Latest news with #Fahrenheit451
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why I'm Resigning from the NSF and Library of Congress
Alondra Nelson, while serving as Director of Science and Technology Policy for the White House, attends a meeting of G7 science ministers on June 13, 2022, in Frankfurt, Germany. Credit - Sebastian Gollnow—Today, I am resigning from the National Science Board and the Library of Congress Scholars Council. Even as the White House threatens the foundational tenets of constitutional democracy and continues to slash funding for essential social services, it is tempting to hope that the public institutions charged with promoting and protecting knowledge will, nevertheless, soldier on with their mission. I did. Since January 2025, scientists and librarians, program officers and policy analysts at the National Science Foundation, the Library of Congress, and other federal offices and agencies have focused on their work, despite an increasingly hostile political environment. We've also seen civil servants fired and accused of not making the mark, vendors's contracts ignored, and grants and fellowships cancelled. Perseverance has its limits. The erosion of these institutions' integrity—and the growing realization that it is impossible to fulfill their missions in good faith—has made the cost of continuing untenable. This is why I must step away from my work with two federal institutions I care deeply about. In both these roles, over the past few years, I've been asked to serve on diverse bodies that offer guidance about how the Executive and Legislative branches can be stewards of knowledge and create structure to enable discovery, innovation, and ingenuity. In the instance of the National Science Board, this ideal has dissolved so gradually, yet so completely, that I barely noticed its absence until confronted with its hollow simulacrum. I have encountered increasing barriers to the exercise of honest counsel. These repeated obstacles of procedural circumvention, particularly insidious to those of us who have long advocated for more democratic and inclusive knowledge systems, represent not just personal frustration, but institutional regression. Freedom of expression is not merely an abstract principle, or even a constitutional right, but a practical necessity for meaningful advisory work. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, published as short stories in the late 1940s and as a novel in 1953, warned not only of the destruction of books, but of a society in which people had lost the desire to read them. The parallel today is not only the administration's effort to destroy and suppress knowledge, but also the institution's willingness to accept the cultivated irrelevance of it—a challenge that undermines any serious effort to conduct research, inform policy, or guide public institutions. The National Science Foundation (NSF)—established as an independent agency through the National Science Act of 1950 and marking its 75th anniversary this week—traces its roots to Vannevar Bush's landmark report, 'Science, the Endless Frontier,' addressed to President Harry S. Truman. But we might also see the establishment of this premier research institution as reflecting a response to fears depicted by Bradbury. The NSF can be understood not only as a catalyst of scientific promise for national purpose, but also as a guarded response to fears about centralized control over knowledge and thought, shaped by the dark shadows of the Third Reich and the emerging Red NSF's investments have shaped some of the most transformative technologies of our time—from GPS to the internet—and supported vital research in the social and behavioral sciences that helps the nation understand itself and evaluate its progress toward its democratic ideals. So in 2024, I was honored to be appointed to the National Science Board, which is charged under 42 U.S. Code § 1863 with establishing the policies of the Foundation and providing oversight of its mission. But the meaning of oversight changed with the arrival of DOGE. That historical tension—between the promise of scientific freedom and the peril of political control—may now be resurfacing in troubling ways. Last month, when a National Science Board statement was released on occasion of the April 2025 resignation of Trump-appointed NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, it was done so without the participation or notice of all members of the Board. Last week, as the Board held its 494th meeting, I listened to NSF staff say that DOGE had by fiat the authority to give thumbs up or down to grant applications which had been systematically vetted by layers of subject matter closed-to-the-public deliberations were observed by Zachary Terrell from the DOGE team. Through his Zoom screen, Terrell showed more interest in his water bottle and his cuticles than in the discussion. According to Nature Terrell, listed as a "consultant" in the NSF directory, had accessed the NSF awards system to block the dispersal of approved grants. The message I received was that the National Science Board had a role to play in name only. This episode reflects a deeper concern: the erosion of meaningful guidance. I was still free to discuss my concerns at the board meeting, but it was increasingly clear that it was just a performance without any impact. The advisory body had been transformed into a ceremonial assemblage. Consultation occurred without consequence. When grant applications are vetoed and whole organizations restructured, the freedom to speak becomes meaningless when disconnected from the possibility of being of this is threatened by