Across the United States, books are disappearing from school shelves, not because students aren’t reading them, but because adults fear what those books might inspire. In recent years, following the pandemic, the popularity of books has risen dramatically, driven by social media, influencers, and bookstores, resulting in record-breaking sales and vibrant online and in-person reading communities. However, this uprising has also caused significant tension with public schools and libraries that have removed certain books due to their subject matter. As debates intensify, the issue is no longer just about individual titles but about who decides what information students can access. The question everyone should be asking: Should public schools and libraries be allowed to ban books based on controversial content, or does this practice violate a student’s intellectual freedom and expression? While parents have the right to guide their own children’s reading, they do not have the right to restrict access for everyone else. With this in mind, public schools and libraries should not ban books based on content related to race, gender, or sexuality because such censorship undermines education, disproportionately targets marginalized authors, and prevents young people from critically engaging with the world.

For starters, book bans disregard a student’s intellectual freedom and growth to adapt to the real world. Public schools and libraries exist to encourage exploration, critical thinking, and open curiosity, not to limit what students are allowed to learn. When books are removed because they make some adults uncomfortable, public institutions abandon their responsibility to promote independent thinking. As the American Library Association (ALA) emphasizes, censorship contradicts the First Amendment principles that protect students’ rights to access information. Students need exposure to a wide range of ideas in order to evaluate arguments, recognize bias, and build the analytical skills that prepare them for adulthood. For that to happen, schools must “respect students’ abilities to read critically, to think logically and to use plain old-fashioned common sense” (Rossuck). Treating young readers as incapable of confronting challenging material is not protection; it is belittling. Rossuck also notes that “context is crucial,” explaining that many pro-book banners fail to read the full text they wish to restrict, while students are taught to “never isolate one word, sentence, scene, or passage but to consider the whole in order to properly analyze each part” (Rossuck). In other words, banning books denies students the very intellectual tools schools are meant to cultivate. 

Another reason people would be against book banning is that it targets marginalized communities and ultimately suppresses the authors’ voices. Data from PEN America shows most banned books are written by authors of color, women, or feature LGBTQ+ characters, revealing that bans are not simply about “protecting children” but often about suppressing minority voices (Flannery). This pattern reinforces narrow cultural narratives by limiting students’ access to stories that reflect diverse identities and lived experiences. The impact extends beyond the page; book bans actively suppress the art of the written word, published or not. Where “books by and about the LGBTQUIA+ and Black and brown communities are threatened by censorship attempts across the country,” resulting in “many authors are having their visits canceled or receiving few invitations to meet with students” (Yorio). These canceled opportunities prevent young readers from engaging with writers whose perspectives could broaden their understanding of the world. Yorio also notes that the “American Library Association’s Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2021 list came as no surprise”, with Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison taking the top two spots. Both works centered on LGBTQ+ and marginalized identities. By limiting access to such books and voices, bans erase vital representation and undermine the inclusive educational environment public schools are meant to provide.

Thirdly, students who are exposed to diverse literature develop better empathy and academic engagement among their peers. Research consistently shows that reading stories from different cultural backgrounds strengthens emotional intelligence and reduces prejudice, helping students understand perspectives beyond their own. In other words, diverse books also validate students who see themselves represented while broadening the worldview of those who do not share those identities. As the Bridging Cultures report explains, multicultural literature “helps children understand and appreciate experiences beyond their own, promoting emotional intelligence and social awareness” (Ok & Smith). When students encounter characters with different histories, challenges, and identities, they learn to think more critically and interact more compassionately with others. For this reason, schools should encourage, rather than restrict, access to materials that help students navigate an increasingly complex world.

However, some parents critique this viewpoint by claiming that books with profanity, sexual content, or discussions of race and gender identity are inappropriate for kids and may be harmful to their well-being. They argue that local communities should have the authority to remove these books. While these concerns are understandable, they overlook the fact that age-appropriate guidance already exists through librarians, curriculum standards, and parental oversight. A parent can decide that their own child should not read a particular book, but that choice should not extend to every other student. Banning a book removes it entirely, even for readers who are mature enough and ready to engage with the material. In practice, censorship becomes a community-wide penalty for individual discomfort. Where “most censorship is a form of denial. Students already know much of the truth and reality from which parents attempt to shield them, either by direct personal experience, second-hand knowledge from peers, or exposure to the modern media” (Rossuck). Additionally, many authors already provide content and or trigger warnings that clearly note mature themes, age recommendations (18+), or sensitive topics, allowing families to make informed decisions without restricting access for others. This system allows for personal choice without resorting to censorship and sacrificing students’ intellectual freedom.

Furthermore, some believe that school libraries should mirror the community's moral values and that removing controversial books simply safeguards those norms. This view assumes that communities are uniform groups with shared moral, cultural, and religious beliefs, but in reality, communities are diverse and often deeply divided on social issues. Protecting students from certain topics does not uphold moral standards; instead, it limits access to education and silences minority voices. Public institutions have a responsibility to serve all students, not just the most vocal parents. For example, libraries should offer a wide variety of materials so families can choose based on their own beliefs. What one family finds inappropriate might be crucial representation or validation for another. Therefore, the answer lies in offering variety and choice, not in imposing a single worldview on everyone. 

In the end, banning books based on race, gender, or sexuality undermines students’ intellectual freedom and restricts their access to diverse and meaningful literature. It is crucial to understand that this issue goes beyond individual titles; it reflects the core values of a democratic society and the responsibility of schools to nurture informed, empathetic thinkers. Limiting access to knowledge affects not only today’s classrooms but also influences the beliefs, biases, and civic participation of future citizens. Protecting intellectual freedom keeps schools as places of learning and discovery, not tools of ideological control. For these reasons, communities, educators, and students must advocate for open access to a variety of books and oppose policies that promote censorship. Defending the right to read is essential for personal development and the preservation of an informed, just, and democratic society.