Restricted Reading:
How K-12 Educators Experience and Perceive Book Bans

 

Audrey Geib

Journalism, Elon University

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements in an undergraduate senior capstone course in communications

Abstract

As book bans and challenges surge across the United States, K-12 educators are left to navigate increasing community pressure and unclear policies. National news outlets, recent political campaigns and social media have amplified discussions about public school students’ intellectual freedom, censorship and the role that literature plays in school. However, less attention has been given to the personal and professional pressures on the educators themselves. Using semi-structured interviews with six K-12 North Carolina public school teachers and librarians across grade levels, this study focuses on how they perceive and respond to the pressure from book bans and challenges. The findings show recurring themes of professional tension, fear of retaliation and a commitment to students’ right to access diverse perspectives through literature. The lived experience of participants revealed that book bans are not just policy decisions or topics for political debates, they affect how educators teach and how students develop.

Keywords: book bans, censorship, education, semi-structured interviews
Email: ageib@elon.edu

I. Introduction

The rise of book bans and challenges in public schools and libraries places growing restrictions on students’ reading materials. These decisions influence teachers and librarians, who are responsible and expected to build course plans and teach under these restrictions. Those responsible for fostering intellectual curiosity and critical thinking often have little say in the choices made by policymakers and administrators about which books are removed from their classrooms and libraries. Books can be challenged and eventually banned by these school administrations for several reasons, reasons that are usually backed by the good intention of protecting children from topics deemed “inappropriate” or “offensive” (American Library Association, n.d.).

However, many believe that censoring ideas and viewpoints, however subtle, is harmful. John Stuart Mill, in his book On Liberty, wrote, “if all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind” (Mill, 2002).

Throughout the 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump advocated for the transfer of control over education to individual states and not the federal Department of Education (Leingang, 2025). The elimination of the DoE could accelerate or intensify book banning in various ways. If dominion over public school curricula falls to state and local governments, there is potential for an increase in book bans in conservative states. Shortly after Trump’s presidential inauguration, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights rescinded past guidance against removing books from public schools and libraries (Alfonseca, 2025). This change gives communities more power to judge which books are appropriate for their local students. No matter what happens during President Trump’s term in office, teachers and librarians face ever-increasing challenges as society continues banning books. This requires librarians and educators to balance their professional duties of fostering diverse learning in school-aged children with ever-growing limitations. This study will investigate the professional experiences of K-12 public school teachers and librarians across North Carolina and examine how they think about and perceive censorship in their professional roles.

II. Literature Review

The marketplace of ideas, a concept derived from John Stuart Mill’s 1859 work On Liberty, suggests that the free exchange of ideas leads to the discovery of the truth. Mill suggests that, just as an economic market would benefit from competition, the truth becomes clearer after fighting against lies in open debate. He argued that no authority figures should be able to determine what is true or false by removing ideas. Instead, all ideas should be tested in the public market, a theory that has influenced modern discussions of free speech for nearly 200 years (Mill, 2002). Book banning directly contradicts Mill’s concept because banning a book suppresses viewpoints and hinders public discourse. According to Mill, all topics of discussion, even ones deemed inappropriate for children, should be allowed to compete in the educational environment so that the truth can emerge.

Past scholarship has focused on the value of reading in the exploration of ideas. Bishop wrote that a book has the power to be a mirror that allows readers to learn something about themselves, a window that allows readers to see the world around them, or a sliding glass door that allows the reader to explore new places (Bishop, 1990). Book banning hinders students’ ability to engage with stories that may have these effects. Other research has explored how including diverse children’s books in the classroom supports social-emotional learning. Middleton emphasizes the importance of representation in literature and how that representation helps children develop emotional empathy, self-awareness, and interpersonal skills (Middleton, 2023).

History of Book Banning

Book banning has existed for centuries, starting with the first recorded ban in the United States in 1637, New English Canaan by Thomas Morton. Like many colonial bans, it centered on objections by Puritan governmental leaders, who considered the material heretical (Yuko, 2023). Nearly 400 years later, book banning is still a common practice in public schools and libraries. The American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom documented a record-breaking increase of 67% of challenged books in 2023 from the previous year, with 4,240 unique book titles targeted for removal in public libraries and schools (Censorship by the Numbers, n.d.). The ALA reported that the top three reasons for book challenges were “the material was considered to be ‘sexually explicit,’ the material contained ‘offensive language,’ and the material was ‘unsuited to any age group’” (American Library Association, n.d.).

