BY SUMMER CRANDALL

Public schools across the United States are experiencing a surge in formal efforts to remove books from library shelves, igniting debates over who decides what students are allowed to read. While some parents and lawmakers argue that certain titles are not age appropriate, restricting access to books ultimately limits educational opportunity and undermines intellectual freedom.

According to the American Library Association, recent years have seen some of the highest numbers of formal book challenges since recordkeeping began. Many of the most frequently challenged books include titles such as The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas, which explores police violence and systemic racism, and Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, a memoir about gender identity. Other titles like All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson centers on coming of age experiences within the LGBTQ+ community. These books reflect realities that many students encounter in their own lives or communities. Removing them does not erase those realities; it only limits students’ exposure to diverse perspectives.

Schools exist to prepare students for a complex and diverse society. Literature allows young people to encounter experiences different from their own, strengthening critical thinking, empathy and cultural awareness. Shielding students from difficult topics may seem protective, but it risks leaving them less prepared for the world beyond the classroom.

The legal system has also weighed in on this issue. In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982), a school board in New York removed several books from a high school library because members objected to their content. Students challenged the decision, arguing that the removals violated their First Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that while school boards have discretion over educational materials, they may not remove books simply because they disagree with the ideas expressed in them. The decision affirmed that public schools cannot engage in viewpoint based censorship.

This does not mean parents should be excluded from the conversation. A balanced approach would allow parents to guide their own children’s reading choices while preserving access for others. In practice, this could include transparent review committees made up of educators, librarians and parents, clear criteria for evaluating concerns, and opt out provisions that allow families to request alternative assignments without removing materials for everyone. Such policies create a middle ground between parental involvement and intellectual freedom.

As state legislatures continue debating education policy, school districts should prioritize access, transparency and student opportunity. Public libraries and classrooms should remain spaces where ideas can be explored not restricted.