The Arguments for and Against Book Censorship in the Schools

Book Censorship: An Advocacy Essay

I. INTRODUCTION

Today, the debate over book censorship in the United States is not only heated and emotionally charged, it has resulted in actual violence in the nation’s communities. The reasons that some groups want books in the schools and libraries censored are multiple, but they all boil down to fundamental disagreements concerning what types of materials young people should be allowed to read and discuss. Certainly, there is little disagreement concerning providing young learners with outright pornographic materials or literature that promotes violence, baby-killing, drunkenness, incest, or fratricide, but censorship advocates are on a very slippery slope when it comes to defining materials that are sufficiently offensive to warrant censorship. Indeed, the Holy Bible includes all of the foregoing issues as well as others that many people would find objectionable if they were in any other source. In this regard, one authority points out that, “Censorship can be either explicit, such as rules or prohibitions embedded in law, or informal, such as norms and unstated cultural ‘oughts’ that are enforced through social pressure and public expectations of the norm” (Genovese 37). The purpose of this paper is to provide a review of the relevant literature concerning the opposing sides of the debate over book censorship to demonstrate that book censorship is appropriate for primary schools and libraries to protect young learners from objectionable materials. It is important to note that in this context, book censorship applied to primary educational settings is far different from an outright, society-wide ban on books for everyone as discussed below.

II. Reason #1: Censorship of objectionable books is appropriate because young school children in the United States do not enjoy the same First Amendment rights as adults

It is the job of educators to ensure that the materials that are offered to young learners are age-appropriate and conform to prevailing community standards. As noted in the introduction, while this practice is termed “book censorship,” it is applicable only to schools and libraries rather than representing a society-wide ban of these materials. For example, according to the definition provided by Black’s Law Dictionary, censorship is “a review of publications, movies, plays, and the like for the purpose of prohibiting the publication, distribution or production of material deemed objectionable as obscene, indecent or immoral [and] such actions are frequently challenged as constituting a denial of freedom of press and speech” (224).

It is also important to note that the constitutional protections that are otherwise afforded to American citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment notwithstanding, the Bill of Rights and other civil rights protections essentially end at the schoolhouse door and educators have both the responsibility and authority to determine what reading materials will be provided to their students. For instance, Sawchuk emphasizes that, “Although civics has lately taken a back seat to reading, math, and testing regimes, most parents probably share that goal today. But it would likely come as a surprise to many of them to learn that enrolling their children in schools also means putting them in a place that’s legally permitted to curtail some of their children’s constitutional rights” (3).

The track record of case law concerning students and free speech is consistent in showing that young people do not have the same First Amendment rights to free speech as adults who are essentially free to advocate anything that falls short of calling for a violent overthrow of the U.S. government, but even here there has been some recent instances where this has also been allowed. As applied to students, however, the protections provided by the First Amendment are limited in ways that conform to the practice of book censorship. For example, according to Sawchuk, “Supreme Court rulings have constrained students’ speech. Administrators have some leeway to censor student-newspaper articles, for example. And students can be restricted on speech that’s considered vulgar or lewd, promotes drug use, causes a ‘material and substantial disruption’ to school, or infringes on another student’s rights” (7). Furthermore, the proliferation of numerous popular social media platforms has further clouded the issue of censorship, but current trends clearly indicate that school authorities can and do routinely engage in censorship activities (Sawchuk 8). Book censorship can also be justified for other reasons as well, including the community standards view which is discussed below.

III. Reason #2: Book censorship in schools and libraries is appropriate when a plurality of teachers, librarians, parents and other stakeholders agree that it is necessary to protect young learners

Identifying which books and other educational materials should be censored is a highly subjective enterprise that must draw on the values and standards that are community-specific. The historical record clearly shows that some conservative states are highly intolerant of schools teaching anything that even smacks of “critical race theory,” for example, even if the vast majority of their citizens do not even know what it is, but the term does contain all of the trigger words and these reactions are uninformed yet instinctive as reflected in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Scared white American parents protesting teaching critical race theory in the classroom

Source: https://media-cldnry.s-nbcnews.com/image/upload/newscms/2021_39/3509841/211001-virginia-critical-race-theory-protest-crt-ac-459p.jpg

It must also be noted that book censorship extends to other types of materials that are commonly found in school libraries and classrooms, especially given the ubiquity of Internet-enabled computers in these educational facilities. In this regard, Laine reports that, “Censorship affects all forms of media, including books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, radio, photographs, art, music, video games, and the Internet” (10). Given the enormous range of materials that are available to students, identifying what is inappropriate and even harmful has assumed new importance in recent years. As Laine points out, “People will always disagree about what is offensive, and they have a right to their opinions. People on both sides of an issue have strong reasons for their opinions. Controversy arises when differing opinions about what is offensive lead to censorship” (10).

