When school libraries and censorship is introduced as a topic, the first thought is often books with a sexual content, those that introduce children to gay people or books that challenge religious beliefs. However, the other side of the political spectrum can also push for the removal of books because of perceived sexist and racist content. Moore (1981) has argued that neither objecting to sexist and racist material nor pushing for the inclusion of non-sexist, non-racist material at the expense of older, objectionable material constitutes censorship. It cannot be denied that there are books and other materials in circulation that contain outdated references to women, racial and ethnic minorities. As older materials are replaced, a library should consider including books that reference minority cultures, history and important figures. Sexist material that pushes girls to pursue certain careers or behave in a certain way should be balanced with material that demonstrates equality between men and women. The question is whether or not not selecting certain material for inclusion in a collection (or removing it from circulation) equals censorship.
Burress (1981) agrees with Moore that sexist and racist material should be criticized but it should not be excluded from inclusion within a collection. He argues that no literature should be reduced to one dimension. Censorship based on egalitarian desires to be inclusive are as dangerous to intellectual freedom as are fears of including dangerous materials. Books with racist or sexist language could be valuable for children for other reasons. No books should be reduced to one reading. This censorship from the left can bring about the same negative consequences that censorship from the right can bring.
Moore, R. & Burress, L. (1981, September). Bait/Rebait: The criticizing of racism and sexism by the Council on Interracial Books for Children is not censorship. The English Journal, 14-19.