I am a literature dork, first and foremost. I have been ever since I learned the significance of those little symbols we like to call letters. I was one of those kids who used to get excited about what books we would be covering that year in middle and high school English class. I still am that way. Like many of my kind (the English majors), I am going to become an English teacher one day. Being this brand of "dork," the one thing that makes my blood boil is the subject of banned books.
The entire idea of censorship with regard to art is completely ludicrous to me. I just get this mental image of a group of close-minded, ignorant, racist and possibly inbred community members gathering to discuss some "controversial book," giving excuses as to why they think it shouldn't be covered in their high school's curriculum. Completely invalid excuses, might I add.
I recently learned that the Escambia School District in Florida was banning "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" from its middle school course curriculum because it reportedly made one of the students feel "uncomfortable" with its use of the "N-word." Let me pause in an effort to cool my blood.
I do remember students being hesitant while we read Mildred D. Taylor's novel, "The Road to Memphis," to say the N-word (which was used throughout the book) while we read aloud in class. I do not doubt that the idea of using such a powerful and loaded word may make some people feel uncomfortable. However, the fact that it was not carefully explained or understood that the importance of that word in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is essential, baffles me. What I am even more perplexed by is that apparently no one in that school district truly understood the point of Mark Twain's novel. Otherwise, it would not have been banned.
Another example of blatant ignorance that made my jaw drop was when Muskogee High School in Oklahoma pulled Harper Lee's masterpiece "To Kill A Mockingbird" from the required reading list in 2001. Apparently, school officials feared that Lee's book, which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1960, might make students feel uncomfortable with its racially charged words and innuendos. Apparently school officials missed the point of that one as well.
Censorship is not limited simply to themes of racism. Stephen Chbosky's novel, "The Perks of Being a Wallflower," was eliminated from a remedial summer school class on July 19, 2001, because of its "explicitly graphic" nature. In Chbosky's coming-of-age novel, he makes reference to homosexuality, sex, drugs, bestiality and depression.
This book is told through the point of view of a high school student, and I really don't think it's out of the question to assume that most high school students are aware of these occurrences, however rare or frequent they may be.
One of the community members, Mary Clossey, was pleased about the decision and said, "I think that they had no other alternative, but I do appreciate it. But the damage has been done because some of the kids have read the book."
Damage? I really don't understand how reading a book that teenagers can actually relate to can be a bad thing. This is just sending out the message that something like homosexuality is wrong. Or maybe that is what the close-minded administrators of Newton North High School in Boston, Mass., were trying to get across. Either way, they missed the point of that book.
One of my personal favorites, "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, is one of the most challenged to-be-banned books ever, for many of the same reasons as Chbosky's novel. Salinger's novel has been most attacked for its use of profanity.
If we choose to censor things, we are choosing to censor our history. We are closing the blinds on what goes on around us today and what occurred years ago. These novels provide valuable lessons for young students. If we tell them that censorship is OK, then we are promoting the ideas that certain things are wrong or should not be spoken of. We are also not acknowledging our past mistakes, and we are opening ourselves up to make those same mistakes again.
I think that Shannon, a 14-year-old girl from St. Louis, Mo., said it well when she gave a reason why "The Diary of Anne Frank" should not be banned.
"It tells and shows how people felt at this horrible time of history. It takes us into the mind of a girl who is growing up during this tragedy and shows us how she and others felt. I believe all people should read this at one time or another to grasp a better understanding of what life was like during this chilling time."
If a 14-year-old girl gets it, why can't administrators?
