Banned!
Updated: 18 hours ago
By Gente Cuaderno Editors
Freedom of speech is a part of our political understanding as Americans that we hold on to with tight fists. Many facets of public discourse, education, and news arise from our First Amendment, yet growing issues in our communities include disinformation, misrepresentation, and widespread censorship. This week is Banned Books Week, and when 39% of challenged titles belong to POC and LGBTQ+ narratives, the consequences book bans have on our education system and public discourse deepen. Book bans normalize censorship in educational settings by undermining free speech and an inclusive learning environment, echoing single-story political rhetoric. Despite the proven enrichment of inclusive learning spaces and intellectual autonomy that diverse texts provide, book bans pose an explicit inequity that needs to be addressed.
The context of book bans has changed a lot in the past ten years, and it’s important to understand the attitudes that resulted in the record-breaking rates of book censorship in 2025. The American Library Association’s 2025 Banned Books Data creates a clearer picture of the ethics behind book banning because it clarifies where they come from and what they’re targeting. The bans are carried out in batches based on the lists that are presented to schools and public libraries. The 5,668 titles challenged in 2025 included works like Sold by Patricia McCormick, The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe. These books explore topics of child trafficking, mental health, and gender identity. The push for a book ban does not usually originate within the school, nor is it primarily concerned with the educational merit of the content. 92% of book challenges start outside, with politicians and pressure groups, overriding the choices made by educators or librarians. While a community is right to be concerned with the content of libraries, the circulation of books should reflect the narratives of present society and preserve essential historical literature. The book bans are a sign of an alternative agenda seeking social control of literature.
Students’ identity is an important consideration in creating culturally sustainable curricula. A student’s social and institutional exposure to literature influences the way a student navigates information, and censorship interrupts the essential learning that diverse texts provide. In lacking representation of the great variety of political, economic, and cultural structures that give life to different narratives, libraries aren’t able to provide learners the perspective to construct questions about their own lives.
In her talk, “The Dangers of A Single Story,” Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie regarded the single story as the narrative someone holds of a population, country, or community, capable of creating stereotypes that are like incomplete pictures. After experiencing the effects of single stories and examining how she internalized them, Adichie came to recognize the interdependence of literary and social representation of different communities. Single stories create incomplete images, and those images seep into our political understanding of one another.
“I’ve always felt that it is impossible to engage properly with a place or a person without engaging with all of the stories of that place and that person. The consequence of the single story is this: It robs people of dignity. It makes our recognition of our equal humanity difficult. It emphasizes how we are different rather than how we are similar” (Adichie).
In educational environments, a single story can obscure how learners shape their opinions about different communities, but it can also shape how they understand themselves. A narrative is an insightful perspective into identity and causality, and book bans reject the validity of minority narratives. Additionally, the effects of challenging a title don’t stop when it is banned or restricted. All parts of the text become politicized, such as the author, the author’s identity, the characters’ identities, and the central narrative. The challenge leaves an impression, for better or worse, that the book is problematic.
In September, President Trump banned journalists from entering the White House in order to filter out government coverage he doesn't agree with. In the weeks leading up to the ban, headlines included U.S. involvement in bombing Iran, diesel and gas prices– issues that have been pulling down Trump’s approval rating leading up to the midterms. When asked about why he’d infringe on the freedom of the press, the President prefaced his defense with, “I’ve done great things.” He recalled that the outlets currently fighting the ban (CNN, MSNOW, and Politico) have been sharing “fake news” about his presidency and the country. The President’s own account of his presidency, summed up in “greatness,” isn’t what CNN, MSNOW, and Politico reflect in their journalism, but it's the narrative his administration would prefer be at the forefront. Using policy to customize the viewpoint of government coverage for Americans is not just a constitutional concern; it’s a legal violation. According to the 1st Amendment, the government may not regulate (via restricting journalists’ access to important information, for example) speech based on the views conveyed in it.
“Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference” (POLITICO).
Trump has managed to fabricate a national security threat out of journalists doing their job, and a hostile environment for all outlets to manage in order to provide White House coverage, just as book bans fabricate the threat of indoctrination to justify taking titles off shelves and create a state of censorship that hinders learning.
The problem of allowing biased political intolerance to alter learning environments through the normalization of censorship and available texts is illustrated in the “single story,” but it’s also evident in social division. The state of censorship is one of exclusion, and it positions any alternative points of view as opposition instead of an opportunity to learn. The parallels between federal interference with journalism and book bans reflect the growing intolerance of minority and critical narratives. However, addressing the interruption to learning that censorship creates in all learning spaces helps defend them against an oppressive single story. Building contextual criticism while reading and accepting information, emphasizing a sacred learning environment, will enable protection of freedom of speech and honor diverse narratives as a part of learning.
Sources
Burmester, Samuel, and Lionel C. Howard. “Confronting Book Banning and Assumed Curricular Neutrality: A Critical Inquiry Framework.” Theory Into Practice, vol. 61, no. 4, Oct. 2022, pp. 373–83. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2022.2107343.
The Gente Cuaderno Editing team is dedicated to promoting freedom from the censorship of oppressive governments and uplifting our community's narratives.
