censorship in public schools

Censorship in Public Schools-A principal in a California high school bans five books written by Richard Brautiganbecause he thinks they might contain "obscenities or offensive sexual references" (Berger59) A Vermont high school librarian is forced to resign because she fought the schoolboard's decision to remove Richard Price's The Wanderers, and to "restrict" the use ofStephen King's Carrie and Patrick Mann's Dog Day Afternoon (Jones 33) An Indiana school board takes action that leads to the burning of many copies of atextbook that deals with drugs and the sexual behavior of teenagers (Berger 61). These cases of censorship in public schools are not unusual and there is evidencethat such challenges are increasing (Woods 2). These challenges are actually typical ofthe ones being leveled against school libraries today. These challenges can come fromone person or a group concerned with the suitability of the material in question. In almostevery case, the effort to ban books is said to be "justified by fear of the harmful effectsthat the books may have on young children" (Berger 59). The result of these censorshipattempts has been two opposing sides: one side believes that "more suitable materials canusually be found from among the wealth of materials available on most subjects (Woods1), and the other side believes that students' "intellectual freedom" can be upheld only ifstudents are allowed to examine "any available relevant materials in order to gain theinsights needed to reach their own conclusions" (Woods 1). In the simplest terms, thedebate is between censorship and the freedom to read. The most important question when discussing censorship deals with itsconstitutionality; does censorship violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freespeech? Censorship advocates actually use the words of the First Amendment to maketheir point; "the amendment reads, 'Congress shall make no law ", it does not say,"There shall be no law '" (Berger 69). They believe that, although the federalgovernment is forbidden to censor, it is not unconstitutional for states and localcommunities to pass censorship laws (Berger 69). Also, since the US Supreme Courtdoes not believe the First Amendment protects all forms of expression (childpornography, etc.), then proponents of censorship believe that censorship laws areconstitutional (Berger 69). Anti-censorship has the upper-hand, constitutionally, at least,since "judges, from local courts to the Supreme Court, seem firmly on the anti-censorshipside" (Berger 61). The courts have time and again ruled that the Constitution prohibitsCongress from censorship of any form. These two opposing sides have butted heads again and again leaving behindlandmark cases for future legal actions. One of the most famous of those cases was Picovs. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26, which was thefirst school library censorship case to reach the Supreme Court (Jones 35). In March1976, the Island Trees School Board in New York removed eleven books that theydeemed "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy" (Berger 59)from the high school library shelves. Among these books were Slaughterhouse Five byKurt Vonnegut, A Hero Ain't Nothing but a Sandwich by Alice Childress, and Soul on Iceby Eldridge Cleaver (Jones 37). The board felt that it had "a moral obligation to protectthe children in our schools from this moral danger" (Berger 60). Five students then suedthe school board on grounds that their decision violated their First Amendment rights.The suit was passed around the courts until June 1982 when the Supreme Court took upthe cause and ruled that the school board would have to defend its removal of the books.The Supreme Court decided that since the library is used voluntarily, they can choosebooks there freely and that, as Justice Brennan stated, "the First Amendment rights ofstudents may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelvesof a school library (Jones 45). The Supreme Court's decision was that "courts may act ourof concern for the First Amendment rights of those affected by school officials' action"(Jones 45). On August 12, 1982, the school board voted to put the books back on theshelves; (special note: the librarian was told to inform the parents of students whochecked out those books) (Berger 60). The advocates of school library book censorship believe that adults must havecontrol over what children read. They feel that unless responsible adults oversee whatstudents are reading, students will be exposed to the worst in literature. This literaturecan go from simply causing offense, to "resulting in emotional damage and even leadingto anti-social behavior" (Berger 61). Their beliefs lead them to pull the offending booksfrom the shelves so that young readers are protected, as was the case in Pico and as wasthe case when "Robin Hood was considered communistic, Tarzan was living with Janewithout benefit of clergy, and Huckleberry Finn was a racist" (Woods 13). Each time theyuse words like controversial, filthy, immoral, lascivious, lewd, obscene, sacrilegious, andviolent, they