Banned Books Week
September 23 – 30 is Banned Books Week. What I find fascinating with Banned Books Week is the rhetoric used by the self-anointed champions of freedom to read.
“Throughout history there have always been a few people who don’t want information to be freely available,” says Leslie Burger, the American Library Association president. “The reason more books aren’t banned is because community residents – with librarians, teachers and journalists – stand up and speak out for their freedom to read.”
Wow, makes you feel that the forces of repression are intent on taking away your freedom to know what is going on. Leslie Burger sounds so heroic and noble. Our guardian, our protector against the evil censors and Nazi book-burners. The ALA reminds us “that we must remain vigilant.”
The problem I have with this rhetoric is that it is applied to situations it doesn’t belong. These quotes were given in a local newspaper report about some parents requesting that the John Steinbeck’s novel, “Of Mice and Men” be taken off the list of required reading material in the local school district. The book would remain available to all who wished to read it. It would remain in the libraries. So how is this banning a book? How is this interfering with our freedom to read? What information would not be freely available? It appears that the ALA has an over inflated sense of its own importance. Can we not disagree with whether “Of Mice and Men” is suitable as required reading without demonizing the opposition with words of banning, censorship, “don’t want information to be freely available,” and so forth?
Take as another example the article “Stacks of Discord,” by Nicole Miller, Daily Universe, 22 September 2006. The opening line reads, “The debate between first amendment rights and censorship spans all mediums of expression, including literature.” Is that really the issue? Why call it censorship when it is really making it so that children aren’t forced to read it? No one is challenging first amendment rights. Why can’t I be a strong proponent of free speech and the first amendment, and still hold that we shouldn’t be pushing some materials on our children? Not to mention constitutionally lawful restrictions on classified material and obscenity (which the Supreme Court has ruled is not a protected form of speech).
I have a question for all the champions of freedom to read. If the Bible were a part of a school curriculum and some parents objected, would you stand up and speak out to keep the Bible in the curriculum? Or would you be a party to “banning” the Bible? If removing “Of Mice and Men” from the curriculum would be banning the book, then the Bible has already been banned. Why isn’t the ALA making this an issue? Is a notion of separation of church and state more important than “freedom to read”?
September 23 – 30 is Banned Books Week. What I find fascinating with Banned Books Week is the rhetoric used by the self-anointed champions of freedom to read.
“Throughout history there have always been a few people who don’t want information to be freely available,” says Leslie Burger, the American Library Association president. “The reason more books aren’t banned is because community residents – with librarians, teachers and journalists – stand up and speak out for their freedom to read.”
Wow, makes you feel that the forces of repression are intent on taking away your freedom to know what is going on. Leslie Burger sounds so heroic and noble. Our guardian, our protector against the evil censors and Nazi book-burners. The ALA reminds us “that we must remain vigilant.”
The problem I have with this rhetoric is that it is applied to situations it doesn’t belong. These quotes were given in a local newspaper report about some parents requesting that the John Steinbeck’s novel, “Of Mice and Men” be taken off the list of required reading material in the local school district. The book would remain available to all who wished to read it. It would remain in the libraries. So how is this banning a book? How is this interfering with our freedom to read? What information would not be freely available? It appears that the ALA has an over inflated sense of its own importance. Can we not disagree with whether “Of Mice and Men” is suitable as required reading without demonizing the opposition with words of banning, censorship, “don’t want information to be freely available,” and so forth?
Take as another example the article “Stacks of Discord,” by Nicole Miller, Daily Universe, 22 September 2006. The opening line reads, “The debate between first amendment rights and censorship spans all mediums of expression, including literature.” Is that really the issue? Why call it censorship when it is really making it so that children aren’t forced to read it? No one is challenging first amendment rights. Why can’t I be a strong proponent of free speech and the first amendment, and still hold that we shouldn’t be pushing some materials on our children? Not to mention constitutionally lawful restrictions on classified material and obscenity (which the Supreme Court has ruled is not a protected form of speech).
I have a question for all the champions of freedom to read. If the Bible were a part of a school curriculum and some parents objected, would you stand up and speak out to keep the Bible in the curriculum? Or would you be a party to “banning” the Bible? If removing “Of Mice and Men” from the curriculum would be banning the book, then the Bible has already been banned. Why isn’t the ALA making this an issue? Is a notion of separation of church and state more important than “freedom to read”?
posted by Nectar | 4:28 PM
6 Comments:
Hmmm. Perhaps I wasn't able to find the material you're referencing. I read the DU article and I read the article on the ALA's site, but I didn't find anything about preventing parents or students from contesting what was on the required reading lists, just about the ALA's working with the community to prevent certain books from being banned from the library altogether.
I support students' having alternate reading options if something on the required list makes them uncomfortable. However, there were few books in my school library that I'd've felt good about permitting to be banned.
Ambrosia,
Parents are not prevented from contesting what is on the required reading lists, but it is up to the school board to decide what goes on the list. Anyone who contests a book is ridiculed as an ignorant book-burner who opposes the first amendment.
The ALA wants you to think it is about banning the books from the library altogether, but this is not the case. I am referring in particular to an issue in my local community, but I didn't give an exact reference because it is a small community, where I am known. In general the ALA knows well that taking a book off the required list, or even making it no longer available in the local school library, does not restrict anyone from obtaining the book if they really want it.
I'm not saying that there are more than a few books in the school libraries that ought to be "banned," so I am in agreement with you. However, a lot more could be done to choose more appropriate and uplifting books for the students to study in school.
Our local school board is taking steps to give students alternate reading choices. They have done this in regard to sex education classes, but not literature. There are many problems with the alternate reading option. While it sounds like it should please everyone, the fact is that the teachers who propose this sly solution know well that few parents are going to make the effort to protest. Few students are going to want to feel left out and weird because among all their friends they are the only ones not allowed to read a book. They cannot participate in class when the book is discussed. There is a strong likelihood that their grade will be affected.
If a book is filled with communist propaganda (my daughter's words for "Grapes of Wrath") and it fills a student's head with foul language that they find hard not to use, should we require students to read it? Should we even encourage or promote the reading of such books? I don't have an objection to reading about communist philosophy, but fiction that subtly promotes it is something else. Should we also be concerned with the education of those students who don't have diligent parents ready to support a reading option?
Thanks, by the way, for reading the post and making some comments.
Some of the most powerful and influential books I have ever read have been those with which I disagree. Those have been the books that required me to truly define my views in the world. Children need to learn to think for themselves and be able to sift the pearls from the filth. If the pearls are always just handed to them by their parents, then they become ripe for manipulation.
M. Paul Bailey,
Thanks for your comments. I don't entirely agree with them, but it doesn't hurt to hear them.
To a certain extent I agree that children need to be exposed to the real world, and exposed to contrary ideas. Some would take this principle to the extreme, however, and insist that children should be exposed to a steady diet of propaganda and pornography. Why stop there? Why not expose children to sexual molesters and deviant behavior so they will be able to sift the pearls from the filth? I'd like to believe that you would draw the line somewhere a little more moderately. Sometimes exposure to experiences children are unprepared for can be damaging to them. Some literature is that way. A parent should carefully assist the child to prepare for the worst in the world, but that is not always feasible.
But what I am talking about here is making choices of what a child is required to read, not what he is allowed to read. When we tell a child that he must read a particular book, we are telling the child that our culture values the book, and that can have a subtle influence on the child's value system. Before the child has learned to put up defenses against evil practices, filth, and lies.
Personally I can't see myself throwing my children into a sea of filth and hoping they are able to find the pearls. Even if they don't drown, they come out stinking.
I guess that I, like the first commenter, have not seen any example of the ALA contesting required reading lists. I was a little surprised by your article, so I looked and I could find no sign of it. All of the activities I have found by the ALA have dealt with people trying to take books off the shelves of libraries. I'm not saying they aren't doing what you are alleging; I'm simply saying that I haven't seen any signs of it.
Also, you are right that there is a line. But I have not seen anything on the ALA's site that has led me to believe that they promote pornography. They are simply trying to keep books with possibly unpopular ideas from being removed from the shelves because some people don't agree with those ideas. I can't imagine anyone claiming (intelligently) that "Of Mice and Men" is pornography.
I tried to comment again yesterday, but Blogger wouldn't let me. It sounds like your local situation is frustrating.
For my part, I think all the Steinbeck I've read has been worth reading, but if your daughter finds the language offensive, she shouldn't have to read it. I've always appreciated the professors who gave fair warning of their reading lists so that students who find the material troubling can get out of the class easily.
Post a Comment
<< Home