How to challenge book bans: two scripts for smart conversations
What I wish I would have said when a loved one broached this subject with me.
One of my favorite people once tried to convince me that banning Dr. Seuss was a good idea.
I had the lamest response, saying the novel I was writing would probably be banned. It took the focus off the problem — book banning — and turned it onto me, and why was I writing a book risqué enough to be banned?
Well, I wasn’t. As we know, a book need not be risqué at all to be pulled from the shelves.
Being me — an introvert who processes best on the page and less quickly in real-time — I have revisited this conversation many times.
I finally decided to do something about it, and instead of returning to the conversation in my head, I’ve written a script for the next time someone tries to get me to buy into the concept of banning books (plus an extra script for good measure). I could have handled the conversation in a much more productive way, but now I know better. Now I know what I can say.
But first, why make the argument in the first place?
Easy: the very books that adults try to shield children from by removing them from library shelves are often the ones kids need most to understand themselves and the world around them.
Why are the stories about race, gender, and sexuality so often among the books being banned? What’s everyone afraid of? Do the book banners not realize that they are proving the power of these stories by banning them in the first place?
Reading others’ stories immerses us in different perspectives, emotions, and experiences, which equals empathy, not danger. It helps us helps us see the world through characters’ eyes, making us more attuned to others’ feelings. Which also equals empathy!
Book bans are the modern-day Bonfire of the Vanities.1 Honestly. 500 years later and we’re still having this discussion.
Because these conversations are still happening, and because they can look any number of ways, I've created two scripts: one to use with a loved one and one to use with a hard-headed book banning enthusiast.
Script to use with a loved one
You: So I know we don’t always see eye to eye politically, but I wanted to talk to you about something that matters to me.
Them: Oh boy, here we go.
You: I’m not trying to pick a fight! I just want to explain why I think banning books is a bad idea. And I want to hear what you think, too.
Them: Go on.
You: Okay, so I get that some books make people uncomfortable—maybe they deal with difficult topics or ideas we don’t like. But history has shown that when we start banning books, we’re not protecting people—we’re limiting what they’re allowed to think about.
Them: But some books are inappropriate! Parents should have a say in what their kids read.
You: I totally agree. Parents should absolutely guide their own children. But if you don’t want a kid reading something, that’s a decision for the parent—not the government or a school board deciding for everyone else’s children. Book bans take away a family’s choice.
Them: But some of these books have things in them that kids shouldn’t be exposed to—like violence, sex, political agendas …
You: I hear you. But a lot of books that get banned are ones that help kids understand tough topics in a safe way. Books about racism or LGBTQ+ identities can help kids who might be going through those things. Banning them doesn’t make those issues disappear—it just makes it harder for kids to find answers and feel seen and validated.
Them: But don’t you think some books push a specific agenda? A school library should be about education, not activism.
You: Sure, but literature has always been political. So many of the authors we consider essential were challenging the systems of their time. That’s what makes them great! If we start banning books based on ideology, we risk erasing some of the most important works of literary history.
Them: I still think some books don’t belong in schools.
You: And that’s fair—schools should choose age-appropriate books. But removing books entirely, especially from libraries, means no one gets the choice. There’s a big difference between curating and censoring.
Them: But is there a line? What if a book really is harmful?
You: Then let’s talk about it. Let’s analyze it. Literature isn’t about blind acceptance—it’s about critical thinking. Banning books doesn’t just remove so-called harmful ideas; it removes the opportunity to engage with them, to challenge them, to understand them in context.
Them: I never thought about it that way.
You: I just think the best way to deal with a book you don’t like isn’t to ban it—it’s to read it, talk about it, and understand why people feel strongly about it. I’d rather live in a world where we trust people to think for themselves than one where a small group decides what we’re allowed to read.
Them: Not saying I’m changing my mind, but you’ve made some good points.
You: Thank you for listening.
Script to use with the hard-headed book banning enthusiast
Them: I don’t get why everyone’s losing their minds over book bans. Parents have a right to protect their kids from inappropriate material.
