Teacher here. As much as I personally hate the idea of separating out these books, I can’t really blame Scholastic and think their decision is an uncomfortable compromise born of a shitty...
Exemplary
Teacher here.
As much as I personally hate the idea of separating out these books, I can’t really blame Scholastic and think their decision is an uncomfortable compromise born of a shitty situation outside of their control.
Several states have passed laws that now make it possible to prosecute school employees for “obscenity” which clearly target LGBTQ representation. Others have limited discussion of racial issues (e.g. Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act”). A librarian in one of those states could potentially face termination or a lawsuit for the simple act of hosting a Scholastic Book Fair. Being able to separate out targeted books means they can now choose to host one without putting their career at risk. Likewise, they can also choose to include those books despite the risks, which the company will also support. It’s not a blanket ban.
Scholastic’s action here is a pragmatic albeit uncomfortable way of supporting people facing that difficult decision. This isn’t necessarily done out of kindness — schools are Scholastic’s primary customers, so they definitely have a bottom line they’re looking to protect — but it’s a better option than just keeping all books in the main catalog, knowing that librarians would then have to potentially put their livelihoods on the line as a result. That would be negligent buck-passing on their part.
So yes, Scholastic’s decision here has the smack of bad optics, but I don’t think the fault for that lies with them. Instead, it lies with the people making and supporting the laws and wider social environment that created this situation in the first place.
Scholastic is a publisher who wants to keep being the go-to name for childrens books and school book faires. Besides providing books for kids they also massively help raise funds for those...
Scholastic is a publisher who wants to keep being the go-to name for childrens books and school book faires. Besides providing books for kids they also massively help raise funds for those individual schools providing funding for teachers to be able to do their jobs effectively in the classroom.
They aren't doing this because they want to or because they agree with the law - they clearly don't and have been outspoken about it often and loudly - however, they also recognize that they are part of a process that provides a greater good in the world and can't afford (both for themselves as a company as well as to the schools that would be losing out) to just not service areas that operate with crappy laws over top of them.
Blaming and shaming them isn't the approach here - keep the attention focused on those who are creating the situation not those having to adapt to the situation.
It seems like they are doing more than is necessary to abide by these laws, though. They are splitting these books and authors into a separate catalog, when they could instead a) not offer those...
It seems like they are doing more than is necessary to abide by these laws, though. They are splitting these books and authors into a separate catalog, when they could instead a) not offer those books for certain localities while recognizing that they belong alongside the rest, b) place the control in the hands of the school itself, and recognize that the people blaming them for teachers being hurt by these laws are wrongheaded, or c) boycott schools in these regions, and find another host.
Just because companies want profit at all cost doesn't justify talking out of both sides of their mouth, which is how this feels.
Requisite reminder that Scholastic was the publisher of Animorphs, a series that responsibly introduced children under 10 to the concepts of genocide and our moral duties around it, physical and...
Requisite reminder that Scholastic was the publisher of Animorphs, a series that responsibly introduced children under 10 to the concepts of genocide and our moral duties around it, physical and emotional trauma, paranoia, suicidality, the horrors of war, domestic abuse, dissociative identity issues, the list goes on. It's especially ironic for them to be kowtowing at this1 line twenty years later.
1: you know, basic awareness of the world around you
For those who are unaware, the conclusion of the series (book 54) is a real trip and leans hard into what I would say is an effective antiwar message. I was one of the few kids who actually read...
For those who are unaware, the conclusion of the series (book 54) is a real trip and leans hard into what I would say is an effective antiwar message. I was one of the few kids who actually read that far and remember feeling like it came out of nowhere, but it was more powerful because of that. It's been years, though.
Sadly, I've never finished the series, as I started reading it after Scholastic had dropped it, and books 30+ were very hard to find when I was young enough to be excited for them and old enough...
Sadly, I've never finished the series, as I started reading it after Scholastic had dropped it, and books 30+ were very hard to find when I was young enough to be excited for them and old enough to choose the books I read. However, I feel that my time with the first ~32 were fundamental to my worldview regarding politics and violence, and my "precocious" understanding of such dynamics as a child. They are not something I would necessarily recommend for kids as young as I was (~6), but I wish more art for them took cues from that writing team rather than Disney.