the creeping normalization of authoritarian approaches to knowledge management and academic freedom. The National Science Board has not been disbanded like so many other statutorily established, independent agencies in the federal government. But preservation of form provides little consolation when function has been strategically neutralized, mirroring the backsliding that scholars have thoroughly documented: maintaining legitimacy for institutions that no longer honor their founding purposes. This hollowing out is not just about governance in the abstract, it has material consequences for which research questions get asked, which datasets get produced, which knowledge gets produced, and which perspectives shape our understanding of pressing societal challenges. It has consequences for the integrity of knowledge itself. The second institution from which I am departing is also demonstrating symptoms of democratic decay. In 2023, I was appointed by the Librarian of Congress to the Scholars Council, which advises the Kluge Chairs program, the Kluge Prize for the Study of Humanity, and other library programming intended to get ideas out of the stacks and into society by 'reinvigorat[ing] the interconnection between thought and action,' 'bridging the divide between knowledge and power,' and 'narrow[ing] the gap between thinkers and doers.'Last week, the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was summarily dismissed via an email addressed to 'Carla' from a White House HR administrator. The Trump Administration claimed that she was fired for 'things she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children.' It is true that Hayden was repeatedly on record as saying the Library should be for all Americans. And it is false that the Library, which is intended to hold all books published in the United States, lends books to children. The ouster of Hayden is part of a broader pattern of political targeting of women and Black public servants across the federal government. Dr. Carla Hayden was a leader in the digitization of libraries and a steadfast advocate for their public mission. Her dismissal signals more than a routine personnel shift—it reflects a deeper contest over who controls the curation and dissemination of knowledge in the digital age. That contest became even more apparent two days later, when the Trump Administration fired her direct report, Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights. Perlmutter's office had just released a report concluding that while generative AI poses novel challenges to copyright law, these could be addressed through voluntary licensing and market-based solutions—rather than statutory changes to the fair use doctrine. At a time when questions about AI and intellectual property are front of mind, the Library of Congress's oversight of the U.S. copyright system is more consequential than ever. The steady accumulation of procedural adjustments, each seemingly minor, stand to systematically and collectively alter the purpose and impact of our institutions. The dismissal of Hayden, who took the helm of the Library of Congress with a vow to extend its resources to all of us, represents not merely a personnel change but a statement about what kind of knowledge stewardship is deemed acceptable. To watch these changes unfold without naming them for what they are is to participate in a collective amnesia about how knowledge infrastructures shape power relations. Like the shopkeeper in an authoritarian society described by Vaclav Havel in his essay 'The Power of the Powerless,' who participates in his own oppression through small daily acts of complicity, placing a party slogan in his window not out of conviction but out of habit. To remain on advisory boards that have been stripped of meaningful advisory function is to become that shopkeeper, to lend legitimacy to a process that has been systematically then, is the responsible course of action? For me, the answer now lies in refusal, the withdrawal of participation from systems that require dishonesty as the price of belonging. My resignation represents such a refusal, not a surrender of responsibility but an assertion of it. This is not to condemn those who remain. There is value in continued presence, in bearing witness, in working for reform from within. But there comes a point when presence itself becomes an endorsement, when working within the system becomes indistinguishable from working for it. In her Nobel lecture in 1993, the writer Toni Morrison observed: "Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek—it must be rejected, altered and exposed." The aim of my resignation is to break free of powers that seek to limit knowledge and silence voice. To signal that certain boundary lines have been crossed. To insist that advisory roles must expand knowledge and be more than appendages to predetermined decisions. I follow political economist Albert O. Hirschman, in his seminal work Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, who offered a framework for understanding responses to institutional decline. Exit (leaving) and voice (speaking up) need not be mutually exclusive strategies. My resignations are both, an exit that amplifies the voice of others. By departing these advisory roles, I aim to speak more clearly in my own language about what they have become and what they ought to be. This is not an abandonment of loyalty to these institutions' missions, but rather, its highest expression. Contact us at letters@
Time Magazine
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Why I'm Resigning from Positions at the National Science Foundation and Library of Congress
