Censorship

Community & Junior College Libraries, v15 n2 2009.

“To Read or Not to Read: Understanding Book Censorship.” pp. 83-90.

Connelly, Deborah S.

Summary:

In her article, “To Read or Not to Read: Understanding Book Censorship,” Deborah S. Connelly discusses the issue of book censorship as it applies to students. Book censorship, she says, citing Carol Mullally’s article “Banned Books: Overview” in the January 2007 issue of Libraries and First Amendment Issues, has been going for as long as people have been writing books. In fact, in 360 BCE Plato encouraged the discarding of books that promoted ideas divergent from his own. When the invention of the printing press made the suppression of literature more difficult in the 1500s, committees were formed to determine which works ought to be avoided. Censorship began in the United States before we were even a country; in 1650, a religious pamphlet was banned by the English settlers.

In order to combat the practice of censorship, the Office for Intellectual Freedom created a policy based on the First Amendment for the American Library Association in 1967 to mirror the Bill of Rights. The Freedom to Read policy contains the following propositions:

• It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those that are unorthodox, unpopular, or considered dangerous by the majority.

• Publishers, librarians, and booksellers do not need to endorse every idea or presentation they make available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to establish their own political, moral, or aesthetic views as a standard for determining what should be published or circulated.

• It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or librarians to bar access to writings on the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of the author.

• There is no place in our society for efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents, or to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression.

• It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept the prejudgment of a label characterizing any expression or its author as subversive or dangerous.

• It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people’s freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large; and by the government whenever it seeks to reduce or deny public access to public information.

The remainder of Connelly’s article focuses on the librarian’s role in promoting intellectual freedom. She argues that librarians must use their own abilities to consider the diversity of their patrons as they purchase books for their libraries and their own voices to communicate the importance of diversity and open-mindedness to their patrons.

Reflection:

Censorship is a topic about which I am very passionate. I consider myself to be a strong libertarian in most aspects of my life, and so censorship is very contrary to my nature. I am especially resistant to intellectual censorship, as I feel it is a most sinister form of oppression.

Books serve as a great means for thinkers and writers to present their ideas to the world; they are also a great tool for learners to expand their minds. By censoring books, many people intend to brainwash others into conforming to a certain set of beliefs. Intellectual freedom promotes intellectual diversity, which leads to progress.

I am extremely grateful for the Freedom to Read policy for protecting and encouraging the propagation of a wide range of views and ideas. It is based on the rights implied in the First Amendment, which basically focuses on the right of a person to choose for him or herself. Censorship strips this right from the individual. When censorship is allowed, the rights of everyone are at the mercy of a single person or small group of people. Censorship is the responsibility of the individual, not some higher power.

I understand that many parents do not wish to have their children exposed to controversial materials. But it is the responsibility of the parents, not some legislators, to monitor or restrict the books a child reads. Family values are not universal, and, because they are not, they cannot be strictly legislated.

As a future English teacher, I will spend a lot of time teaching literature in my classroom. Many of the books we consider classics today were on a banned-books list at some point. I hope to have the opportunity to teach controversial material in my own classroom, not because I want to shock my students or make them uncomfortable, but because I want to help them expand their minds.

I was a bit disturbed by a scenario that I encountered as a substitute teacher for a high school English class last year. The class was studying Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck. Of the approximately 100 students this teacher had, one student was so uncomfortable with the fact that the book included words like “damn” and “bitch,” which were used to express the vernacular of the times and were not intended to be offensive, that he asked the teacher to excuse him from having to read the book. In order to avoid a conflict, this teacher assigned him another book while the class read Of Mice and Men.

The part of this situation that bothered me the most was that the student was so closed-minded that he rejected a great piece of literature without fully understanding what he was rejecting. Connelly discusses a similar situation to this in her article. She tells of how The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain is banned from several libraries and school reading lists because of its pervasive use of the “n-word.” While the word may be extremely offensive in today’s society, it simply was not at the time of the book’s writing. In fact, a close reading of the book reveals that through his satire, Twain was sympathetic to people who were adversely affected by racism. Through his writing, he does something that most people are afraid to do: he encourages a frank discussion about race relations, stereotyping, and racial equality.

I think it is extremely important to try to expand students' minds. So often, there is a taboo surrounding any kind of profanity or vulgarity in the classroom. But why should this be? Students are engaging in—or, at the very least, exposed to—these things every day. One of the great things about literature is its use of themes that appeal to a reader's own life. So, if students use profanity or hear it in the hallways, why should they be sheltered from books like Of Mice and Men, which uses profanity not gratuitously but as a means of representing regional dialect? Why should students, many of whom are sexually active, not read books like Madame Bovary that address sexuality? It is when students a pushed beyond their comfort zone, when they are asked to confront issues that affect them directly, that learning truly occurs.

I think high school is a perfect time to expose students to controversial material. It is an extremely important time in a person’s development, as he or she begins to take ownership of his or her own personal beliefs. As they develop this autonomy, many teenagers also have the support of their parents. If a student reads something that challenges his beliefs while he is in high school, he is more likely to have the opportunity to ask for his parents’ help as he works to reconcile the material with his beliefs. Censoring books does not guarantee that a student will not encounter the questionable material, but it does increase the chances that he will be in less safe of an environment when he eventually faces it.