I will say, as someone who's making their way through the series as an adult after reading a smattering of the books as a kid, the groundwork for the anti-war messaging is definitely there. It's...
I will say, as someone who's making their way through the series as an adult after reading a smattering of the books as a kid, the groundwork for the anti-war messaging is definitely there. It's just introduced more subtly than most kids would consciously pick up on.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.” -Commissioner Pravin Lal, UN Declaration of Rights
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
-Commissioner Pravin Lal, UN Declaration of Rights
Teacher here.
As much as I personally hate the idea of separating out these books, I can’t really blame Scholastic and think their decision is an uncomfortable compromise born of a shitty situation outside of their control.
Several states have passed laws that now make it possible to prosecute school employees for “obscenity” which clearly target LGBTQ representation. Others have limited discussion of racial issues (e.g. Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act”). A librarian in one of those states could potentially face termination or a lawsuit for the simple act of hosting a Scholastic Book Fair. Being able to separate out targeted books means they can now choose to host one without putting their career at risk. Likewise, they can also choose to include those books despite the risks, which the company will also support. It’s not a blanket ban.
Scholastic’s action here is a pragmatic albeit uncomfortable way of supporting people facing that difficult decision. This isn’t necessarily done out of kindness — schools are Scholastic’s primary customers, so they definitely have a bottom line they’re looking to protect — but it’s a better option than just keeping all books in the main catalog, knowing that librarians would then have to potentially put their livelihoods on the line as a result. That would be negligent buck-passing on their part.
So yes, Scholastic’s decision here has the smack of bad optics, but I don’t think the fault for that lies with them. Instead, it lies with the people making and supporting the laws and wider social environment that created this situation in the first place.
Scholastic is a publisher who wants to keep being the go-to name for childrens books and school book faires. Besides providing books for kids they also massively help raise funds for those individual schools providing funding for teachers to be able to do their jobs effectively in the classroom.
They aren't doing this because they want to or because they agree with the law - they clearly don't and have been outspoken about it often and loudly - however, they also recognize that they are part of a process that provides a greater good in the world and can't afford (both for themselves as a company as well as to the schools that would be losing out) to just not service areas that operate with crappy laws over top of them.
Blaming and shaming them isn't the approach here - keep the attention focused on those who are creating the situation not those having to adapt to the situation.
It seems like they are doing more than is necessary to abide by these laws, though. They are splitting these books and authors into a separate catalog, when they could instead a) not offer those books for certain localities while recognizing that they belong alongside the rest, b) place the control in the hands of the school itself, and recognize that the people blaming them for teachers being hurt by these laws are wrongheaded, or c) boycott schools in these regions, and find another host.
Just because companies want profit at all cost doesn't justify talking out of both sides of their mouth, which is how this feels.
Requisite reminder that Scholastic was the publisher of Animorphs, a series that responsibly introduced children under 10 to the concepts of genocide and our moral duties around it, physical and emotional trauma, paranoia, suicidality, the horrors of war, domestic abuse, dissociative identity issues, the list goes on. It's especially ironic for them to be kowtowing at this1 line twenty years later.
1: you know, basic awareness of the world around you
For those who are unaware, the conclusion of the series (book 54) is a real trip and leans hard into what I would say is an effective antiwar message. I was one of the few kids who actually read that far and remember feeling like it came out of nowhere, but it was more powerful because of that. It's been years, though.
Sadly, I've never finished the series, as I started reading it after Scholastic had dropped it, and books 30+ were very hard to find when I was young enough to be excited for them and old enough to choose the books I read. However, I feel that my time with the first ~32 were fundamental to my worldview regarding politics and violence, and my "precocious" understanding of such dynamics as a child. They are not something I would necessarily recommend for kids as young as I was (~6), but I wish more art for them took cues from that writing team rather than Disney.
I will say, as someone who's making their way through the series as an adult after reading a smattering of the books as a kid, the groundwork for the anti-war messaging is definitely there. It's just introduced more subtly than most kids would consciously pick up on.
Seems Scholastic is reversing course.
I appreciate them listening to the feedback and changing their response
Scholastic Book Fairs were a big part of my childhood, it's disappointing to see them bend the knee like this.
“Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.”
-Commissioner Pravin Lal, UN Declaration of Rights
This is very disappointing from a publisher.