Today, I am resigning from the National Science Board and the Library of Congress Scholars Council. Even as the White House threatens the foundational tenets of constitutional democracy and continues to slash funding for essential social services, it is tempting to hope that the public institutions charged with promoting and protecting knowledge will, nevertheless, soldier on with their mission. I did. Since January 2025, scientists and librarians, program officers and policy analysts at the National Science Foundation, the Library of Congress, and other federal offices and agencies have focused on their work, despite an increasingly hostile political environment. We've also seen civil servants fired and accused of not making the mark, vendors's contracts ignored, and grants and fellowships cancelled. Perseverance has its limits. The erosion of these institutions' integrity—and the growing realization that it is impossible of fulfill their missions in good faith—has made the cost of continuing untenable. This is why I must step away from my work with two federal institutions I care deeply about. In both these roles, over the past few years, I've been asked to serve on diverse bodies that offer guidance about how the Executive and Legislative branches can be stewards of knowledge and create structure to enable discovery, innovation, and ingenuity. In the instance of the National Science Board, this ideal has dissolved so gradually, yet so completely, that I barely noticed its absence until confronted with its hollow simulacrum. I have encountered increasing barriers to the exercise of honest counsel. These repeated obstacles of procedural circumvention, particularly insidious to those of us who have long advocated for more democratic and inclusive knowledge systems, represent not just personal frustration, but institutional regression. Freedom of expression is not merely an abstract principle, or even a constitutional right, but a practical necessity for meaningful advisory work. In Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, published as short stories in the late 1940s and as a novel in 1953, warned not only of the destruction of books, but of a society in which people had lost the desire to read them. The parallel today is not only the administration's effort to destroy and suppress knowledge, but also the institution's willingness to accept the cultivated irrelevance of it—a challenge that undermines any serious effort to conduct research, inform policy, or guide public institutions. The National Science Foundation (NSF)—established as an independent agency through the National Science Act of 1950 and marking its 75th anniversary this week— traces its roots to Vannevar Bush's landmark report, 'Science, the Endless Frontier,' addressed to President Harry S. Truman. But we might also see the establishment of this premier research institution as reflecting a response to fears depicted by Bradbury. The NSF can be understood not only as a catalyst of scientific promise for national purpose, but also as a guarded response to fears about centralized control over knowledge and thought, shaped by the dark shadows of the Third Reich and the emerging Red Scare. The NSF's investments have shaped some of the most transformative technologies of our time—from GPS to the internet —and supported vital research in the social and behavioral sciences that helps the nation understand itself and evaluate its progress toward its democratic ideals. So in 2024, I was honored to be appointed to the National Science Board, which is charged under 42 U.S. Code § 1863 with establishing the policies of the Foundation and providing oversight of its mission. But the meaning of oversight changed with the arrival of DOGE. That historical tension—between the promise of scientific freedom and the peril of political control—may now be resurfacing in troubling ways. Last month, when a National Science Board statement was released on occasion of the April 2025 resignation of Trump-appointed NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, it was done so without the participation or notice of all members of the Board. Last week, as the Board held its 494th meeting, I listened to NSF staff say that DOGE had by fiat the authority to give thumbs up or down to grant applications which had been systematically vetted by layers of subject matter experts. Our closed-to-the-public deliberations were observed by Zachary Terrell from the DOGE team. Through his Zoom screen, Terrell showed more interest in his water bottle and his cuticles than in the discussion. According to Nature Terrell, listed as a "consultant" in the NSF directory, had accessed the NSF awards system to block the dispersal of approved grants. The message I received was that the National Science Board had a role to play in name only. This episode reflects a deeper concern: the erosion of meaningful guidance. I was still free to discuss my concerns at the board meeting, but it was increasingly clear that it was just a performance without any impact. The advisory body had been transformed into a ceremonial assemblage. Consultation occurred without consequence. When grant applications are vetoed and whole organizations restructured, the freedom to speak becomes meaningless when disconnected from the possibility of being heard. All of this is threatened by the creeping normalization of authoritarian approaches to knowledge management and academic freedom. The National Science Board has not been disbanded like so many other statutorily established, independent agencies in the federal government. But preservation of form provides little consolation when function