Source: [X]
TL;DR – Twitter thread by a library worker on a news article about a woman who pulled hundreds of books out of a library dumpster and donated them to an underserved school. THOSE BOOKS WERE THROWN OUT FOR A REASON. Like outdated science, racism, and misogyny. #ContextMatters
Sorry, book burning is ALWAYS bad.
Listen, even if the books are legit crap and promote the most horrible things in the world, I am against burning them. The kids should be able to read these books - with the understanding that these books are flawed and have racism/misogyny within them. And maybe it’s a good opportunity to teach them how to recognize propaganda and misinformation? Or to see how outdated science can evolve?
But book burning is the wrong move. Always will be. Don’t go down this road, it will end up backfiring.
… books being discarded by a library is not equivalent to being burned or banned. To even be considered for removal, books will either be in very bad physical shape or will be ones no one has checked out in several years, or will be replaced by newer editions of the same biok. Copies of these books still exist in archives with the express purpose of being preserved, and can be gotten by the library through inter library loan if someone wants to read them.
Weeding and discard of books are very thorough processes, and as the thread says books in good condition that would be useful elsewhere are donated, or sometimes sold to fundraise for the library. Many libraries will also have a cart of free books for people to take if they want.
If, after all this work, and evaluation, and opportunities for reuse, a book is placed in a dumpster, it’s because it isnt needed or useful anywhere else.
Again, this is not the same thing as banning books or burning them. If that were the case we’d be talking about stuff like trumps autobiographies, not outdated books from the 70s that haven’t been circulating.