Library Group Says Book Titles Targeted for Banning Tripled in 2021

Kate Seltzer, Capital News Service • June 6, 2023


The number of books people tried to ban from schools and libraries nearly tripled between 2019 and 2021, according to data from the American Library Association.

 

The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom tracked 729 challenges to 1,597 separate book titles in 2021. That’s up from 377 challenges to 566 book titles in 2019.

 

“It's a situation that I've never witnessed in the two decades I've worked for the Office for Intellectual Freedom and a real change in the nature of the demands to censor books,” said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the organization.

 

In 2021, the ten most commonly banned books according to the ALA were Gender Queer, Lawn Boy, All Boys Aren't Blue, Out of Darkness, The Hate U Give, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, The Bluest Eye, This Book is Gay, and Beyond Magenta.

 

Most Banned Books By Year by Jonathan Hunter Donville


Book banning is not a new idea. In fact, Banned Books Week — which promotes book titles targeted over the decades — has been celebrated in libraries since 1982.

 

But the scope of efforts to ban books is new. Caldwell-Stone attributes the rise in book banning to advocacy groups calling for the removal of dozens of books at the same time.

 

“I want to clarify that it's entirely appropriate for a parent to raise a concern about a book their student is reading and have discussions about that with librarians or teachers and even making a choice that the book isn't the right book for their child or their student,” she said.

 

“But what we're seeing now is advocacy groups going to school boards and library boards with a list of 10, 25, or even 50 books, demanding their removal all at once, often based on claims that the books are either inappropriate because they reference LGBTQ persons, or reflect the lives and experiences of Black persons or persons of color.”

 

Groups like Moms for Liberty and No Left Turn in Education have been vigorous advocates for book removal. The groups have ties to conservative groups and donors.

 

Tiffany Justice, co-founder of Moms for Liberty, stated, “Unfortunately, what we have found is that there is obscene graphic sexual content in books that are located in public school libraries across the United States of America.”

 

“American parents are very concerned about the fact that their children have access to pornography in school, that it's being done under the supervision of adults who are okay with children having access to pornography in schools, and so we have gotten involved to ensure that school districts follow the law because apparently they are unable to do that on their own,” she said.

 

Justice declined to enumerate books Moms for Liberty disapproves of.

 

“It wouldn't be appropriate for a national organization to put out a list because we don't want parents to think that every book is in every single library,” she said. “They need to go and do the work to find what books are in their libraries, and what books and what the laws and statutes are in their state.”

 

PEN America, a nonprofit that says it works to celebrate and defend free expression, identified at least 50 organizations pushing for book removals across the country.

 

“Previously, you might have somebody objecting to a particular book because of a particular slur or offensive statement, or representation or content with something people don’t like. But now we have this mass list of books or people going to databases and looking up any book that has any LGBTQ content, or any book that touches on the history or contemporary commentary about racism,” said Jonathan Friedman, director of free expression and education programs at PEN America. “We're seeing an escalation of book banning, culminating in something that is really different from the banning we saw even five years ago.”

 

The book challenges have been effective: According to data from Northeastern University, 15 states have passed legislation banning certain books in K-12 education, often on the grounds that they contain elements of critical race theory. An additional 16 states have proposed similar legislation.

 

“That's the distressing thing about this time,” Caldwell-Stone said. “We're seeing elected officials adopt the rhetoric that books dealing with race, racism, and slavery are inappropriate for young people to read. Or if they are available, they can only reflect certain viewpoints — a certain view of history that the elected officials and the advocacy groups approve of. And we're seeing elected officials also adopt the rhetoric that books dealing with gay, queer, or transgender people are inappropriate for young people to read, and demanding that such books be removed from schools and libraries.”

 

PEN America found that about half of challenged books are intended for young adult readers, but they also include picture books intended for elementary schoolers.

 

Books like Heather Has Two Mommies, This Day in June — a picture book about Pride parades — and Anti-Racist Baby have all been challenged or banned. The organization also found that 41% of banned books “explicitly address LGBTQ+ themes or have protagonists or prominent secondary characters who are LGBTQ+.”

 

But, even in the face of that evidence, Justice parrots the Moms for Liberty standard line, and says that the idea that the book challenge fight is about LGBTQ issues is a lie.

 

“We've been very clear about saying that parents being concerned about pornography in schools whether it's with heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, heterosexual children, homosexual children, their sexual orientation isn't the issue,” she said. “It's the pornography. That's the issue and we need to be honest about that.”

 

Caldwell-Stone worries about this trend from both a legal and moral standpoint.

 

“We're talking about public institutions, government-funded institutions, engaged in telling young people and telling families and telling adults what they can read and think about, which is repugnant to the First Amendment,” she said. “But also, it’s a matter of addressing the dignity and humanity of others who live in society and their right to find their lives and experiences reflected in the collections of a public library or school library that their taxes support as well.”

 

Friedman agreed.

 

“It's having an impact for students, teachers, writers, publishers and librarians, some of whom have been harassed or intimidated,” he said. “It’s highly concerning because if you start reducing the availability of books based on anything anyone might object to, you're very quickly going to run out of any kind of library or classroom book to have available to young people.”

 

Caldwell-Stone said she anticipates the number of challenged books this year will be about the same or higher than last year.

 

“The end result is that books that do reflect the diversity of society, that reflect the lives of persons who attend that school or part of the community and that the public library serves, are being told that they don't belong and that their stories don't belong,” she said. “And I think that is the ultimate tragedy here.”

 

 

Capital News Service is a student-powered news organization run by the University of Maryland Philip Merrill College of Journalism. For 26 years, they have provided deeply reported, award-winning coverage of issues of import to Marylanders.

 

 

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

By Friends of Megan Outten July 29, 2025
Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com
By John Christie July 29, 2025
Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.
By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co July 15, 2025
Marylanders will not forget this vote.
Protest against Trumpcare, 2017
By Jan Plotczyk July 9, 2025
More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.
Farm in Dorchester Co.
By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser May 21, 2025
Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.
By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities May 21, 2025
The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.
Show More