has been strategically neutralized, mirroring the backsliding that scholars have thoroughly documented: maintaining legitimacy for institutions that no longer honor their founding purposes. This hollowing out is not just about governance in the abstract, it has material consequences for which research questions get asked, which datasets get produced, which knowledge gets produced, and which perspectives shape our understanding of pressing societal challenges. It has consequences for the integrity of knowledge itself. The second institution from which I am departing is also demonstrating symptoms of democratic decay. In 2023, I was appointed by the Librarian of Congress to the Scholars Council, which advises the Kluge Chairs program, the Kluge Prize for the Study of Humanity, and other library programming intended to get ideas out of the stacks and into society by 'reinvigorat[ing] the interconnection between thought and action,' 'bridging the divide between knowledge and power,' and 'narrow[ing] the gap between thinkers and doers.' Last week, the Librarian of Congress, Dr. Carla Hayden, was summarily dismissed via an email addressed to 'Carla' from a White House HR administrator. The Trump Administration claimed that she was fired for 'things she had done at the Library of Congress in the pursuit of DEI and putting inappropriate books in the library for children.' It is true that Hayden was repeatedly on record as saying the Library should be for all Americans. And it is false that the Library, which is intended to hold all books published in the United States, lends books to children. The ouster of Hayden is part of a broader pattern of political targeting of women and Black public servants across the federal government. Dr. Carla Hayden was a leader in the digitization of libraries and a steadfast advocate for their public mission. Her dismissal signals more than a routine personnel shift—it reflects a deeper contest over who controls the curation and dissemination of knowledge in the digital age. That contest became even more apparent two days later, when the Trump Administration fired her direct report, Shira Perlmutter, the Register of Copyrights. Perlmutter's office had just released a report concluding that while generative AI poses novel challenges to copyright law, these could be addressed through voluntary licensing and market-based solutions—rather than statutory changes to the fair use doctrine. At a time when questions about AI and intellectual property are front of mind, the Library of Congress's oversight of the U.S. copyright system is more consequential than ever. The steady accumulation of procedural adjustments, each seemingly minor, stand to systematically and collectively alter the purpose and impact of our institutions. The dismissal of Hayden, who took the helm of the Library of Congress with a vow to extend its resources to all of us, represents not merely a personnel change but a statement about what kind of knowledge stewardship is deemed acceptable. To watch these changes unfold without naming them for what they are is to participate in a collective amnesia about how knowledge infrastructures shape power relations. Like the shopkeeper in an authoritarian society described by Vaclav Havel in his essay 'The Power of the Powerless,' who participates in his own oppression through small daily acts of complicity, like placing a party slogan in his window not out of conviction but out of habit. To remain on advisory boards that have been stripped of meaningful advisory function is to become that shopkeeper, to lend legitimacy to a process that has been systematically delegitimized. What then, is the responsible course of action? For me, the answer now lies in refusal, the withdrawal of participation from systems that require dishonesty as the price of belonging. My resignation represents such a refusal, not a surrender of responsibility but an assertion of it. This is not to condemn those who remain. There is value in continued presence, in bearing witness, in working for reform from within. But there comes a point when presence itself becomes an endorsement, when working within the system becomes indistinguishable from working for it. In her Nobel lecture in 1993, the writer Toni Morrison observed: "Oppressive language does more than represent violence; it is violence; does more than represent the limits of knowledge; it limits knowledge. Whether it is obscuring state language or the faux-language of mindless media; whether it is the proud but calcified language of the academy or the commodity driven language of science; whether it is the malign language of law-without-ethics, or language designed for the estrangement of minorities, hiding its racist plunder in its literary cheek—it must be rejected, altered and exposed." The aim of my resignation is to break free of powers that seek to limit knowledge and silence voice. To signal that certain boundary lines have been crossed. To insist that advisory roles must expand knowledge and be more than appendages to predetermined decisions. I follow political economist Albert O. Hirschman, in his seminal work Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, who offered a framework for understanding responses to institutional decline. Exit (leaving) and voice (speaking up) need not be mutually exclusive strategies. My resignations are both, an exit that amplifies the voice of others. By departing these advisory roles, I aim to speak more clearly in my own language about what they have become and what they ought to be. This is not an abandonment of loyalty to these institutions' missions, but rather, its highest expression.