You: Of course! Parents should be involved in what their kids read. But banning books doesn’t just let you decide for your kids—it takes the choice away from every parent.
Them: Yeah, because some of these books are terrible. Schools are pushing filth on kids.
You: Okay, but who decides what counts as “filth”? History shows that once people start banning books, it doesn’t stop where you want it to. [Insert the Bonfire of the Vanities if you must!] Today, it’s books about gender and race—tomorrow, it could be books you like.
Them: No one’s banning the books I like.
You: Not yet. But censorship is a slippery slope. You trust the government to decide what people can read? What happens when a different group of people gets in charge and decides your values are dangerous?
Them: It’s not the same thing.
You: Kind of! Book bans don’t just affect kids—they set a precedent that some ideas are too dangerous for anyone to read. That’s not protecting kids, that’s controlling what people are allowed to think.
Them: I don’t want schools indoctrinating kids with political agendas.
You: That’s fair, but banning books is literally the government deciding what ideas people can and cannot be exposed to.
Them: I just think some of these books are too extreme for kids.
You: Okay, but let’s be real—half the books being challenged aren’t “extreme,” they just make people uncomfortable. The Lorax was is banned in some places because it’s “too environmental.” The freaking Lorax!
Them: Wait, for real?
You: Yes. Once you open the door to banning books, people will use it for anything. That’s why I’d rather parents guide their own kids than let the government or a school board make the decision for everyone.
Them: I still think some books don’t belong in schools.
You: That’s fine, and schools should have age-appropriate guidelines. But yanking books out of libraries so no one can read them? That’s not protecting kids—that’s controlling information. And that should freak everyone out.
Them: I don’t know, I’ll have to think about it.
You: That’s all I’m asking!
Re-reading through these scripts made me queasy. I tend to run in the opposite direction when politics comes up, particularly with family. But I don’t want to be that way. I want to fight for what I believe in, and I believe that banning books is bullshit.
So is burning books, obviously.
A man posted a video on YouTube of him torching my friend’s book, Katy Has Two Grampas. You can hear his heinous laughter as the book goes up in flames, and nothing has made me more furious. A librarian in Florida had to pull the same book off the shelves due to its subject matter. The subject? A girl having two grandfathers! Like — what?!
Politics is not my thing, but books are, and that’s why I’m doing the thing I’m afraid of and making a stance.
Next time the subject of banned books comes up, use one of these scripts. Make it your own, and show them how problematic this kind of censorship is.
Further banned book reading:
📖Amazing Women & Banned Books by
***BREAKING*** I Am Suing The State of Idaho by
What are you reading?
What I’m reading: Rebecca by Daphne Du Maurier. And WOW, this book! Everyone has opinions (good ones) on it.
Love,
When you purchase books through my links, you support Words on Words (I get credits for more books) and an indie bookstore of your choice at no additional cost to you.
In 1497, a Dominican friar, Girolamo Savonarola, convinced Florentines to rid themselves of anything that distracted them from their religious duties. This included art, jewelry, instruments, manuscripts, and books, and they all went up in flames in a huge bonfire in the middle of a famous square in Florence.
The thing I keep thinking about is that we’re acting like all these kids are clamoring to read books in the first place. They are on screens all day, seeing god knows what, and yet we’re focused on banning books?! If your kids want to read *anything at all*, it should be celebrated. Also I fully understand that banning books is about an attempt to erase ideas and experiences. I’ve been reading the Library Book by Susan Orlean and it goes into a lot of what book banning means historically. Love this post Kolina!
I really really love that you wrote a script. It's so important to be prepared and be able to talk about this with people/family instead of running from it (I, too, hate conflict but can't avoid this one). Speaking as an author (who spent YEARS trying to get published), it is so so so hard to get a book out into the world. There are SO many gatekeepers in the first place. The fact that a book EVER gets published is miraculous, with so much vetting from agents, publishers, editors, copy editors, etc. before it hits shelves. And then you have librarians and teachers who are trained to curate and evaluate - they LOVE kids. They're not out to indoctrinate or harm. So, anyway, TOTALLY on board with this - and thanks for the script!