“Stuff Some Adults Don’t Want You to Read” at Langley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

NP to this thread but this is the third or fourth time this has been said. It's just not true. I think that the people who are convinced that there were no such books in their high school libraries were probably just not big readers. I don't mean "didn't read what was assigned" but didn't read much beyond that. I read constantly, and checked out the max number of books per visit, every week, starting in late elementary. I read like, biographies of baseball players because I was running out of books to read (not a baseball fan). Incest, rape, LGBT+ themes, murder, bestiality - your high school had it all, I promise. You just didn't read those books, so you didn't know. And there wasn't a 24-hour outrage mill always looking for new grist, so it wasn't hunted up for the news, so there weren't parents trying to ban those (they did try to ban some), so they didn't end up on a table like this.

But yes, we had banned books displays then too.

Books in your public school library had images of sex acts in them? I somehow doubt that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

What books have liberals/the left tried to ban in VA schools? I’ll wait.

Let me get that for you - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/to-kill-a-mockingbird-huckleberry-finn-suspended-by-virginia-school-for-racial-slurs/

DP. You are misrepresenting that case quite a bit. The parent who submitted the request did not ask that the books be banned from school libraries. She only requested that they be removed from the school curriculum and replaced with other important works of literature addressing the same themes that do not make such heavy use of the N-word, because she believed that having students read these books sends the implicit message that use of the word was okay. School libraries contain many books that are not part of the curriculum, so removing the books from the school curriculum would not have required removing them from the the library.

DP. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/05/to-kill-a-mockingbird-removed-virginia-schools-racist-language-harper-lee

Accomack County has suspended Harper Lee’s novel, as well as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, from classrooms and libraries after parent’s complaint

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

I could not disagree more with you. Knowing what kids should read and encouraging reading are literally key pieces of a librarian’s job. That’s what we pay them for. You don’t know how public schools work if you think every book a librarian recommends needs to be acceptable to every students’ parents. Your sovereignty extends as far as your decision whether to enroll your children in public schools. Beyond that, parents don’t get to set the policies.

That's demonstrably false. Opt outs exist for a reason for all sorts of policies which means parents still have a veto over what their kids experience in schools. Likewise administrators and school boards can be held accountable via elections and protests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

NP to this thread but this is the third or fourth time this has been said. It's just not true. I think that the people who are convinced that there were no such books in their high school libraries were probably just not big readers. I don't mean "didn't read what was assigned" but didn't read much beyond that. I read constantly, and checked out the max number of books per visit, every week, starting in late elementary. I read like, biographies of baseball players because I was running out of books to read (not a baseball fan). Incest, rape, LGBT+ themes, murder, bestiality - your high school had it all, I promise. You just didn't read those books, so you didn't know. And there wasn't a 24-hour outrage mill always looking for new grist, so it wasn't hunted up for the news, so there weren't parents trying to ban those (they did try to ban some), so they didn't end up on a table like this.

But yes, we had banned books displays then too.

Books in your public school library had images of sex acts in them? I somehow doubt that.

It wouldn't surprise me that one's public school library had written descriptions of sex acts. After all we read uncomfortable "first time" descrptions in books like "I know why the caged bird sings" or graphic descriptions of the acts performed by male child prostitutes in "Kaffir Boy" in my high school english classes, but I don't remember pictures of sex acts in those books. We didn't have a graphic novel section at all because comic books at that time were considered appropriate for young kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

I could not disagree more with you. Knowing what kids should read and encouraging reading are literally key pieces of a librarian’s job. That’s what we pay them for. You don’t know how public schools work if you think every book a librarian recommends needs to be acceptable to every students’ parents. Your sovereignty extends as far as your decision whether to enroll your children in public schools. Beyond that, parents don’t get to set the policies.

That's demonstrably false. Opt outs exist for a reason for all sorts of policies which means parents still have a veto over what their kids experience in schools. Likewise administrators and school boards can be held accountable via elections and protests.

