Children’s and young adult novels are currently being criticized and restricted, resulting in censorship and bans from schools and libraries. These actions, driven by concerns over “inappropriate” language or content, are not limited to other countries but also occur in the United States where freedom of speech is highly valued. Unfortunately, book banning has become distressingly common in our nation.
Libraries and schools have been forced to ban certain types of literature due to angry letters and pressure from objectionable parents. These actions aim to restrict the freedom of children’s right to read, and are often driven by school boards, local governments, religious fanatics, and moral crusaders. However, Impressions, a popular book series by David and Jack Booth, is widely viewed as a modern and imaginative language tool for children ages 5-12, and is widely used by educators (Clark).
This series of fifteen books is a collection of folklore that has been used in 1,500 schools across 34 states over the past decade. The compilation includes works by renowned authors like Lewis Carroll and C. S. Lewis (Clark). Although these books are highly regarded by educators, they face criticism from certain Christian parents and “educational traditionalists”. These individuals perceive most of the books as promoting witchcraft.
Opponents argue that the Impressions series can significantly disrupt children’s sleep patterns and assert that the stories contain elements that promote insomnia (Clark). The opponents’ interpretations of the material and their stance against the series have resulted in it being consistently targeted as the “most frequently attacked set of schoolbooks in the country” (Clark). According to People of the American Way, out of the fifty-five schools facing opposition, five have succumbed to the pressure and prohibited the teaching of the series (Clark).
According to Henry Reichman (2005), censorship is the action of eliminating, suppressing, or limiting the distribution of literary, artistic, or educational materials based on their moral or objectionable nature as determined by the censor. In line with Cromwell’s perspective (2005), school boards and libraries practice censorship when they decide not to include or remove a piece of literature from their facilities.
Books may be subjected to censorship or banning by different entities like the Federal or state government, local bureaucrats, or due to community pressure (Foerstel 2002). These actions essentially enforce the beliefs of an individual or group onto a larger community, especially when community pressure is involved. To prevent students from being excluded from important literary works, it is essential to take into account their first amendment rights.
Restricting children from accessing certain books goes against the principles of freedom and openness in society. This act of censorship violates both students’ rights under the First Amendment as well as the rights of teachers. An incident in Virginia in 2000 exemplifies this, where a high school principal instructed teacher Jeff Newton to remove two lists provided by the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) from his door (Foerstel 2002).
Both Robert O’Neill, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue that limiting a public school teacher’s selection of materials, including those displayed on their classroom door, violates their First Amendment rights. The ACLU conducted an investigation and asserted that forbidding the teacher from featuring the list also violated Mr. Newton’s First Amendment rights. However, no action was taken by the school board in response.
Newton’s resignation was immediate (Foerstel 2002). The primary reasons for censoring books in middle and high schools include sexual content, the teaching of evolution without mentioning creationism, portrayal of nontraditional female behavior, and literature depicting defiance against authority figures like parents (Cromwell 2005). However, it is important to also acknowledge the potential benefits of introducing these themes to children rather than simply banning books at first glance.
Profanity in literature can have a literary purpose. It can involve the inclusion of sexual themes that can provide answers to the unresolved questions adolescents may have about their own sexuality. A noteworthy example of this is The Color Purple, written by Alice Walker. According to Brinkley (1999, p. 128), violence can be justified if it accurately depicts historical events or current social conditions. It is even common for non-fiction books on drug and sexual education to be prohibited. As stated by Cromwell (2005), books on drug education are also subject to these bans.
The individuals banning these books seem to prefer their children to learn about real world subjects by experimenting, which often leads to disastrous outcomes without proper education about the associated risks. Censorship can be classified into religious, sexual, social, and political categories. Private Christian schools censor more content from their curriculum compared to public schools because they aim to enforce strict moral values in their students.
Private schools don’t have the authority to prohibit books, even if they are privately funded and religiously oriented. Just because parents are financing their child’s education in a private, religious institution does not mean they endorse censorship or book banning. The First Amendment protects public schools and libraries from censoring literature based on religious principles due to the separation of church and state. Nevertheless, there have been cases where religious organizations have successfully banned books for religious reasons (Bald 1998).
