comment: >
  
  It's sort of tautological though because it inevitably relies on defining censorship as an unacceptable exclusion of a book for ideological reasons. 
  School curriculums and school libraries have to have some kind of process for curating their materials because of time and space constraints. You have to spend some time defining what's a reasonable reason to not have a book available or not teach a book: it's not age appropriate, it's not interesting for the students the school serves, some other book better meets the learning objectives of the class and what's not reasonable: which is largely a desire to shelter children from opposing views.
context: Any books in particular you have in mind?
  Without examples it's difficult to know what you really mean - "educational books that have been censored" is a bit vague, could be anything. >
  
  I agree that censoring good educational books is a bad thing, but the issue is who gets to decide what we consider "good" and "educational"? What if the person/people chosen to do that job has their own agenda? >
  
  My thoughts exactly who determines what is good or quality books? Also does age appropriatness count? What I may feel is a good book for learning another may feel much differently... >
  
  What defines educational? Does history count?  Can we publish a book about how the northern states plotted to control or destroy the south which valiantly fought back to preserve their way of life? Would censoring that be okay? >
  
  That's not history. >
  
  So you are ready to censor anything that doesn't fit your worldview? Writing history is all about making decisions, i can assure you the historical documentation is there, but what a historian you and i say is right calls it propaganda.  But if someone doesn't do that, presents it as written, then either you censor them or allow their viewpoints to spread. >
  
  It's not my worldview: it's just bullshit. >
  
  Did a bot write this? >
  
  The only thing that should be banned is pornography. Because that’s not literature. Literature should be open to everyone in all forms because we learn from what we disagree with. >
  
  You have to empower the mind. By doing that you invite their curiosity. Suppressing and controlling a person does not create creativity or intelligence. >
  
  
  good educational books
  
  Define ''good educational books''
  
  a book that discusses social justice issues
  
  Discusses in what ways? In a balanced way? Or in a far left way?
  
  preventing these students from seeing themselves represented in their education
  
  The idea that students need to see themselves represented feeds a culture of narcissism. Education should be about ideas that are bigger than yourself, not about feeding your own sense of self-importance. >
  
  If kids rent the target audience or it isn't appropriate, it shouldn't just be available. There has to be some regulation >
  
  ?
  Do you think because schools are government run, they can't control what books are available? >
  
  They basically can control if money and powers are in their hands. In shorts, we cannot do anything unless we take action in response to those. >
  
  I think that educational books with mature themes should be held with the teacher/librarian and you have to discuss the themes and contents of the books with them beforehand so nobody is going into them unprotected or misunderstands the purpose of the info in the book >
  
  Okay but what is a "good educational book"?
  There are some incredibly smart minds developed in the educational systems of the more autocratic nations of the middle east. Say Iran, Saudi, Qatar ect. These books have good educational quality but still fit the ideology of the regimes they are produced in. Should a company translate and attempt to sell these books in the US should school districts not be permitted to restrict that? Especially when it's not even really banning books it's choosing not to spend money purchasing them.
  ​
  Going into something which is actually currently present in school libraries. Classics like "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" are obviously very educational, it has been a staple of people interested in history for nearly 250 years but it contains some interesting ideas such as the ultimate failure of democracy, the jews being evil and fanatical, the glorification of war and conquest and the inherent destructive nature of Christianity all of which were relatively standard beliefs in late 18th century academia but all of which are now regarded as somewhat bizarre. There are reasons both to buy old historical classics like Edward Gibbon's work and also to not.
  ​
  Then there's just cost issues. Again when a book is "banned" it's that the school board is choosing not to spend money on it. There are many textbooks that are expensive and I don't particularly see anything wrong with a schoolboard boycotting a certain textbook brand over cost issues especially when there are cheaper alternatives. >
  
  I think you need to steelman instead of strawman your argument. So, of course good educational books are good educational books by definition. I'm not sure how could anyone change your mind about that. 
  The real question is that should any books be censored. What if a neo-Nazi teacher brings in Mein Kampf or a communist teacher brings in the Communist Manifesto? Should they be allowed to taught not as "let's discuss why these are horrible ideas and how do we keep them out of our society" but "what do you think of these great ideas to improve our society"? >
  
  How about “all censorship is evil”?