Fine. I would like to veto efforts by school officials to muzzle librarians by telling them not to create displays citing the fact that certain adults want to ban books. Any such efforts negatively affect my kid’s ability to experience an environment in which critical thinking is encouraged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

I could not disagree more with you. Knowing what kids should read and encouraging reading are literally key pieces of a librarian’s job. That’s what we pay them for. You don’t know how public schools work if you think every book a librarian recommends needs to be acceptable to every students’ parents. Your sovereignty extends as far as your decision whether to enroll your children in public schools. Beyond that, parents don’t get to set the policies.

That's demonstrably false. Opt outs exist for a reason for all sorts of policies which means parents still have a veto over what their kids experience in schools. Likewise administrators and school boards can be held accountable via elections and protests.

Fine. I would like to veto efforts by school officials to muzzle librarians by telling them not to create displays citing the fact that certain adults want to ban books. Any such efforts negatively affect my kid’s ability to experience an environment in which critical thinking is encouraged.

+1

I also VETO this attempt to muzzle librarians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

NP to this thread but this is the third or fourth time this has been said. It's just not true. I think that the people who are convinced that there were no such books in their high school libraries were probably just not big readers. I don't mean "didn't read what was assigned" but didn't read much beyond that. I read constantly, and checked out the max number of books per visit, every week, starting in late elementary. I read like, biographies of baseball players because I was running out of books to read (not a baseball fan). Incest, rape, LGBT+ themes, murder, bestiality - your high school had it all, I promise. You just didn't read those books, so you didn't know. And there wasn't a 24-hour outrage mill always looking for new grist, so it wasn't hunted up for the news, so there weren't parents trying to ban those (they did try to ban some), so they didn't end up on a table like this.

But yes, we had banned books displays then too.

Books in your public school library had images of sex acts in them? I somehow doubt that.

It wouldn't surprise me that one's public school library had written descriptions of sex acts. After all we read uncomfortable "first time" descrptions in books like "I know why the caged bird sings" or graphic descriptions of the acts performed by male child prostitutes in "Kaffir Boy" in my high school english classes, but I don't remember pictures of sex acts in those books. We didn't have a graphic novel section at all because comic books at that time were considered appropriate for young kids.

Sexually explicit WORDS don't bother the illiterati because they don't actually read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

This 80s high school kid’s English curriculum reads like a Top 10 List of banned books. Public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

This type of disingenuous characterization of a situation does not help the conversation, not one bit. The point here isn't about reading particular books or reading books in general, it's about teachers and parents not undermining each other during their individual interactions with the kids, and recognizing that parents have the ultimate say in what their kids learn. It is not the teacher/librarian's job to [b]insinuate to kids that their parents [/b]are contemptible[b] for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.

So many snowflakes out ruining this beautiful day

Yea, keep dismissing the power held by parents and see where things go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

This type of disingenuous characterization of a situation does not help the conversation, not one bit. The point here isn't about reading particular books or reading books in general, it's about teachers and parents not undermining each other during their individual interactions with the kids, and recognizing that parents have the ultimate say in what their kids learn. It is not the teacher/librarian's job to [b]insinuate to kids that their parents [/b]are contemptible[b] for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.

So many snowflakes out ruining this beautiful day

Yea, keep dismissing the power held by parents and see where things go.

“The power held by parents”?

WTF is wrong with you people? Go back to your RWNJ sh1thole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

This type of disingenuous characterization of a situation does not help the conversation, not one bit. The point here isn't about reading particular books or reading books in general, it's about teachers and parents not undermining each other during their individual interactions with the kids, and recognizing that parents have the ultimate say in what their kids learn. It is not the teacher/librarian's job to [b]insinuate to kids that their parents [/b]are contemptible[b] for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.

So many snowflakes out ruining this beautiful day

Yea, keep dismissing the power held by parents and see where things go.

“The power held by parents”?

WTF is wrong with you people? Go back to your RWNJ sh1thole.

Parents have all sorts of power over their children, and the ability to both guide, model behaviors, and yes discipline them in ways that schools do not.

