Changing what is and isn’t in the literary canon and expected to be widely taught is categorically and fundamentally different from organizing a banning of a book.
Are groups actually saying take any book off shelves, out of libraries, or any private collection?
Some books are banned, like trump’s only bedside reading. I haven’t seen anything in the reporting Uno referenced and Barton took to heart that talks about out and out banning or even restricting availability of any book mentioned. Unless there is something clear along those lines referenced, and not just innuendo, I feel it’s worth pointing out that changes to the cannon happen all the time and are pushed for even more often than they actually occur.
In the article, a school system removes The Odyssey. I mean, come on. And several people in the group wanted to remove all classics over 70 years old. Which would be most of them, and would leave students with, as the writer said, with a poverty of language and culture and historical understanding. It's a disservice to young minds to act as if they cannot learn to put stories in an historical context. How many students will venture to the public library, to seek out books carefully not mentioned in school?
It's not banning, but the effect on most students who are not library wonks, will be stunting. Many in school find an introduction to the past and its literature.
The dogpile on the woman defending The Scarlet Letter was insane and alarming to anyone who might think the Puritans were a part of American history.