Notwithstanding the controversy that invariably ensues when books are censored or even considered for censoring, however, community members have the right to determine what it acceptable for young people to learn about in school and what is not, and it is profoundly undemocratic to attempt to subvert this right, even if the reasons that are used to justify censorship are spurious and ignorant. In fact, there has been a growing move to fire teachers who try to teacher their students from a list of censored books or even when they inadvertently run afoul of prevailing community standards (Thomas 16).

For the reasons that are discussed in the section that follows below, book censorship is not the end of the line for the information that is available to young learners. In this regard, one censorship critic argues that, “The word censorship refers to the suppression of information. It occurs when the government, church authorities, special-interest groups, or individuals impose their values on other people by limiting what others may read, write, hear, or see” (Laine 10). In reality, though, suppressing objectionable information that is inappropriate for young people is the morally right thing to do, especially since this is not an end-of-the-road scenario as discussed further below.

IV. Reason #3: Parents can always provide their children with any reading materials they choose regardless of being censored in their schools

One of the overarching arguments in support of book censorship in the schools is the unwavering fact that parents always have the option of providing their children with whatever reading materials they see fit, and to allow their children strict free choice in their selection of what they want to read, watch or listen to. The First Amendment guarantees for religious practice in the United States are vigorously exercised by many Americans, including some whose beliefs run contrary to mainstream society. Indeed, it is reasonable to suggest that at least some of the parents of school children are Satanists who subscribe to religious views that are antithetical to the Judeo-Christian worldviews held by most Americans (Geoghegan 3). Likewise, some parents may be raging anarchists, communists or jihadists whose political views are blatantly offensive to many Americans, but who still possess the fundamental right to believe as they like and to teach their children according to their beliefs, including the provision of books that are otherwise censored in their schools.

V. COUNTER-ARGUMENT & REFUTATION:

A. Book censorship can easily be taken to an extreme

The books that are depicted in Figure 2 below can be found in any American’s home, but they have all been singled out for censorship by school districts across the country in recent years.

Figure 2. Classic books that have been censored in American schools in recent years

Source: https://media-exp1.licdn.com/dms/image/C4E12AQHYPPcjm7y0PA/article-cover_image-shrink_720_1280/0/1614719419956?e=1658361600&v=beta&t=83TOaFuFG2H-raDGoqGHOzIIeof0PBEVONtgZzBljTA

In addition, numerous other books that are widely regarded as must-read classics have also been censored in schools in recent years as reflected in the beginning sentences that follow below which are likely familiar to many American readers:

· “All happy families alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina;

· “Call me Ishmael.” Herman Melville, Moby-Dick;

· “My mother died today. Or maybe yesterday, I don’t know.” Albert Camus, The Stranger;

· “Elmer Gantry was drunk.” Sinclair Lewis, Elmer Gantry;

· “It was a pleasure to burn.” Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451; and,

· “They shoot the white girl first. With the rest they can take their time.” Toni Morrison, Paradise.

All of the foregoing books have been repeatedly singled out for censorship in multiple jurisdictions across the country, but this is readily understandable given their widespread use in American classrooms. As Thomas points out, “Simply because classic literature is frequently taught, classics end up getting the most scrutiny by concerned parents and community members. Sexuality and obscenity, crude language, violence, and religious/political references are the primary reasons for most challenges” (16). Once the censorship road has been crossed by singling out these classics, it is a straightforward matter to move on to other potential violators of common decency based on prevailing community standards.

B. Book censorship is un-American and unconstitutional.

Despite the practical limits on children’s constitutional rights discussed above, some authorities maintain that they are still American citizens who are imbued with these rights even if adults do not like it. Furthermore, school authorities and librarians may employ insidious strategies to censor books they regard as inappropriate without given parents and other stakeholders the opportunity to share their views. For example, Michael reports that, “Censorship takes many forms, the most common includes moving a book from a school, library, or booklist to an area non-accessible by children” (2).

Many lawmakers and educators alike believe that one of the most important roles for the nation’s schools is to educate young people to assume their role as informed citizens as adults. Censoring the books children are allowed access to not only diminishes this role, some critics maintain that book censorship also violates their First Amendment rights. In this regard, Michael concludes that, “The First Amendment allows for the free exchange of ideas from one person to another; censorship of children’s literature interferes with the first amendment rights of children” (2-3). Consequently, the counterargument can be made that book censorship represents a form of repression that is intended to condition them for even greater authoritarianism in the future. As Thomas emphasizes, “What despots fear most is a stubborn, well-educated adherence to free speech as definedin the First Amendment. The choices of what is spoken, read, and believed need to be free of insult” (20),