Often, the parties pushing for the removal of a book focus only on the one aspect that they find disagreeable and not the book’s value as a whole. This was the case with Briar Rose, a young adult novel by Jane Yolen, published in 1992. Briar Rose was banned in many communities and even burned on the steps of the Kansas City Board of Education building in September 1994. The reason behind the objections to the book was because a character in the novel was openly gay. The banning not only removed the gay character from the marketplace of ideas but also the book’s theme of horrific injustices against innocent people at the hands of the Nazis during the Holocaust. (Boyd & Bailey, 2009).

Banning a book may lead to unexpected results. Rather than removing the book from all discourse, censorship and book challenges can raise the stature of the book in society. Kidd (2008) explores how challenged books are frequently elevated in status, not because of the value or themes of the book, but rather due to the simple fact that people are trying to take them away. Kidd states that when writers discover their book is challenged or banned, it signifies they have “made it.” Kidd cites young adult author Norma Klein when she wrote, “Perhaps the proudest moment of my literary career was during the summer of 1982 when I read in Publisher’s Weekly that I was one of the most banned writers in America” (Kidd, 2008, p. 208).

Implications of Book Banning

Boyd and Bailey (2009) describe censorship using three distinct metaphors. The first metaphor examines censorship as a barbed wire fence. While books and topics are placed on the other side of a barbed wire fence and would be challenging to get to, some of the ideas may still be visible. This metaphor helps show that censorship can discourage the exploration of critical ideas, marking books and specific themes as bad and off-limits. If someone wanted to pass through the fence to interact with the material, though, it could be done with great effort and the promise of pain. Administrators and those in positions of power sometimes “present obstructions to a clear view of the world – erect ‘barbed wire’ – making it impossible to gain access to the world through vicarious reading experiences” (Boyd & Bailey, 2009, p. 655). Using this metaphor, if an educator wished to access the ideas and concepts placed on the other side of the fence, they would face great difficulty and risk injury, an image similar to the pain that an educator could face going against administration decisions about literature that they deem inappropriate for children.

Other research sheds additional light on the barbed wire metaphor. Freedman and Johnson (2000) focused on the self-censorship practices of educators who avoid books on controversial topics to prevent backlash. They note that “too often teachers choose not to use certain books for fear that these texts will create controversies leading to confrontations with parents, the members of the wider community, or school administrators” (Freedman & Johnson, 2000, p. 357). Freedman and Johnson conducted two studies surrounding the young-adult book I Hadn’t Meant to Tell You This by Jacqueline Woodson, which focuses on the friendship between a young African American girl and a Caucasian girl in Chicago. The book was read aloud to a group of fifteen teachers, who were then asked to discuss the value of the novel in a written response and through discussion. They found that while the teachers recognized the value of the story and the lessons it taught young adult readers, they opted for a less controversial book.

The second metaphor, censorship as a patina, a thin layer that coats aging metal, illustrates the ability of book bans to cover up and hide important ideas and differing viewpoints that could be used to expand the reader’s knowledge and understanding of the world. While protecting children is often a stated aim of bans, Boyd and Bailey argue that discomfort is important to expand how children see the world. It is when past ideas of the world collide with new ones that learning takes place, and children can form their own opinions about topics (Boyd & Bailey, 2009). However, these efforts to protect school-aged children’s minds might be misguided. In the Freedman and Johnson study, 11 eighth-grade girls also read I Hadn’t Meant to Tell You This, with researchers finding the girls did not object to the controversial aspects. Students said these aspects instead added significance to the book as a whole, showing that children may not have the same issues with books as adults do (Freedman and Johnson, 2000).

Through a qualitative analysis of a seven-person adult book club hosted at a local public library, Hartsfield and Kimmel (2020) sought to find out how challenged young adult literature is perceived among an adult-only audience. Some of the adults had significant concerns over the appropriateness of topics discussed in the books, specifically as they related to sexual behavior and foul language. However, despite noticing mature themes, many adults defended children’s intellectual freedom as well as the role literature plays in fostering critical thinking and emotional intelligence. Books allow students to learn about the experiences of others, contributing to the development of their emotional maturity.

The final metaphor from Boyd and Bailey is censorship as a dangerous tightrope. Teachers and librarians are forced to walk a metaphorical fine line when faced with one of these book challenges, potentially losing their job or the support of their peers. A study conducted by Becnel and Moeller supports the validity of this metaphor. Becnel and Moeller interviewed three elementary and two middle school librarians in North Carolina about the graphic novel Drama by Raina Telgemeier. The graphic novel depicts middle school students involved in a play as they learn to navigate various friendships and romantic interests. Included in the book is a same-sex kiss, often cited as the reason for its censorship and challenges against it. The librarians often were cited feeling like they are “stepping on eggshells” or trying to avoid opening a “can of worms” when debating literary materials like Drama. Despite recognizing the book’s value and popularity, many librarians chose not to include it to avoid that “can of worms.” In contrast, others included it but were expecting challenges against it (Becnel & Moeller, 2021).

Research Question

How do K-12 public school teachers and librarians across North Carolina perceive book banning in their professional context?

III. Methods

This qualitative study used semi-structured interviews to explore how K-12 teachers and librarians experience and perceive book bans in their professional context. Semi-structured interviews are a way to understand how interviewees’ lives relate to a specific topic and to explore the deeper meaning of the issue from their perspective (Baker & Charvat, 2008). Interviews primarily included open-ended questions that allowed participants to explore their feelings and express personal beliefs. Each respondent was asked a set of questions with time built into the interview for the researcher to follow up and explore the previous responses. According to Holloway, interviewing as a method is concerned with the “lived experience” of people, allowing both the interviewer and the interviewee to explore how that lived experience relates to the overall topic (Holloway, 1997).

Insights were collected through six one-on-one interviews with K-12 public school teachers and librarians in North Carolina. Two interviewees teach at an elementary level, one at a middle school level, two at a high school level, and one is a public librarian.

Interviewees were selected through a snowball sampling method in which one interviewee suggested other potential interviewees to the researcher. Biernacki and Waldorf (1981) note that snowball sampling can lead to homogeneity, as participants tend to refer individuals with similar backgrounds. To mitigate this, the researcher initiated multiple independent referral chains using personal connection (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981). No incentive was offered to the participants for the information that they provided. Because this study focused on K-12 teachers and librarians, the researcher used discretion to select individual participants who best fit the needs of this study. Before conducting interviews, this study underwent review by Elon University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) and was deemed exempt. The interviews were conducted one-on-one through Zoom in April 2025 and recorded for transcription and coding.

A thematic analysis was implemented to interpret the transcripts from the interviewees using an open coding method to synthesize and see relationships across the 6-8 interviews. Excerpts from each interview transcript were coded with descriptive words and phrases. These codes were then grouped into broader themes to identify patterns in participants’ professional experiences with book banning (Holloway, 1997).

IV. Results

The six semi-structured interviews sought to identify key themes to understand the multifaceted impact of book banning on teaching practices, book selections, and the perception of educational freedom. The themes were then collapsed into four categories, ranging from personal teaching experiences to broader sociopolitical aspects.

Value of Literature as a Tool for Identity and Empathy

Educators overwhelmingly emphasized the importance of reading in helping students develop a sense of identity, empathy, and an understanding of the world around them. Teacher B explained the importance of literature through a widely used set of metaphors.

Books can be a mirror, a window, or a sliding glass door. A mirror means that they’re seeing themselves reflected in the literature, and it’s super powerful and important for them to see themselves represented in the things they’re reading. The window provides the opportunity for them to look into the lives of other people and experiences that they might not experience, whether it is things that have to do with just their identity or the place that they’re living. It allows them to have more empathy and see and read about those different experiences happening in the world or for other people, which is also incredibly powerful. A sliding glass door can open the world to them, and they can make changes based on what they read and go out there. They can change their lives and change the lives around them.

These metaphors emphasize how literature can validate children’s experiences, expose them to unfamiliar perspectives, and inspire change. Teacher A’s experience reading books aloud to their class and having discussions emphasizes the importance of expanding children’s minds through stories, even in elementary school. After finishing a book, Teacher A will ask their students questions to prompt discussions about the meaning behind each story they read: “I feel like it helps them become not self-centered when they’re older, because they’re learning about other people’s experiences, and they’re learning how other people think.”

Teacher A also emphasizes the value of these diverse stories in developing the students’ empathy and outlook on the world and the importance of the students participating in discussions like these at a young age.

It does help them be able to have these hard conversations and learn to be respectful during a hard conversation, or when you disagree with someone. They’re learning these conversation skills as well, not just about the topic, you know, but I think that through reading those books and having those hard conversations, we’ve learned how to have disagreements and to learn about others’ experiences.

Of these functions, the development of empathy through reading is particularly critical in the middle school years, a developmental stage where students begin to form deeper social and moral understandings of the world. Through characters who look, speak, or live differently than they do, students can safely explore what it means to experience injustice, joy, and loss. Librarian A emphasized the danger of silencing voices and experiences that differ from what the students know: “If we live in a vacuum of just those the same as us, we learn nothing… about the world or what we may become away from our immediate surroundings.”

Books offer an emotional bridge across that vacuum, allowing students to see and feel the lives of others, cultivating compassion in a way few other classroom tools can. Teacher A observed in their classroom that students have a natural openness to learning about others: “They [kids] are born to be good humans. They’re not born hateful. They’re not born thinking, ‘we shouldn’t be learning this, we shouldn’t be talking about this.’”

When students are given access to literature that reflects diverse experiences, whether through race, gender identity, or culture, they can expand their capacity for understanding and kindness. In this way, literature moves beyond just a means of teaching practical skills like reading comprehension. However, the growing wave of book bans and content restrictions in schools threatens to disrupt this essential part of student development. Educators worry that schools are curbing empathy before it can fully form by limiting what students read, particularly books that reflect marginalized identities. Still, even within restricted systems, many teachers advocate for the transformative power of books by quietly offering diverse titles, seeking parent permissions, and creating spaces for students to engage with stories that matter.

Limited Autonomy and Systemic Restrictions

While teachers recognize the power of literature to foster critical thinking and student engagement, many say they feel limited by institutional policies. Despite their best efforts, Teacher B reported a growing disinterest in reading among students. They partly attribute this disinterest to a rigid curriculum that prioritizes testable content over authentic, meaningful, and more interesting stories: “We can’t really teach a love of reading. We have to teach to the EOG [end-of-grade exams], unfortunately.”

This pressure to focus on end-of-grade testing and state standards often comes at the expense of student engagement and the freedom to select stories that resonate with and align with their students’ interests. Teachers explained that they are often given a fixed list of texts, with little opportunity to deviate, even when more relevant or compelling options exist. While some teachers are given more flexibility for alternative titles, they must be approved through formal channels. The approval process itself is often inconsistent. One participant described a board, primarily made up of parents, making decisions about classroom literature based on secondhand sources rather than direct engagement with the texts. This dynamic left the teacher feeling not only powerless but also professionally undermined.

It’s really interesting to see their reasoning behind it, whether they think it’s too violent, or they think it’s inappropriate because of relationships between characters. These are books like The Giver, which was a classic. That one barely got passed; it got passed by one vote. It was just really interesting to see, having read these books, and knowing that these are good and interesting and that kids would love them, but then seeing people who haven’t read these books and are searching for things like a website where they can search for the book. It tells them on the website whether or not it’s appropriate, even if they haven’t read it. It just comes across as very ignorant, honestly, from a teacher’s perspective, to see people who don’t know much about what’s going on and also about the interests of the students and the importance of this stuff, making these decisions.

Restrictions are present even in classroom libraries, where educators might assume more freedom. Teachers shared that they must seek formal approval for books not part of the official curriculum, even if they are only made available for independent reading. Two teachers admitted to quietly keeping a stash of unapproved books behind their desk, offering them to students on a case-by-case basis after gaining individual parental consent.

These systemic constraints have a chilling effect on both instruction and student learning. While educators try to model passion and excitement for literature, they often feel limited in their ability to foster that same enthusiasm in students, especially when required readings lack emotional resonance or cultural relevance. One participant admitted to not selecting a book for their classroom, fearing potential backlash from the community. Teacher C spoke about this act of self-censoring among their peers, noting that it stems from a place of fear creates a cycle.

I think it’s based on fear, which is what much of our life experiences, but I think it’s damaging to all parties. I think it’s another reason to make school feel like a not fun place, and if we’re all reacting out of fear, we’re not really learning. If teachers can’t teach out of fear, students can’t learn out of fear, parents can’t raise their kids out of fear. It just becomes a cycle of what can go wrong.

Parental and Political Influence Over Education

Participants in this study discussed parental and political influence as driving forces behind book challenges and bans. Teacher A expressed concern that decisions about classroom literature are increasingly shaped by individuals or groups whose objections often reflect personal beliefs rather than educational merit. Said one teacher: “It’s often based on discriminatory ideas and their own personal beliefs.”

Teacher B highlighted the influence of national organizations like “Moms for Liberty” in one particular county, explaining how this local branch is working to shape book policy and broader control within schools. Teacher B not only has to get literature approved but must also get parental permission for a student to be called by a nickname different from their legal name. Teacher B believes that book-banning campaigns open the door for more restrictions like the nickname policy.

