In 1982, the American Library Association began a national, annual event entitled Banned Book Week after a string of book bans took place across the U.S. Usually taking place during the last month of September, the event is meant to "highlight the value of free and open access to information. Banned Books Week brings together the entire book community — librarians, booksellers, publishers, journalists, teachers, and readers of all types — in shared support of the freedom to seek and to express ideas, even those some consider unorthodox or unpopular" (according to the Banned Books Week website).
There are a surprising number of books banned by schools in America. Books such as Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, JD Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, and even more contemporary reads such as Looking for Alaska by John Green or The Hate U Give by Angie Thomas. Schools have pulled them from library shelves and off classroom reading lists for a multitude of reasons: exploring sexuality, being "anti white" (this was specifically mentioned for The Catcher in the Rye), promoting the "occult," swear words, and having characters use drugs, are the most common. You can find a more extensive list and reasons why they were banned on the ALA page here. This poses a huge threat to free speech and the freedom of information, particularly when it comes to what children can learn in schools, because it allows a select group of adults to censor what kind of information people are able to have access to, not only bringing in uncomfortable power dynamics but also limiting the evolution of knowledge in education.
When examining the books on that list, it's worth noting that a lot of these books fall under a less "conservative view point" (as in the case of Animal Farm by George Orwell or Beloved by Toni Morrison), and also that a lot of these banned books are penned authors of color. It's also interesting to take into account that books such as Mein Kampf are not banned in most U.S. schools (yet they are in countries like Austria or Germany). While I don't necessarily want to advocate for any books being banned (thus starting a slippery slope when it comes to banning certain kinds literature), one would think that a controversial book such as Mein Kampf would be much more likely to be banned than say, Captain Underpants by Dave Pilkey (yes, this book series is actually on the ban list!)
However, I would like your feed back, dear readers. Should certain books be banned? Should no books be banned? Who can decide what books are and aren't banned, and why? While you think it over, I'll leave you with this quote from Ursula K. Le Guin in her book The Wave in the Mind: Talks and Essay on the Writer, the Reader, and the Imagination
"A dangerous book will always be in danger from those it threatens with the demand that they question their assumptions. They'd rather hang on to the assumptions and ban the book."
Hi Kaitlyn!
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting topic that I personally often forget about, but is definitely an important topic in our society today. The way you pointed out that books like Main Kampf are banned in European countries and not the United States is something that deserves a lot of attention. I think I would like to know the specific reasons why some books are banned and why others are not, as it seems like these criteria are not being fairly presented. The topic of banned books is close to my heart because The Catcher in the Rye is one of my favorite books and one that has had a huge impact on myself as a reader and writer, and so it worries me knowing that children in schools will likely be limited in what new genres and stories they are introduced to because of these bans.
Your blog post is very well written, and it covers a topic that we hear about often in education. The point you made about Mein Kampf not being banned here reminded me of the conversation we had in class about America's freedom of speech in comparison to that of other country's. A quote I had written down from that class reads, "The Nazi experience made more Americans understand the devastating character of religious and racial discrimination, yet the American belief that freedom of speech, disturbing speech, is no longer in doubt." (ENG 444) I think American censoring authors of color is a prime example of the double standard present in American culture. While I understand that there are some topics that developing minds may not benefit from consuming, children in America's education system deserve to hear the narratives of people who challenge the status quo and systemic oppression that is still present today. Banning books limits students' historical, emotional, and existential learning that takes place at a young age.
ReplyDeleteOh how I love the topic of schools banning books! As a soon to be English teacher this topic of "What about the banned books" pops into the classroom way more often than people think. The problem is that the teacher is at the mercy of whatever school and/or distract he or she works under. Sadly, the schools and their principles or higher up teachers are the ones that chose and enforce banned books. I have learned from numerous sources over the past years that this banning by the schools usually has some political backing when it comes to answering "Why." It's kind of funny, some schools and teachers claim to be "helping" the students by banning certain books in order to save the kids from certain life lessons that they end up learning later in life anyways. The road to hell is paved with good intentions I guess. Books are timeless sources of knowledge. They hold a lot of power over people because books are what get people thinking. They create thoughts or ideals that lead people to take actions based on what they have now learned and believe in. I guess the main fear is that a student may find a meaning in the books that society deems "dangerous" and then act upon this meaning leading to the harm of the student or others. I am not all saying that books are bad or they are the reason for people's horrible actions. Personally I love boos that get my mind working overtime and allow new ways of thinking. But they are a valid way for people to create thoughts in general.
ReplyDeleteImportant discussion! I once read a post online about a similar topic, though it was about public libraries. The author of the post recounted a story in which someone they knew complained about seeing books like Mein Kampf in the public library. The author argued that it's not only okay, but favorable, to have such books in libraries. Their reasoning was that by having access to the books for free, people have the opportunity to not financially support problematic authors, even if they want to do research on a topic. For example, if a contemporary author were to publish a work I find offensive, but I still wanted to know their arguments so as to be able to refute them at a later date, I could get a free copy from the library rather than buy a copy myself and financially support the author.
ReplyDeleteI wrote an essay over this topic back in high school. I believe books should not be banned, because they can all be used for one reason or another. In my essay I had mentioned books like The Diary of Anne Frank and some others I cannot recall. Anne's Frank's diary was banned for her self exploration and I argued in my essay that that section could be good for young girls to read so that they could better understand their own bodies. Saying this though, I believe there is a difference between having the banned book available for adults or children to read and actually putting it in the hands of people, especially children. If they see the book and are interested, so be it, but if there was a book with explicitly sexual sections, I would not give it to a child. However, that is a little different, since banned books are books banned from libraries and schools where the books are just there for people to choose. A person of any age should be able to have access to whatever book they choose. When it comes to Mein Kampf, I believe it does not need to be banned and only that people should read the book understanding it to be a book of what NOT to do; it should be read as a cautionary tale. If people understand at what angle is best to read some controversial books, there probably would not be as much of a want for certain books to be banned. However, I suppose, that would cause people to question who gets to decide how a book Should be read.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm generally not in favor of restricting information, I'm willing to believe that some books can be withheld from students in grades K-12, as their complex or controversial content probably cannot be appreciated until the brain has further developed. For example, I first read "The Pilgrim's Progress" in elementary school and was unable to comprehend much of its content due to its reliance on metaphor; I gained little from reading it at that age. However, I was able to enjoy more of the book when I read it in high school.
ReplyDeleteThis is very intriguing! I think that books that are banned only generate further interest in readers. It becomes more like "forbidden fruit" and causes people to undo the ban by finding the book anyways. The first Harry potter book was banned, Naked Lunch was banned, yet this books became very popular during their time. If a child in K-12 doesn't feel comfortable reading a book, then they won't read it. However, if someone feels ready to pick up a certain book and dive in, then they will. It's very hard to get someone to not read a book if they are so inclined. I think there are a lot of inappropriate books (for example, Pretty Little Liars) that middle schoolers shouldn't read but they do anyways. At my catholic school the nun principal banned this series but all this did was get us to go behind the school's back and our parents' backs to find out what all the fuss was about. It is really hard to ban a book because if someone wants to read it, they will.
ReplyDeleteTo quote the 1982 Supreme Court ruling of Board of Education V. Pico. Since human actions, at an appropriate level of description, are part of the universe, it follows that humans cannot act otherwise than they do; free will is impossible. ... Since moral responsibility seems to require free will, hard determinism implies that no one is morally responsible for his actions.
ReplyDeleteBasically what I am saying with this is I think that parents may control what their own children read, but don't have a right to restrict what books are available to other people.