" books into the district.

Let it be known that I find book banning and "don't say gay" bills abhorrent, as I do with terminology that includes CRT including the history of slavery in the USA. I am trying only to get a better grasp of the mainstream arguments around this subject. I tend to see things in black and white (no pun intended, seriously) because I am autistic and I really do want a better understanding of this one.

[-] Lemjukes@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I don't think I'm seeing what you're interpreting as them being worried about breaking federal laws. They're worried about breaking state laws when they're invited into schools in states with these don't say gay bills. So scholastic has moved anything that could get them in trouble now goes in this separate collection that schools have to specifically ask them to bring and isn't included with the normal offerings. Nor am I seeing how doing so would violate any kind of federal law.

[-] AkaBobHoward@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

"feds are going to be forced to act" for a federal agency to act that would require the enforcement of federal law, short of that it is all down to state action. Or am I misinterpreting intent, happens a lot to me?

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2023
154 points (99.4% liked)

News

22962 readers
5039 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS