Asked to remove references to racism from her book, one author refused
It was the most personal story Maggie Tokuda-Hall had ever written: the story of how her grandparents met and fell in love at an Idaho detention camp that held Japanese Americans during World War II.
The book, called “Love in the Library”, is aimed at 6-9 year olds. Published last year by a small children’s publisher, Candlewick Press, it drew glow reviews, but sales were modest. So Tokuda-Hall was thrilled when Scholastic, a publishing giant that distributes books and learning resources in 90 percent of schools, said last month it wanted to license its book for use in classrooms.
When Tokuda-Hall read the details of the offer, she felt deflated and then furious. Scholastic wanted her to remove references to racism in America from her author’s note, addressing readers directly. The decision was heartbreaking, Tokuda-Hall said, but she turned down Scholastic and went public, describing her predicament in a blog post And a Twitter message that attracted more than five million views.
Tokuda-Hall’s revelations sparked outrage authors of children’s books and scrutinized the editorial process of the world’s largest children’s publisher. The outburst came as culture wars fueled efforts to ban books in schools — particularly those about race or sexuality — and raised questions about whether already-published works should be re-edited to remove potentially offensive content.
“We all see what’s happening with this emerging culture of book bans,” Tokuda-Hall said. “When we all know that the largest children’s publishing house in the country, the one with the most access to schools, capitulates behind closed doors and asks authors to adapt their works to those kinds of demands, then as a marginalized author you cannot possibly find an audience .”
Scholastic acted quickly to contain the fallout. It apologized to Tokuda-Hall and the illustrator, Yas Imamura, and offered to publish the book with the author’s original note. Tokuda-Hall turned them down, saying she wasn’t convinced by the company’s efforts.
The company also delayed production of the collection that would contain “Love in the Library,” which would likely contain about 150 books by or about Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, while they evaluated what went wrong.
In the case of Tokuda-Hall’s book, Scholastic’s proposed edits included removing a sentence where she contextualized her grandparents’ experience as part of “the deeply American tradition of racism.” The company also called for the removal of a paragraph linking bigotry against Japanese Americans to current and past manifestations of racism, in which Tokuda-Hall describes a culture that “allows police to kill black people” and “keeps children in cages on our border .”
In an email to Tokuda-Hall shared with The Times, Candlewick conveyed Scholastic’s request and the company’s concern that schools might shy away from purchasing a book containing such a candid comment about racism during this “particularly politically sensitive” moment. On Amazon and Goodreads, some readers have complained that Tokuda-Hall’s message is too political for young audiences.
Shortly after Tokuda-Hall posted about the incident on April 12, several authors and educators brought in by Scholastic came to consult and curate the series that would feature Tokuda-Hall’s book. convicted the company’s actions, and demanded a review of the editorial process.
One of the authors who consulted the collection, Sayantani DasGupta, resigned in protest. “They’re pre-emptively censoring the collection and saying, ‘Hey, we’re going to put out different stories, but we’re only going to put them out in the most palatable form,'” DasGupta said.
Similar controversies have recently arisen around efforts to remove discussions of racism from textbooks. A textbook publisher, Studies Weekly, was criticized after it revised an elementary school textbook so that Rosa Parks’ story no longer contained references to segregation or race.
But many were shocked to learn that a leading commercial publisher like Scholastic was seeking such revisions.
More than 650 librarians and educators, who make up a large portion of Scholastic’s customer base, sent a petition to Scholastic demanding that the company release the book in its original form and “take public responsibility for the decision to censor a book.”
Jillian Heise, a Wisconsin elementary school librarian who organized the petition, said the author’s original note was something young children — many of whom experience racism in their daily lives — might struggle with.
“Children are able to understand on a simple level that when we treat people differently because of who they are, or how they identify, or what they look like, that’s not fair,” she said. That conversation, she continued, “helps their self-perception and perception of the world develop with empathy.”
In an interview on Thursday, Scholastic CEO Peter Warwick said the firm will evaluate “all aspects of our curatorial approach.”
“Scholastic has done extensive publications with different voices and stories, and the fact that this incident happened in the context of our diverse publications is deeply troubling to all of us,” said Warwick.
After Tokuda-Hall’s complaint, the company decided within 24 hours to postpone the entire collection, Warwick said. It brought in two outside experts to examine how the collection was curated and edited. The review will look not only at the “Love in the Library” series, but also at the entire “Rising Voices” program, which also includes other collections such as “Elevating Latino Stories” and “Celebrating Girls of Color.”
The review will examine whether and how other books have been edited to remove potentially polarizing ideas, Warwick confirmed.
Another author whose book was set to appear in the same series as “Love in the Library” said her work was edited to rephrase a line, removing an idea that some might consider politically sensitive. When Scholastic requested the change, it explained in an email to the author’s publisher that it is causing censorship in schools because of its concern about the political climate, the author said.
The author asked to remain anonymous and withhold any identifying details about the edit due to an ongoing relationship with Scholastic.
The debate comes as Scholastic seeks to gain a foothold in schools, where it typically sells more than 100 million books a year to 35 million children through its scholarships.
Like other publishers, Scholastic has made efforts in recent years to increase the diversity of its authors and titles. It has published groundbreaking works featuring LGBTQ characters and addresses complex issues of race, gender, sexuality, and cultural identity, including bestsellers such as “Heartstopper,” a graphic novel series about a romance between two high school students.
Scholastic also licenses and distributes books from other publishers for its school-based programs, including its Clubs and Scholarships and Education Department. Two publishing executives at other companies who have direct knowledge of licensing at Scholastic said it’s not uncommon for the company to request changes to an already published text.
Typically, changes requested include the removal of foul language or violence, a publisher told The Times. An executive at another children’s publishing company that regularly licenses books to Scholastic said that on several occasions Scholastic had asked for changes designed to water down politically sensitive or potentially polarizing content. Both executives spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss editorial processes that are typically confidential.
It’s unclear how Scholastic’s editorial practices will change in the wake of the current controversy. Some authors whose work has been selected for the same collection as Love in the Library are closely monitoring Scholastic’s next steps.
“This is a collection of stories that needs a wider audience,” says Katrina Moore, whose book “Teeny Houdini: The Disappearing Act” should have accompanied it. “I would really like to continue participating in the collection, but I need to have a good feeling about how they are moving forward. So I’m looking, but I’m hopeful.”
Audio produced by Jack D’Isidoro.