Imagine being face-to-face with an angry grizzly bear. The large, ferocious creature growls and stands on her hind feet, towering over you. It is truly horrifying. Now, all you can do is wonder how to get away and what aggravated the beast. Apparently, 70% of all grizzly attacks are merely a mother’s effort to protect her cubs (“What if”). Similarly, humans strive to protect their children. From buying bicycle helmets to monitoring social media, parents are always looking out for their children’s “best interests.
One of the ways parents do this is by banning books in their children’s schools. Concerned individuals ban books for many different reasons, primarily in an attempt to protect their offspring. However, that does not make it right. Banning books hinders the freedom to read and hurts students. For the aim of education is to expose students to all concepts possible so that they may be knowledgeable about the world they live in and society of which they are part. Book banning, however, limits the concepts that students can be taught; thus, education is not fulfilling its purpose.
Therefore, American public schools should not let any books get banned because it inhibits the efficacy of education. Banning and challenging books restricts, or attempts to restrict, the freedom to read. A challenge is an effort to remove a book from the shelves of a public institution. The process through which books are challenged is too simple. According to Rebecca Alexander, an author whose book has been banned, someone must simply raise an objection against a text. Next, the committee at the school library will discuss the complaint and decide whether to keep the book.
If the committee decides the argument is valid, they will declare the book “banned” and remove it from their institution. After that, none of the students have access to it (Jackson-Beck). People who ban books in public schools do not merely protect their children from offensive ideas; they selfishly deprive others from reading as well (“Banned Books Week”). Unfortunately, parents are primarily the ones who ban and challenge books. In fact, they are responsible for 9 out of 10 challenges (Kowalczyk).
Mothers and fathers love their children and wish to protect them from controversial content in books. However, studies show that most of the people who ban books are undereducated, having only a high school diploma at best (Pollak). The reason for this is that these people overlook the bigger picture of the books because they have never read the material themselves. For example, The Adventures of Tom Sawyer was challenged on account of racism (Kowalczyk). While the author did use objectionable language to immerse the reader in the time period, he was, in fact, against slavery.
This challenge displays ignorance of the story’s true lesson and was likely filed by a parent who had not read the whole story. For this reason, parents should not be able to manipulate the education of other people’s children by banning books. Still, books are banned for a variety of reasons. About 300 books are banned each year. Not to mention that 85% of challenges go unrecorded (Kowalczyk). Banned Book Week is a national celebration of the freedom to read that was launched thirty years ago. It is acknowledged in many of the libraries and schools that oppose book banning.
Amidst the celebration, each organization takes time to honor and record books that have been banned. Since it launched, 11,000 books have been banned (“Banned Book Week”). Director of Communication and Public Affairs at the Association of American Authors, Judith Platt, noticed that “Young Adult books are challenged more frequently than any other type of book” (Rosenthal). This is because they contain rebellious, dirty realities. Unpopular or controversial ideas as found in young adult novels are most susceptible to censorship (Parry).
Anything from mention to support of profanity, sex, violence, racism, homosexuality, and religion can be foundation for a ban (Parry). In fact, over 1500 books have been banned because of sexual content (Kowalczyk). Specifically in schools, content is frequently banned because it is not “age-appropriate”. The idea behind this is that children should only be exposed to material that reflects their behavior. Often, adults cling to the idea that youth are not yet contaminated by immorality, thus parents believe that only innocent material is appropriate.
These people believe that restricting a child’s exposure to “unsuitable” literature will keep the student pure. Alternatively, Vicky Greenbaum, an experienced high school teacher, observed that educational material used in the classroom has little influence on student behavior outside of the classroom. She bases age-appropriate reading on a student’s intellectual ability to comprehend texts. Further, she wisely encourages discussion of any content that students can understand because it will help to guide them while they make “sense of a vast, difficult, not always appropriate world. For educational stories are often meant to mirror life.
The “profane” things that are found in banned books emphases real emotions. Often stories that contain questionable scenes are the most realistic and true. In effect, they offer profound interpretations of complicated events. For example, Animal Farm used talking livestock to expose and explain flaws of the socialism. This banned book informed many people of the corruption in Russia’s government (Gerrard). These books can also provoke meaningful classroom discussions in which students can further comprehend and absorb the topic.
Overall, banned books are very educational and should be used in all schools (Parry). Shandy L. Kurth, an American author, testifies to this in saying “Bring on the controversy. I write real life. It’s harsh and sometimes gritty, but it’s real. ” Banning books affects students negatively. If all books that parents disliked were banned, education would be less effective. Curriculum would be narrowed so finely that only the least controversial pieces would be left. What significant opportunities would be lost?
Students’ concerns would not be addressed, their curiosity would not be satiated, nor would they be prepared for life ahead (Parry). The longer censorship continues, the less learners will be prepared for life. These concepts from which they are sheltered will present themselves eventually; students who were taught through the filter of censorship may feel ill-prepared and not know how to handle controversial ideas and material they encounter. Books are usually banned to protect young readers from the harsh content they contain, but instead this act prohibits youths from achieving their full potential.
Stetson University Psychologist, Christopher Ferguson, says the “influences of banned books on behavior are not worrisome, and may be positive overall. Reading challenging books may be eye-opening and move individuals to help others. ” In fact, Ferguson conducted a study on this in Texas. He compared adolescents who had read banned books to those who had not. Ferguson has proven that censored works prompt sophisticated thinking, consideration of ethical predicaments, and outward consciousness. Many of his subjects even grew in emotional and moral maturity after reading banned books.
Clearly, parents should seize the opportunity to teach their children about these provocative ideas, rather than shelter students from inappropriate components in books (Jacobs). Eventually, all parents have to let their children be independent and start a life of their own. Grizzly bears usually send their cubs into the world when they are two to three years old. Initially, the young bears are scared, but they soon find that their mother has prepared them well. Their confidence as an independent individual grows, as any parent would hope (Crushman).
As these bears demonstrate, the best protection is preparation for what lies ahead. Censoring a student’s reading list will not prepare them to face the realities of life. If schools allow teachers to educate with whatever material they see fit and stop banning books, adolescents can have a more well-rounded education and will be prepared for life. Reading controversial books will expose unpopular views on debated topics and will give students perspective. Awareness of differing opinions will allow citizens to better understand topics, potentially creating wiser voters and negotiators.
Knowledge of history, society, and culture will ready today’s students for tomorrow’s challenges. Educators are paid to teach these things. In defense of the freedom to read, Colorado Supreme Court Associate Justice Gregory J. Hobbs Jr prudently decided that “when we strip teachers of their professional judgement, we forfeit the educational vitality we prize. When we quell controversy for the sake of congeniality, we deprive democracy of its mentors. ” (This was regarding the case of Board of Education of Jefferson County School District R-1 v. Alfred Wilder)