Members of Christian churches have also engaged in the act of burning books, and continue to do so. According to the Landover Baptist Church website, burning books is seen as a loving gesture by Christians towards those they care about (Landover). It is astonishing how individuals can derive joy from the destruction of books that they personally have a disagreement with. This website further attributes the obliteration of renowned works by figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to Christians. Religious groups also target the Harry Potter books due to their incorporation of sorcery and the occult.
The Forbes. com website reports that two Pastors in Michigan burned Harry Potter books as a way to protest against sorcery, according to David Serchuk (Serchuk). Serchuk also mentions that there have been approximately six similar book burnings targeting the Harry Potter series. In regards to this, the First Amendment does not offer any clear justification for censoring materials based on their socially objectionable content, as stated by Sova in 1998. Although the First Amendment does regulate profanity on broadcast media, there is no equivalent documentation for literature.
Banning or censoring a book for offensive or dissenting views is contrary to constitutional principles. Those who support book censorship based on “inappropriate language” or profanity are imposing their beliefs on others, which is unjust. In a nation that upholds freedom of information, it is wrong to prevent children from reading renowned American literary classics such as Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye.
Censorship of children’s literature puts the freedom to express oneself, a right protected by the 1st Amendment, at risk. Nakaya (21) emphasizes that the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of free speech in upholding other freedoms. Essentially, this means that without freedom of speech and expression, fundamental rights become less meaningful. Valuing each person’s worth can only be accomplished when everyone in society has the opportunity to openly communicate their ideas.
The preservation and respect for freedom must always be defended, even at great cost. However, there has been a government record of supporting the censorship of literature. During the 1950’s, a congressional committee was formed due to concerns that certain books posed a significant moral danger to the United States (Burress 1). This committee, called the Gatherings Committee, put forth a bill that aimed to establish a federal censorship board. According to this proposed legislation, any book crossing state borders would need approval from this designated board (Burress 1).
Severe fines and penalties would be the typical punishment for anyone who broke this order. The proposed bill specifically targeted The Amboy Dukes, a book that depicted adolescent gang members as young individuals who were oppressed by society and lacked parental guidance because of the war (Burress 1). Although the bill didn’t become a law, the idea that Congress members would suggest such a bill is ridiculous, as it directly infringes upon the rights protected by the First Amendment.
The political issues raised by the Gatherings Committee had a lasting impact on discussions regarding censorship in academia for several decades. According to Burress (52), scholarly research on censorship experienced a significant increase between 1950 and 1980. In the 1940s, professional journals published 871 research works on censorship. This number rose to 1,544 articles in the 1950s, 2,787 in the 1960s, and finally, 3,876 in the 1970s (Burress 52). Although there is no proven causation between the Gatherings Committee and the surge in censorship research, it is evident that they had an influence.
The root cause of censorship is when people unite and impose their judgments and perceptions on what they consider appropriate for others. This issue is not confined to secondary education, but also exists at the elementary level. Nonetheless, this form of censorship differs as it is primarily conducted by a teacher who opts to exclude a specific book from their curriculum.
Some argue that teachers practice self-censorship by imposing their opinions on students and are afraid of being challenged by upset parents or communities. As a result, many teachers choose not to include specific books in their curriculum due to concerns about potential backlash from parents or the community (Simmons 96). Moreover, even books approved by teachers undergo censorship to prevent disapproval from parents.
John Simmons shared an anecdote about walking into a third-grade classroom after hours and discovering the teacher drawing on a book about Benjamin Franklin. He mentioned that he knew the teacher intended to use the book for a literature-study group the following week. Being aware of the teacher’s exceptional artistic skills, he initially thought she might be embellishing one of the illustrations in the book. However, he was taken aback when he asked her about it and she revealed that one of the illustrations depicted Benjamin Franklin as a young boy swimming naked in a river.
The teacher used swim trunks to draw on little Ben in all thirty-five student copies in order to prevent negative reactions from parents (Simmons 96). This instance emphasizes the irrationality of censorship. It poses the question, do we genuinely believe that our children are incapable of discerning how they are being foolishly handled? I recall reading Huckleberry Finn and Catcher in the Rye during my fifth-grade year, and all the offensive language had been crossed out with a ballpoint pen.
Some individuals see the recent change made to Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, where the offensive racial slur was replaced with “slave,” as insulting our intelligence. When we fail to treat our children with respect, they often respond by losing respect for us. Craig Hotchkiss, Education Program Manager at the Mark Twain House and Museum, argues that Twain intended to accurately portray the crude language and racist ideas that were common in society during the late 1800s.
