Yeah, but the difference today is that the left are the ones being intolerant as opposed to prudish conservatives.
Actually, since there is really no background in the story as to who actually opposed it and for what reasons, why are you so certain that it was someone on "the left" who wanted it gone this time around? (While I certainly concede that is likely, it is far from certain.)
BTW, I always thought that much of the point being made by To Kill a Mockingbird was that it was supposed to make you "uncomfortable" in its entire underlying theme of the lack of extension of justice to minorities. As someone else once said: If reading TKAM makes you uncomfortable, then you really should be reading it.
Some people (left, right or center) are just too stupid to understand that there's a negative consequence to removing books like this from the curriculum. And certainly, it's been going on a long time as I can remember both my 8th and 9th grade English teachers imposing certain "bans" on a number of books that they didn't personally approve of.
In both instances, their "personal" approvals related solely to their membership in a particular "sect." So, no Catcher in the Rye, TKAM, Brave New World, virtually everything by John Steinbeck (because in their view he was apparently an ungodly commie), and virtually anything that had any coverage of drug/alcohol addiction or addressed teenage sexuality in any way. They wouldn't even allow you to buy books they didn't approve of, when offered as part of the scholastic book club.
Which of course, just made me all the more certain to read those books ironically. I really liked my 9th grade English teacher and then I saw him confiscate another student's copy of Catcher in the Rye and tear it up in front of her. I completely lost any respect I had for him that day.