Despite teachers’ frustrations with literature censorship, all participants support a parent’s right to decide what content their child is reading and interacting with. Still, they strongly oppose efforts to impose those choices on an entire school or school district. As one respondent said, “There will always be parents who won’t let their kids read certain books… but placing it on entire school systems is just crazy.”

Similarly, Teacher D said that when a book is challenged, the review should be a conversation lead by trained educators, not to be influenced by the noise of the public. Then, if a parent still opposes the book, an alternative title can be assigned to the student.

Educators and librarians’ opinions should be leading the conversation, not pressure from public opinion. I do believe however, that parents/community members should be allowed to voice their concerns. Overall, I don’t think that a ban should ever be the first step, or the last. There are so many things that can happen in between, a conversation about how to offer the book to students (i.e. encouraging discussion and critical thinking about uncomfortable topics). We can also always offer an alternative text to any student to respect parent choice without limiting access for other students.

Many participants expressed frustration when parents try an impose book choices on a classroom, making teachers feel that parents and parent groups were undermining their ability to select appropriate books for students.

Emotional and Educational Consequences

Educators emphasized the emotional toll that book bans take on students and teachers, which goes beyond policy and curricula frustrations. Teacher B described how watching literature become inaccessible in classrooms and libraries makes them sad, and they hope that students will one day be able to read these restricted books. When parents request alternative assignments due to objections about reading material, students are removed from small group “book club” discussions. Despite the teacher’s efforts to make the child feel included through large-group general talks about the genre of the books, Teacher B explained that this isolation can have long-lasting effects on a student’s engagement and sense of belonging.

In addition to potentially feeling excluded, students might also miss out on books that foster personal growth or identity exploration. When censorship limits access to books, the moments when a book resonates with a student, sparks a conversation, or offers comfort for their own lives are at risk of being lost, having immeasurable effects on the outcome of their lives. Teacher C said that removing stories and perspectives may send a negative message to students.

I think when we start banning books, it sends the message that there are some things that you’re not allowed to do. There are some things that aren’t for you, and some of the justification for doing that may be well-intentioned by the person who’s doing it. But, at the same point in time, the message may come off to others that you don’t matter, because the stories they’re interested in don’t matter.

Many educators entered this profession with a deep passion for literature and a desire to inspire young readers as they were once inspired. Being forced to limit or hide books they believe could profoundly benefit their students can be incredibly discouraging.

One teacher shared that even when students express interest in books on topics like LGBTQ+ identities or social justice, offering those books requires cautious navigation and parent permissions. Before reaching out to the parents, this teacher tells their students they need to ask their parents to allow them to borrow the book. The teacher shared that while most students are OK with emailing their parents for permission, some children ask that they do not, completely cutting off that child from that book and books like it.

Despite these challenges, educators persist in advocating for students’ right to read what they want. Whether quietly offering titles behind their desks or trying to find books that are approved and might interest the student, teachers strive to cultivate and maintain their students’ love for books. Still, navigating these emotional and professional constraints remains a significant and ongoing battle.

V. Conclusion

This study sought to understand how K-12 public school teachers and librarians experience and respond to book banning within their professional context. Participants emphasized the importance of literature in helping students develop empathy, identity, and a broader understanding of the world. However, systemic constraints driven by political and parental pressure limit educators’ autonomy and students’ access to diverse stories.

John Stuart Mill’s theory of the Marketplace of Ideas argues that the truth emerges from open discourse, not censorship (Mill, 2002). The words of educators who participated in this study points to the conclusion that banning books from libraries and classrooms inhibits this open marketplace and restricts students from learning valuable truths about themselves, their communities, and the world. Book banning is not a new concept. The practice has evolved through history with the same goal of limiting access to ideas deemed inappropriate or controversial. Each year, as the ALA continues to report record-breaking numbers of book bans and challenges, educators are walking the professional tightrope balancing personal opinions and professional duty.

While some participants respond to restrictions by keeping unapproved books behind their desks and asking for individual parental permission to allow students to take them, others found themselves altogether avoiding potentially controversial books, falling into the pattern of self-censorship documented in previous research (Freedman & Johnson, 2000). Although all participants opposed all-out, comprehensive book bans, some, particularly those working at the middle and elementary school levels, emphasized the importance of considering students’ developmental stage when selecting reading materials. The concern is less about shielding students from ideas entirely and more about introducing complex or sensitive content at an appropriate time and in an age-appropriate way. Each participant believed that parents have the right to dictate their child’s reading, but they should not have the power to impose those beliefs on an entire school or district.  While previous research exists exploring how educators and adults feel about book banning in the classroom, very little research exists that examines educators’ perspectives across grade levels. By seeking this cross-section of teachers’ attitudes from each school level, this research yields a needed chance to compare their perceptions and professional experiences.

