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.
deleted by creator
The feds don’t enforce state law.
When practicing interstate commerce in which they have a pattern of violating the laws of several states, the DOJ or other agencies like the FTC very well might get involved.
Again, I am sorry I am just looking for understanding, who here is they? And what are the violations they made?
Edit: I know on the Internet it is very hard to convay intent, but I really am not asking these questions out of spite or as an argument. I have some trouble understanding nuance and I have an interest in this topic and I am trying to better understand.
If it helps for me to state my stance I am unequivocally, opposed to “don’t say gay” bills, the banning of so called CRT in schools, and book bannings.
Maybe. Scholastic’s status as engaged in interstate commerce gives it unique standing to challenge these laws in federal court. The chilling effect on speech, the prior restraint, and compelled speech, wrought by the combined effect of these state statutes is now laid bare.
Not challenging just curious, what law are you referring to?
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
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.
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.
“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?