Los Angeles Times
09-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Mailbag: Beware of the ‘wolves in sheep's clothing'
If you are a Huntington Beach resident who believes in unrestricted access to knowledge and protecting your freedom to make decisions for your own family, then vote 'yes' on Measure A to repeal the ordinance creating a children's book review board, and 'yes' on Measure B to ensure that any future efforts to outsource library operations to for-profit companies will require voter approval and a majority vote from City Council. This is a critical safeguard to maintain public oversight and the integrity of community libraries. The City Council believes that a 21-person politically appointed, children's book review board is more qualified than you to choose appropriate reading materials for your children. They are not. Accusations that there are 'pornographic' materials in the children's library section have served to divide the community and undermine public opinion about libraries, librarians and their supporters. The mayor handed out images from what they believe to be inappropriate library materials from a booth at this year's Easter celebration. Every accusation is a confession. These people are wolves in sheep's clothing. Do not let them deceive you. The review board, whose decisions are unappealable, has the authority to decide which materials belong in the library based on 'community standards' that have not yet been defined. Materials that enter or remain in the children's book section could eventually align with the review boards' political and religious beliefs. Will no votes ultimately enable indoctrination of young minds under the guise of 'protecting children?' Whatever happened with that MAGA commemorative library plaque? Is this nuclear 'attack on porn' simply helping City Council complete a MAGA agenda item designed to stifle 1st Amendment rights at taxpayer expense? A 'no' vote for either measure is a slippery slope toward government control of thought and information. Vote 'yes' on Measure A to protect parents' rights to maintain control of what their OWN children read, and 'yes' on Measure B to help ensure public libraries stay free and open to everyone. Judy MorrisHuntington Beach Monday I attended my first Huntington Beach City Council meeting, appropriately at the city library. It was quite an eye-opener, as more than 90 people signed up to address the council at the podium regarding Measures A and B. In a nutshell, a 'no' vote advocates for increasing the council's authority in deciding what books to have reviewed by the peer review board within the children's section, and to privatize the library altogether. Once upon a time such notions would only appear in dystopian novels or movies such as Ray Bradbury's 'Fahrenheit 451' or George Orwell's '1984.' Yes, interesting ideas to conjecture and be entertained by, but surely not something that could really happen here. Do we not live within a democracy with constitutional rights guaranteeing freedom for the people to make their own choices regarding what to write, speak and read? The irony is that not that long ago, these values were most adamantly defended by American conservatives, the same people who bore a flag with a coiled snake emblazoned on the cloth, and the warning, 'Don't tread on me.' Do the advocates against Measures A and B, most of whom identify as conservatives, simply not know what they are doing? Ron TerranovaHuntington Beach As a former Orange County 'Teacher of the Year,' I taught for 40 years, addressing my school board many times. I advocated for school nurses, librarians and lower class sizes. I hoped my school board understood the reality of transmitting a crowded curriculum to more than 30 students every day, all day. In January 2025, Newport-Mesa School Board had the luxury of picking a qualified new board member and they looked forward to working with her. On merit, they selected Kirstin Walsh who has children in NMUSD, has volunteered in the schools for 13 years, is PTA President at Newport Harbor High, has held offices at the elementary and intermediate school PTAs. After carefully vetting four candidates, board members added Walsh to their ranks. DONE! Now, let's get to work, solving school problems. I'm sorry to say that members of our community collected signatures, forcing an election for NMUSD School Board, thus taking about $500,000 from Newport-Mesa's school budget. Their candidate was on the original list of those considered for the school board position, but was not selected. Walsh is the kind of board member I want on the dais when I speak. Parent volunteers, like Walsh, who spend years in our school halls and classrooms, understand the challenges and strengths of school life. I am saddened by the loss of half-a-million dollars from our slim school budget, used to fund an unnecessary election. I hope voters will make it right, and ensure that Kirstin Walsh continues in the position for which she was chosen, on merit. Carrie Luger SlaybackNewport Beach As the June 10 NMUSD Area 5 Special Election approaches, the saying, 'You are the company you keep,' rings true. Claims that Kirstin Walsh, Andrea McElroy's opponent, is a