While this study offers valuable insight into how K-12 educators experience and perceive book bans in their professional context, there are some notable limitations.  First, due to the limited time allotted for conducting the interviews, the sample size is relatively small. It may not accurately represent the experiences of all public-school teachers and librarians in North Carolina. Second, because the participants were selected through a snowball sampling technique, the findings may be biased by the process, as those who chose to participate or were recommended by other participants. Thus, the participants in this sample may carry stronger opinions or may have had more direct experiences with book bans than those who were not recommended. Finally, because the study relied on participants’ self-reported experiences, the findings may have been influenced by participants’ personal or political biases and their ability to recall interactions.

Based on this study, future studies should aim to include a larger sample size of a more diverse group of K-12 teachers and librarians to capture a broader range of experiences. It would also be beneficial to allow for more time, such as during summer breaks, to conduct the interviews, as educators’ availability during the school year is limited. Additionally, further research should explore more deeply, the role of age appropriateness in classroom book selection, investigating how educators balance their support of intellectual freedom with students’ developmental stages.

The battle over book bans and challenges is not about the specific titles, it’s about who holds the power to shape educational spaces and ultimately control students’ ability to access the diverse voices, experiences, and perspectives within them. As educators in this study revealed, when that power is held by untrained people outside the classroom, the result can become more than just a silencing of specific books, it can become a silencing of stories that help students grow into empathetic, informed individuals. In an increasingly polarized educational climate, it is critical to recognize that these decisions are not neutral. They carry long-term consequences for how students see themselves, others, and the world around them.

The participants in this study clearly care about the well-being of their students, they have been through extensive educational and professional training preparing them to be able to select instructional materials for their intended age groups. In the face of growing pressures, these teachers and librarians remain focused on educational freedom. They believe in students’ right to engage with literature that builds empathy, fosters identity development, and cultivates a lifelong love of reading.

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without my advisor, Dr. Glenn Scott. His encouragement and guidance throughout helped me not only recognize my capabilities as a writer but also as an academic researcher. I am also grateful to my parents, Dee and Barkley, and older sister, Linda, for their constant love and support. Finally, I want to thank my close friends Viluzmar and Kaelise for reigniting the love of reading that eventually manifested into this research.

References

American Library Association. (n.d.). About banned & challenged books. https://www.ala.org/bbooks/aboutbannedbooks

Alfonseca, K. (2025, January 25). Department of Education dismisses book ban complaints, ends guidance. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/department-education-dismisses-book-ban-investigations-ends-guidance/story?id=118098825

Baker, A. J. L., & Charvat, B. J. (2008). In-depth interviews. In Research methods in child welfare (pp. 251–274). Columbia University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/bake14130.19

Becnel, K., & Moeller, R. A. (2021). “Stepping on eggshells” and dodging that “can of worms”: Discussions of drama illuminate selection practices of North Carolina School Librarians. Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy. https://journals.ala.org/index.php/jifp/article/view/7617

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/004912418101000205

Bishop, R. S. (1990). Windows and mirrors: Children’s books and parallel cultures. In California State University reading conference: 14th annual conference proceedings (pp. 3-12).

Boyd, F. B., & Bailey, N. M. (2009). Censorship in three metaphors. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(8), 653-661.

Censorship by the numbers. (n.d.). https://www.ala.org/bbooks/censorship-numbers

Freedman, L., & Johnson, H. (2000). Who’s protecting whom? “I hadn’t meant to tell you this,” a case in point in confronting self-censorship in the choice of young adult literature. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 356–369. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40015350

Hartsfield, D. E., & Kimmel, S. C. (2020). “Please let this be the crassest thing my child reads!”: Exploring community perceptions of challenged children’s literature. Reading Psychology, 41(5), 369-402.

Holloway, I. 1997. Basic concepts of qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell Science.

Kidd K. (2008). “Not censorship but selection”: Censorship and/as prizing. Children’s Literature in Education, 40, 197–216.

Leingang, R. (2025, January 4). Trump promised to shut down the Education Department. Is it possible? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/04/trump-education-Department

Middleton, L. T. (2023). Using diverse children’s literature to enhance social emotional learning [Doctoral dissertation, University of Mississippi]. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/2698

Mill, J. S. (2002). On Liberty. Dover Publications.