According to Hotchkiss, Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn with the purpose of challenging his own previously accepted racist beliefs and urging society to do the same. This happened at a time when many Americans were returning to pre-Civil War racist ideologies. Twain intended for the book to serve as both a cautionary tale and a means for individuals to confront their own racial biases.
Allowing this to happen is a great injustice and it is unfair to both Mark Twain and the children who will read this edition, as it diminishes the value of such an extraordinary literary work. There are individuals who advocate for censoring children’s literature, otherwise books would not be banned or censored. In his book “Saving our children from the First Amendment,” Kevin W. Saunder contends that certain types of censorship are necessary in order to impart positive values upon children.
According to Saunders (28), he argues that society should be able to limit children’s access to age-inappropriate materials. However, a question arises regarding who decides what is appropriate for different age groups. Saunders believes that children’s rights should have less authority, which raises doubt about whether children can fully exercise their belief in the first amendment when only adults seem to benefit from its complete consequences. The rationale behind using child protection as a valid justification for restricting freedom of speech is deeply flawed.
Does censorship effectively protect children from vulgarity or harm? Simply by observing the streets of Middle America or a school playground, one can hear uncensored language that is unlikely to be found in any school textbook. Controversial works like Huckleberry Finn have been criticized for their use of the “n” word, but censoring it would prevent children from grasping the historical context in which the book was written.
Andrea Nakaya argues that society fails to differentiate between what is inappropriate and what is genuinely harmful for children. This fear-driven approach has inadvertently resulted in situations that may be more detrimental to young people than the very things we aim to protect them from (Nakaya 34). Even if book censorship were unquestioningly accepted, it would not effectively safeguard children but rather inflict harm upon them.
If children’s reading material is sterilized and they are not exposed to real-life situations, they will be unprepared for adulthood. Books that depict characters dealing with drug abuse, alcoholism, divorce, abortion, sexuality, homosexuality, AIDS, death and dying can help children face these real situations. Books like Daddy’s Roommate and Forever and Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret by Judy Blume introduce children to controversial and taboo topics in a constructive manner.
In today’s literature, characters face complex issues that aren’t simply black and white, but encompass various shades of gray. Literature without censorship reflects diverse ethnic groups, alternative lifestyles, and different vernacular language usage, which are all aspects that any child will inevitably encounter. As a nation striving for multiculturalism and genuine understanding among individuals, instead of the divisive mindset of the past, it is important for our children to be exposed to topics beyond their parents’ comfort zones. Shielding our children from the world around them ultimately disadvantages them when they grow into adults. It is widely recognized that prejudice and outdated ways of thinking can be passed down through generations, which unfortunately happens all too often. We must allow our children to form their own thoughts and not impose our own worldview on them through coercion. Censorship not only fails to protect children but also hampers the process of teaching and learning. If educational materials are standardized, students will find these texts uninteresting compared to what they encounter on the internet or in their personal time.
We need our children to be engaged and intrigued by resources that will enable them to comprehend our culture and the world we inhabit. According to Lankford, schools must serve as important institutions for achieving both social and intellectual parity. However, this can only be accomplished if every child is granted the opportunity to access exceptional literary works and learn the pleasure of reading. Lankford asserts that reading holds the key to future prosperity (50). Furthermore, literature imparts knowledge about our shared humanity, doing so by honestly connecting with our inner selves rather than restricting what we read (Lankford 51).
By restricting our children to only consuming material that aligns with “approved values,” we hinder their intellectual growth (Nakaya 39). Literature plays a crucial role in promoting empathy and understanding among individuals. It allows us to connect with people from different eras and locations, demonstrating that despite surface disparities, we are all fundamentally equal. Through an open exchange of ideas, literature enables us to expand our understanding of humanity, prompting introspection and critical thinking.
According to Lankford (52), reason and intelligence are developed through in-depth and meaningful study of literature, history, and various cultures – both from our own country and other civilizations. If we excessively censor books, we are denying our children the opportunity to learn and understand. Altering books to conform to a watered-down, politically correct version diminishes their power as important historical literature and valuable educational tools. I strongly believe that significant literary works like Huckleberry Finn not only depict our nation’s history, but also teach us how we have overcome adversities by recognizing our shared humanity.