conservative or a non-partisan, don't align with her affiliations. In 2023, NMUSD's progressive majority voted to block schools from notifying parents about their child's gender dysphoria, risking student well-being. Conservative trustees, prioritizing safety, supported notification, but the majority prevailed. School board votes-on academics, safety and fiscal management reflect trustees' values, and the 2023 decision clearly revealed the progressive majority's values. Andrea McElroy champions parental rights and transparency. Walsh claims non-partisanship, yet her Instagram shows her campaigning with Democrats Carol Crane, Ashley Anderson (NMUSD Trustee) and Katrina Foley, vice chair of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. Her campaign is heavily funded by the teacher's union, which endorsed Kamala Harris and the Women in Leadership PAC who advocate for 'leading the fight against conservatives.' This does not reflect conservative values. This election demands leadership for quality education and parental involvement. Walsh's 'non-partisan' label masks her affiliations. Voters deserve transparency. I'm voting for Andrea McElroy, whose values I trust. Lisa Ruggieri HinesNewport Beach As 17-year Newport-Mesa Unified School District (NMUSD) Area 5 residents and parents, we've raised our children in Newport Beach, where they've thrived in our public schools. Area 5 has long elected conservative trustees who prioritize fiscal responsibility, parental rights and transparency. Taxpayers deserve a voice in this special election and we're voting for Andrea McElroy. Andrea, a business owner and mother, brings proven fiscal accountability and champions parental rights, demanding transparency between families and schools. She and her husband actively serve our community, earning trust from neighbors, educators and leaders like Newport Beach Mayor Joe Stapleton. Her platform supports every child's unique path — arts, CTE, college — ensuring success in a safe, high-quality environment. Andrea, endorsed by the Orange County Republican Party and local police and fire associations, aligns with Area 5's conservative values. On June 10, vote Andrea McElroy — the only conservative in this election. She's a principled leader who will stand for our children and represent our community's values. Kate and Logan MaloufNewport Beach
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Big Country Politics: Abilene bookstore owner discuses concerns of House Bill 1375
BIG COUNTRY, Texas () – In this week's episode of Big Country Politics, Arlene Kasselman, owner of the bookstore Seven and One Books, discussed House Bill 1375 and her concerns. House Bill 1375 is legislation in Texas aimed at regulating businesses that distribute obscene content. Censorship concerns rise over Texas bill; Abilene bookstore pushes back 'The thing that caught my attention was the wording on the bill because it actually says, 'anything that is deemed harmful.' But there's not an excavation as in harmful or in bullet points on what this could be. And so when you try to parse out what that means as a bookseller, I'm going, 'Oh, so now it's up for definition,' because it's not just, I think you use the phrase obscene, but I think the language is: is this harmful to a minor?' Kasselman said. Kasselman mentioned that it's scary that this bill allows people to sue businesses based on what they're selling. She noted that book stores are striving, but their profit margins are small. 'If an independent bookstore like mine gets sued, I can't afford the legal fees. I can't afford the potential payouts, and what we noticed is that, in a few cases with certain bookstores that have come under scrutiny, they've tried to settle out of court. We can't afford that either. A bill like this potentially has the effect that small bookstores will close their doors because they can't afford the lawsuits. And the other option is to try to avoid the lawsuits; we either have to close our doors to minors entering the bookstores, or we would have to card people as they are buying things,' Kasselman said. Kasselman expressed her concerns about what qualifies as harmful content, particularly in relation to 'obscene content.' She noted that if a teenager visits a bookstore and their parents discover this, it could potentially lead to a lawsuit. Kasselman also highlighted several important books, including The Diary of Anne Frank, writings by Toni Morrison and Octavia Butler, George Orwell's 1984, and Fahrenheit 451. 'And if a parent deems that it is harmful, we're not talking pornography, I'm a mother, in fact, I'm a Christian mother. And I'm not out there to put things in the hands of children that are developmentally inappropriate or that would be harming them. But, it's this idea that we're going to censure what a book is allowed to carry,' Kasselman shared. Kasselman sees this issue as a form of censorship and explains how she lived through censorship of books and TV when she lived in South Africa. 