The problem with book burning

When I say book burning, I do not mean literally mean the immolation of tomes, although in a wider sense this is included. I am referring to current moves to remove specified books from libraries and from schools, and again by extension certain authors and certain ideas. And when I say "the" problem, I do not mean that we have one and only one, but that there is one sine qua non.

Think of book banning as a scale from 0 to 100. No-one would disagree with keeping 0 books from a school library; bomb-making or how to poison your teacher without leaving evidence come to mind. Similarly, allowing 100% of books has the same consideration with the added very real influences of budget and of space.

So the argument comes from where to apply the scalpel, and when, and who decides.

When should be the easisest of the three. A robust and thoughtfully-considered policy would determine what is and what is not acquired. Before the fact. 

Unfortunately, no policy can survive contact with the enemy. or in this case time and the changes wrought thereby. Knowledge changes, philosophies change, society changes. Ptolemaic science is no longer apt for the astrophysics section, nor a treatise linking the end of the world to the unnatural speed of the bicycle. And of course librarians have always had a discard policy based around obsolensce and lack of circulation.

Who decides what to acquire and/or to retain is even more problematic and I will consider that separately.  Students? Parents? Community? Teachers? Librarians? Administrators? District staff? Board members? Government at any level? Remember meat and poison, or trash and treasure ...

The where is for me the ultimate challenge. If we decide on point 56, then what is the difference between a 55 book and a 56? Or a 56 and a 57?

What about a book which is not great but the hero is a she who is orphaned, looks after two younger siblings, stays in school and becomes a successful doctor? Or the book which is great, but features talking unicorns which travel the world taking whatever they want, whenever and wherever they want, with no consequence?

Do we consider a work in its entirety? Thus, a book which is 96% acceptable is to be kept? Or the 4% means no thank you? Or the author? Jo Smith wrote 10 books; nine are great, one is not and may even be highly problematic. Do we keep nine or ten or none? Or the books are fine, but s/he has said or done some other things which are not? Or there are five author or editors, and one of them wrote or did or said something ...

A bad spot in an apple can be cut out, leaving the rest for our delectation. A "bad spot" in a book, not so easy. Just ask Thomas Bowdler.

I am reminded of the Of Mice and Men challenge. This must be one of the most important and influential literary works suitable and accessible for High School study, and yet also one of the most complained about. The Merchant of Venice, Huckleberry Finn, The Catcher in the Rye. All problematic.

Oops, I have slipped from books in libraries where students can choose to borrow and read or not, and books studied in class where students have no such independence. 

These decisions are not so simple.