As a society, we may not frequent the local library, but how would you feel if a classic that you know and love is being censored, or even removed from shelves? This is a growing problem across the nation, especially in middle schools. Many parents and organizations have begun to challenge school boards and libraries over purported offenses in children’s books, and even in classic works of literature. Between four and five hundred challenges have been made every year for the past thirty years, but this does not make it right. Simply put, book banning and censoring is wrong. The original work of an author should be his own private property, and censoring or banning books directly violates that privacy.
Book banning is not a new issue, as challenges have been reported for the past three decades. Nevertheless, the number of books being taken off the shelf rises as the years go by. One of the more recent occurrences deals with And Tango Makes Three, by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. This children’s book was based on true occurrences: two male penguins raised a newborn chick in a city zoo. Anti-homosexuality and religious groups immediately launched into motion, criticizing the book for being inappropriate subject matter. Schools across the nation removed the book from library shelves; And Tango Makes Three is still the most challenged book in America.
One of the more disputed books is, ironically, an American classic. Recently, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn has been bombarded with criticism for repeated use of the word “nigger,” which was a common colloquial term in the mid-19th-century South. Alan Gribben, a professor at Auburn, has created a new version of the classic, substituting “nigger” with “slave.” Mr. Gribben thought that his edition was more school friendly, and less offensive. Censorship campaigns against Huckleberry Finn began in early 2009, when a Washington high school teacher wrote a column in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. John Foley claimed that with the impending inauguration of Barack Obama, certain texts that used the “N-word” had to be censored or removed. This is of course disregarding the fact that one cannot walk down a school hallway without hearing the very same racial slur used, and not in a friendly manner.
Modifying a classic like Huckleberry Finn may be misleading to future generations. Changing documents to please a group of individuals, while wrong from a moral standpoint, may also lead to historical inaccuracies. If a book such as the Bible was, over the years, edited and “corrected” to accommodate the wants of different ethnicities and religions, we would end up with a text so censored that it would be impossible to distinguish truth from fiction. As International Herald Tribune author Michiko Kakutani puts it, “To censor or redact books on school reading lists is a form of denial: shutting the door on harsh historical realities-whitewashing them or pretending they do not exist.” When making changes to a classic like Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which in itself is a reflection of our country’s history, the most important thing to consider is the impact of these changes on a future generation.
As the censorship and banning of texts has not only influenced current times, one would think that these patronizing acts of forceful “protection” would have been put under control many years ago. Presently, complaints are coming in just as frequently as they were two hundred years ago, which calls into question the effectiveness of our school boards. One of the earlier accounts of text censorship occurred in 1807, when Thomas Bowdler published a revised edition of Shakespeare. He, like nearly all who modify works of literature, claimed it was for the good of society. There are an almost limitless number of similar stories. Everything from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to The Hunchback of Notre Dame has been the target of one campaign or another. Not even the Holy Bible is safe from those who wish to rid literature of anything remotely offensive.
Parents have always voiced their opinions on school reading materials, but problems begin to arise when organizations such as “Parents Against Bad Books in Schools,” and Safelibraries.org begin to stir up even more challenges. These groups are composed of like minded individuals, usually concerned parents, who track purportedly offensive books. Joan Bertin, executive director of National Coalition Against Censorship, said of these organizations, “This is a relatively recent phenomenon, and it’s spreading.” This rise in complaints and reports is probably due in part to the largely conservative nature of the present society. Even so, there must be a time when parents realize that sheltering their children will, in the long run, do more harm than good. As to the issue of book banning itself, “It’s more prevalent than people think,” says Judith John, an English Professor at Missouri State.
The real issue lies not with which books are banned: with perseverance one could find something offensive in any place where words are gathered together. The entire concept of book banning and censorship violates the sacred work of an author, who labored night and day to produce something that reflected his own views and opinions on the world. Why is the opinion of the author less important than that of the opposing party? Moreover, to change this for the sake of “protecting” a child is overbearing, and shames the author whose work is challenged. In the case of Huckleberry Finn, the jargon that was used was not senseless swearing: it further enforced the reality of the antebellum south. Many of the now-challenged books were frequent reading for children in past generations. What gives parents the right to prevent their children to read these classics in their intended form, when they themselves read those very same books as young children?
It’s not hard to see where these frustrated parents are coming from. The middle school age had proven to be one of the most impressionable: children absorb nearly everything that they are exposed to, whether through friends, television, or written word. Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families, says “Parents can no longer trust libraries to protect their children’s innocence or uphold appropriate standards.” Though these parents’ hearts are in the right place, the concept of censoring and banning books is still wrong, and the school systems know it. Although the number of challenges in 2006 showed a thirty percent increase on the challenges from 2005, only twenty-nine books were removed across the country.
Many concerned parents have the same argument: they want to do what is best for their children, and prevent them from being exposed to what they feel to be harmful. Certain situations, such as the fairly recent challenges against Harry Potter, have garnered the attention of the media; in turn, the previously mentioned parents reacted with outrage against those books that allegedly accosted the most sacred of foundations: religion. In a publication, The Education Reporter, the Eagle Forum states that, “Harry Potter promotes the religion of witchcraft, or Wicca, during the school day.” Irrational fears are everywhere in today’s society, and though a parent may want to prevent their child from being exposed to certain works, there is no reason to have said work banned or changed. Does The Lord of the Rings, a book widely promoted as Christian, “promote Wicca” in its use of sorcery in a similar manner as Harry Potter? Who’s to say?
As with any debate, areas of concession can be applied logically to either side. Both sides uphold what they think is right, whether it’s protecting a child from the harshness of modern society, or protecting a classic from change. Both sides use the First Amendment, concerning free speech and publishing, as a basis for their respective arguments. Both sides are protecting something that they love dearly. However, both sides differ in the way they fight for their beliefs. An individual concerned about a written work being offensive or harmful would most probably see the error in his ways if he took a step back and saw the world from the author’s point of view. But that’s just it: he cannot and will not take that step back. His sole mission is to protect a certain audience, and no amount of reasoning will convince him otherwise. While admirable in certain situations, this approach is essentially wrong.
Book banning and censorship is morally and ethically wrong. It violates an author’s privacy, contaminating that piece of himself that he revealed to the world. Permanently changing a classic could have serious repercussions in the future, and might give a younger generation skewed perspectives on historical events. Removing books from school shelves may deprive a child of an experience that might have otherwise thrilled him, given him a new outlook on life, or even instilled in him new values or beliefs. For all of these reasons and more, book banning and censorship is an offense against the author and the reader.
Sources:
Karoline Kallweit, “Librarians Lead Fight Against Banned Books”, Global Information Network
Michiko Kakutani, “Light Out, Huck, They Still Want to Sivilize You”, The New York Times
Didi Tang and Mary Beth Marklein, “Those Challenging Books Find Strength in Numbers”, USA Today
Stevenson Swanson, “Book Banning Efforts Bring on Title Fights”, Chicago Tribune
Todd DeMitchell and John Carney, “Harry Potter and the Public School Library”, Phi Delta Kappan