'I think if we can depoliticize some of these conversations and make them human again, we are probably more similar than we are different. I think the desire is to protect children, and from a bookseller, we're saying, 'Yes, let's make sure children have access to books and bookstores have similar experiences we had as children,' and we would never have something in the store that is directly harmful to children. We are opening a world to children where they can explore, and families can pick… We're not forcing anybody to buy anything, but as a private business, we have multiple options and can invite people in so they can find their own representation in the bookstore, but we're not forcing anybody to buy something against their will,' Kasselman said. Seven and One Bookstore provides a diverse selection of books, including bestsellers, essential historical reads, and current titles that reflect shoppers' trending interests. Kasselman describes the content of each book to ensure that customers feel confident in their choices. While she prefers not to inquire about what someone is purchasing, she is always open to discussing the content of the books. 'We are not screening books; going 'oh, that book has got, this book is written for adult romance that adults will purchase.' I'm not going to say 'you shouldn't buy that book.' I'm going to let you pick that because I feel like that's your right as an American to have that kind of choice. But the way we have the store laid out, I don't have young adult books with my adult romance books; they're put in a separate part of the store,' Kasselman said. Kasselman believes that the vagueness of HB 1375 is problematic and could result in frivolous legal actions. 'What if I have somebody come in who picks a book in my faith section and takes that home? And they have a parent who is not of a faith perspective who feels like everything to do with faith is culty or harmful because they have church hurt? And they may want to sue over that… And then I have another child or young adult who picks up a clean, closed door, which is the term we use when there's nothing sexually explicit in it, a romance book, and takes it home, and that parent doesn't like it, and then they sue? It could be coming from both sides. So what we're saying is, let's have these conversations in bills that specify certain very specific things if you have to have a regulation, or let's have people able to come and make their own decisions in a private business,' said Kasselman. Texas HB 1375 is left pending, and will continue to follow this story as it develops. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hindustan Times
23-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Hindustan Times
World Book Day 2025: Voracious readers' top book recos for non-readers to pick up the habit!
Reading is objectively one of the most gratifying and self-nurturing habits one can take to. After all, what better way than to traverse multiple carefully crafted worlds, that too through your own mind's eye? That being said, cultivating that kind of creativity, and before that, patience, is tough and waning in a day and age characterised by instant gratification. So from those who have held onto the gift of loving books, through the various phases of their lives, here are some top recommendations from readers the world over, which are sure to draw you in smoothly into the allure of being a reader — maybe in a way that will finally stick this time around! Paulo Coelho's The Alchemist is a short yet impactful novel that's easy to get into, even for people who aren't usually drawn to reading. With its straightforward, almost storybook style and emphasis on timeless themes like personal growth and chasing your dreams, it's an engaging and uplifting read for just about anyone. Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, deals with the themes of censorship, over-conformity, and the true price of independent thinking — the value of which is only understood when it is seriously threatened, or completely taken away. This is actually a great diving point for non-readers as the cult classic is not only relevant in terms of the ever-changing political context, but also carries very simple, straightforward language, making it a super-smooth read. Louis Sachar's Holes may be a young adult novel, but it does a great job of keeping the reader engaged between its many practical and emotionally-charged plot points, in addition to the fact that the larger timeline oscillates between the past and present, compelling one to stay engaged each time they pick it up. Douglas Adams' uber-popular franchise, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, marries science fiction with comedy, promises you chuckle after chuckle as you ease into the pages, feeling rather comforted. The plot isn't complicated, and is filled to the brim with imaginative story-telling with exploration and wonder being major themes. A perfect balance then, for new readers on the block. Another cult classic on this list, The Book Thief is actually a great starting point for former voracious readers, who lost touch with the habit and are desperately trying to get back into the loop of things. Wrought with emotion and one of the most unanimously agreed upon solid storylines, this Markus Zusak novel is too easy a pick in this regard. So, this World Book Day, which of these reads will you be immersing yourself in?