That being said, educational schools do train teachers to be advocates for certain points of view, and some teachers do use their unique position to advocate for certain types of social change which may conflict with the social norms in that community be they more left of center or right of center.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Parental authority is the "natural outcome of a free and liberal society"? What does that even mean?

PS. You're going to be in for a lot of surprises when your offspring (assuming you even have any) begin to develop their own thoughts.

I can't believe I have to explain this. In a free and liberal society, assuming you know what that means, parents have sovereignty over their children. The parents generally get to decide how their children are raised and educated, and not third parties, including the government. This right arises out of the fact that children do not have the capacity for autonomy and the responsibility for the child falls to the parents. As a reminder, a liberal society is one where the individual has sovereignty and governments derive their power from individuals and not the other way around. Certain delegations of responsibilities from individuals to the government such as education is not absolute or even durable - it can be withdrawn at any moment.

Your PS line shows you still don't understand the issue at hand, which is not about the books, or about the natural friction that arises between children and parents, or even about the friction between parents and teachers/librarians. It's about how this teacher/librarian is seeking to undermine the relationship between children and parents with this inflammatory sign. This behavior is evil and should not be applauded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

This type of disingenuous characterization of a situation does not help the conversation, not one bit. The point here isn't about reading particular books or reading books in general, it's about teachers and parents not undermining each other during their individual interactions with the kids, and recognizing that parents have the ultimate say in what their kids learn. It is not the teacher/librarian's job to [b]insinuate to kids that their parents [/b]are contemptible[b] for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.

So many snowflakes out ruining this beautiful day

Yea, keep dismissing the power held by parents and see where things go.

“The power held by parents”?

WTF is wrong with you people? Go back to your RWNJ sh1thole.

Parents have all sorts of power over their children, and the ability to both guide, model behaviors, and yes discipline them in ways that schools do not.

That being said, educational schools do train teachers to be advocates for certain points of view, and some teachers do use their unique position to advocate for certain types of social change which may conflict with the social norms in that community be they more left of center or right of center.

True. My kid’s government teacher in a NOVA hs last year was a diehard Trump supporter and discussed the events of January 6 as a “both sides” issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

What books have liberals/the left tried to ban in VA schools? I’ll wait.

Let me get that for you - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/to-kill-a-mockingbird-huckleberry-finn-suspended-by-virginia-school-for-racial-slurs/

DP. You are misrepresenting that case quite a bit. The parent who submitted the request did not ask that the books be banned from school libraries. She only requested that they be removed from the school curriculum and replaced with other important works of literature addressing the same themes that do not make such heavy use of the N-word, because she believed that having students read these books sends the implicit message that use of the word was okay. School libraries contain many books that are not part of the curriculum, so removing the books from the school curriculum would not have required removing them from the the library.

DP. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/dec/05/to-kill-a-mockingbird-removed-virginia-schools-racist-language-harper-lee

Accomack County has suspended Harper Lee’s novel, as well as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, from classrooms and libraries after parent’s complaint

But that is not what the parent asked for, and was only done temporarily while they reviewed the request. You are conflating what the presumed “liberal” requested and what the response was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

I could not disagree more with you. Knowing what kids should read and encouraging reading are literally key pieces of a librarian’s job. That’s what we pay them for. You don’t know how public schools work if you think every book a librarian recommends needs to be acceptable to every students’ parents. Your sovereignty extends as far as your decision whether to enroll your children in public schools. Beyond that, parents don’t get to set the policies.

Right, I agree with you, but when those recommendations should not be made in a way that undermines the relationship between children and their parents. Imagine one parent said to their child "Here, try this, it's good for you, but your mom would never let you eat this." That's not healthy. It's toxic and destructive and is not the way a parent/teacher/library should interact with a child. Using divisive and hateful rhetoric is not healthy.

Your note regarding limits of parental sovereignty is contrary to reality. Parents do absolutely get a say in what goes on in the schools. Electing the school board is one way, but also through interactions with teachers, counselors, principals, coaches, and the PTA. These entities don't interact with parents just to be nice.