are actually using only one word, censorship. The anti-censorship group believes that students have the same constitutionalfreedoms as everyone else, including the right to read whatever they want. They feel thatit is only in this way "that children can develop the taste and understanding to distinguishbetween trash and serious literature" (Berger 61). And it is with this group that I make my stand against censorship. The purpose ofeducation remains what it has always been in a free society: to develop a free and reasoning human being who can think for himself, who understands his own and other cultures, who lives compassionately and cooperatively with his fellow man, who respects both himself and others, who has developed self-discipline and self-motivation, who can laugh at the world, and who can successfully develop survival strategies for existence in the world. (Jones 184)As one who is striving to be an English teacher I know that literature has a significantpart in the education of man. I am aware that I have responsibilities to my students, forknowing "many books from many cultures", for "demonstrating a personal commitmentto the search for truth through wide reading", for "respecting the unique qualities andpotential of each student" and for "exhibiting the qualities of the educated man" (Jones184). With these responsibilities, I believe that I would not be serving my students to thebest of my abilities if I were not a strong advocate against the censorship of books. As theNCTE writes, "to deny the freedom of choice in fear that it may be unwisely used is todestroy the freedom itself" (Jones 181). As stalwart and idealistic as I am, I still understand that at some point in mycareer I will come under attack from a censorship group unhappy with my selection ofcurricula. The American School Board Journal gives a list of nine strategies that can beused to help reduce the chances of an attack; these include "involving citizens in the bookselection process", "giving objecting parents and students and out", and "don't ban orremove books until they've been afforded a fair trial" (Woods 35). A similar list by DianeDivoky is a little more extreme but no less helpful. Her list includes hints like, "if you'regoing to use a book with obscenities, check to see if there are approved books in theschool library containing the same words", "before you take on a high-risk project, try toalign yourself with a veteran staff member", and "at the moment you suspect a problemlies down the line, call the best lawyer within your reach" (Woods 34). As for my personal opinion as a citizen and a reader, I have always been leery ofcensors. Censors of school library books never announce that it is their morality that hasbeen damaged. It is always "they" who will be damaged, it is always someone else'smoral fiber that is being protected. In an excerpt from possibly the most banned book ofthe modern era, The Catcher in the Rye, Holden Caufield reacts to an obscenity scrawledon a wall: It drove me damn near crazy. I though how Phoebe and all the other little kids would see it, and how they'd wonder what the hell it meant, and then finally some dirty kid would tell them what it meant and how they'd all think about it andmaybe even worry about if for a couple of days. I kept wanting to kill whoever'd written it. (Salinger 165)This phrase from Salinger's classic novel, for me, illustrates exactly how censors reactwhen they find anything they deem objectionable in the school. Why will people reactemotionally, even violently, to certain spoken or written words, while in many caseshaving mild reactions to the actions described by the words? While D.H. Lawrence hasseen considerable censorship due to his affinity for sexual content, Shakespeare hasenjoyed relative peace even though Othello and his lover made "the beast with twobacks" (I.I, 119-120). I, myself, will continue to struggle against the censors who seek tocontrol written expression in our schools while waving the banner of freedom, for it iscensorship that we must fear, not words, and hope that in the future, the true obscenitiesof the world (poverty, hunger, war) will be what we shall strive to censor.Works CitedBerger, Melvin. Censorship. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982.Jones, Frances M. Defusing Censorship: The Librarian's Guide to Handling Censorship Conflicts. Phoenix: The Oryx Press, 1983.Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1945.Woods, L.B. A Decade of Censorship in America: The Threat to Classrooms and Libraries. London: The Scarecrow Press, Inc., 1979. . Censorship in Public Schools- A principal in a California high school bans five books written by Richard Brautiganbecause he thinks they might contain "obscenities or. cases of censorship in public schools are not unusual and there is evidencethat such challenges are increasing (Woods 2). These challenges are actually typical ofthe ones being leveled against school. Melvin. Censorship. New York: Franklin Watts, 1982.Jones, Frances M. Defusing Censorship: The Librarian's Guide to Handling Censorship Conflicts. Phoenix: The Oryx Press, 1983.Salinger,