According to PenAmerica, there are over 2,300 books that have been banned in the United States in 2026. Over 300 of those books are banned in the state of Virginia.
Banning books does a lot more than just shield younger students from possibly inappropriate materials, it turns into a political statement to intentionally hide diverse experiences. In order to fully understand the ramifications of banning books, people need to understand what it actually entails. First, there are two stages to this process: providing a challenge, and the actual banning of a book. A book challenge is a formal request to remove or restrict a book, this meaning in a specific setting. A book ban is the actual removal of that book from a library or school.
The general premise of this concept is censoring books with specific content within schools, libraries, government agencies and public consumption; a way to monitor what is being read by society. A lot of the time, people associate banning books with only the education systems, but it can extend to public libraries and more. Although there is no ability to ban a book for the entire country, banned books often get removed from curriculum and educational systems.
Now, with the background information provided, it may not sound all that bad. I mean, no one wants their middle schoolers reading overtly sexual content. I say this as a middle school teacher. However, banning books leads to a lot more than just that.
When researching reasons for banning books, all of the many lists provided online included the same things: sexual content, profanity and violence. However, all the lists also included: LGBTQA+ references, race/racial diversity, religion or political influence. All of the sudden, we aren’t sheltering kids from inappropriate themes, we are withholding valuable and unique perspectives of the world, perspectives that shape America. As the world grows more political in nature, we see a drastic rise, not just in the amount of books banned, but the amount of queer and racial books being banned. No longer is it just taking away inappropriate material, it’s censoring human experience.
Books are written to generate empathy, to educate further on a world outside of our own. Taking away these books because they offer a different perspective directly hinders students’ education and ability to empathize with people. Part of education is teaching content, not to always agree with, but to expose students to. When young students study and learn about experiences that differ from their own, it creates a stronger skill of critical thinking. A student reading about a character with a different identity or worldview does not place an expectation for the student to adopt those things. It creates space for the student to understand a different world than their own.
There is an important distinction to make when this conversation comes to focus. Restriction versus removal. There is always going to be an argument about the context exposed to young children, that’s where restriction comes into play. A book that may not be appropriate for a sixth grade classroom should not necessarily be removed from a high school library. The age of the student, the reading level of the student, and even the subject of the classroom, matters heavily when deciding curriculum. That’s why we have certain books assigned per grade. Removal should be used for offensive and disruptive material, yet it is rarely used for that purpose.
One of the most common disagreements with this argument is the parents’ autonomy within material taught in schools. Parents are entitled to what they deem appropriate for their children, and any concerns should be held with respect. However, there is an important distinction between a parent deciding that their own child should not read a particular book and that book being removed from an entire school or library. One family’s concerns should be respected, but that should not be the deciding factor of an entire classroom.
The argument boils down to this; banning books directly hinders a student’s critical thinking and ability to generate empathy. By denying access to diversity and bringing politics into education, students are put at a great disadvantage. Education should challenge students, not shield them from reality. Removing books due to discomfort or politics harms learning environments heavily. Classrooms should expand understanding, not restrict it.