Censored Canon

Thomas Jefferson once told John Adams that he could not live without books, however these days many high-schoolers are having to live without. Not every book is under questioning but some of the most popular and important books are under questioning and in many cases are banned from schools. Invoking the Founding Fathers, what would Jefferson think of censoring books in schools on the grounds that the books have controversial subject matter? The Founding Fathers were the original controversial subject matter in this country, which they created to buck the norm forced upon them by the British crown. They created a system of freedom for democracy to prevail that has been constantly challenged in many arenas but one of the largest hotbeds has been the schools and in particular what is acceptable to be taught and read within the schools. However, just because a book is on a canon does not mean that it has to be read. Giving a book a banned status is a harsh statement.

I understand that safety is a vital issue; however, free thinking is not dangerous. The Founding Fathers believed in a free nation and if we choose to censor the thinking of the youth, does that defeat the purpose of democracy? How are young people supposed to learn if they are unable to extract and/or analyze ideas in the place where they go specifically to learn, at school? Instead of censoring why don’t we teach our students to think critically? We should be taught to not take things at face value and to take the effort to form unique opinions. Maybe it is because we are in a culture of “teaching the test,” but could it be that censorship in schools occurs in lieu of teaching prevalent issues? Glancing at a list of banned books, many are banned for political and social reasons. Instead of disregarding the literature altogether, would it be so wrong to teach the issues? Incorporating the literature into lesson plans could prove to be successful and if so, perhaps students could learn life lessons from the literature.

Now, I wouldn’t expect a group of eighth graders to be reading Catch-22. There is a difference between safeguarding for appropriateness and censoring. Content levels in books should be appropriate for the intended age groups. But in all seriousness, if it is the case, you can’t censor real life experiences. Many of the books on the most-banned-books list deal with very real issues. Specifically, The Bell Jar, Go Ask Alice, and The Catcher in the Rye deal with prevalent issues with young people, like the sense of belonging wanted in a young life. These books all describe the journeys of young people who have trouble with following the norm and if a student reads one of these books they wouldn’t automatically become a “deviant.” I don’t think after reading Go Ask Alice someone would be apt to want to seek out drugs and become addicted. If anything it does the reverse, the book showcases the ruin drugs can make of a life. Students could learn from these books - learn that it is important to get help when dealing with an issue, learn to talk about their problems.

There is a fine line between protection and agenda. Speaking of the Tennessee law debated during the Scopes trial Albert Einstein said “any restriction of academic freedom heaps coals of shame upon the community.” In the words of one of the most celebrated scholars of the twentieth century, academia free from censorship is important for quality of life. It would be better to have an open education and to gracefully teach the subject matter than to have a battle over whether or not material is appropriate.

Censorship, School Safety, and the ICP

As a student representative on my high school’s Code of Conduct committee I had the unique opportunity to effectively make changes within my school by way of policy change. Of course, as a teenage girl, my biggest gripe was always with the dress code. I don’t really see why flip flops are a health hazard or why we can’t wear baseball caps because of gang affiliation. (I assure you that there are no gangs, in the conventional sense, where I am from. It would be entirely safe to wear any colored cap and not worry about someone thinking you are from a gang. I’m not even sure that it is common knowledge which colors belong to which gangs.) Usually the meetings occur and very little is changed. However, the day of last year’s Code of Conduct committee meeting rumors swelled throughout the high school about how a certain group of kids were going to come into school the next day with guns and shoot up the place. (For the record, the rumor was false, I’m still not exactly sure how it started but it was definitely false.)

Of course, after hearing the threat of an attack, everyone panicked and soon enough the local media surrounded the school and exacerbated the situation. The certain group that was said to be planning the attack followed a certain band called the Insane Clown Posse (or ICP) and typically wore black clothing and ICP related gear. At the Code of Conduct meeting we discussed what had happened and the Superintendent and Principal assured the committee members that there was really nothing to worry about and that it was just a rumor.

As a student I feel that a school should be somewhat of a sanctuary, a place where all students can feel safe and also a place that you can freely express yourself. That is, within reason. The Code of Conduct had already put into effect a few guidelines about appropriate clothing, particularly banned were politically incorrect and violently offensive apparel. At the meeting I brought up that since “gang-ware” is banned we should consider disallowing ICP related gear. I wasn’t trying to target the so-called ICP Kids. I wasn’t trying to take away their freedom of expression. I knew that if people were to wear ICP gear that others would taunt and tease them and create a potential unsafe environment.

Because of that experience I can understand why censorship in schools is a prevalent issue. However, that does not mean that everyone should have to wear a uniform. Really, censorship, if it must occur, should be taken on a case by case basis. Different areas would obviously have different sensitivities. In my area it just so happens to be with ICP. It’s not the band and their music that causes the sensitivity it is how the band just happened to be related to the situation.

Censorship shouldn’t be as much about parents being upset with what is being taught but about actual safety. I believe in our education system but I also believe that there is room for improvement. If a specific area does have a problem with gangs then maybe uniforms would be beneficial. To arbitrarily censor makes no sense whatsoever, but to say that censorship would cause rebellion is the same as saying as if everything being free and open would lead to rebellion. Some concession must be made be either side. In regard to appropriate attire in the school setting, it is conceivable that some “civil liberties” may be given up in order to protect the safety of students. Protecting for physical safety is entirely different than protecting against, say, literature other materials censored in schools.

culture wars clash - gay marriage

In his article, New York Times columnist Kristof used a statement by President George W. Bush, euphemistically, about “defending marriage” as a reference and basically gave a rebuttal to Bush’s statement. Both men tried to tug at the heartstrings of the reader, the average citizen. Interestingly, they both used history as an advocate for their side. Bush argues that the law is unchanging because marriage, as it is defined between one man and one woman, has been the norm for ions and who are we to up and change history? Kristof states that the law is changing and specifically mentions the not-so-long ago practice of banning interracial marriage. He says the crux of the problem, and thus the solution, lies with changing perceptions, many don’t think twice at an interracial couple while just a generation ago it would have been a grand scandal.

Neither Bush nor Kristof delineates a plan for totally approving or disapproving gay marriage. Bush’s argument is based around then-recent independent judicial decisions that basically went against the norm and the precedent and allowed gay marriage to occur, specifically in San Francisco and the whole of Massachusetts. Bush urges for the “defense” of marriage and cites President Clinton’s passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Kristof also mentions President Clinton and discredits him. Kristof purposes, since Clinton was a know adulterer what basis does that give him as a key supporter of DOMA?

Specifically in the anti-gay marriage debate if the argument is brought to a more personal level it could be more convincing. If Bush or whoever happens to be trying to “defend” marriage could give some sort of scientific proof that gay marriage would be the downfall of society they could be much better believed. It is still not entirely understood how people are gay and not straight or straight and not gay, so how can it be inferred, correctly, that the presence of gay marriage would simply corrupt society? Numbers don’t lie and if either side were able to accurately provide information that proves or disproves the effect of gay marriage that side would have a stronger debate and would be able to change opinions and legislation.

But for now, until (and if ever) the issue is settled; President Bush and the anti-gay marriage supporters have an upper hand as they control what legislation would pass. They may essentially be suppressing a group but at least for the time being, if only for being in power, they have a clear advantage.

As gays are more accepted as a group, the fight for gay marriage rages on as both sides of the issue use similar frames to prove their dominance and correctness. There is no clear cut right or wrong answer in this debate. However, to me, to outright ban gay marriage seems a dangerous move. It would essentially make an entire social group second-class citizens. Because of a behavioral difference from what has been dictated to be the “norm” scores of people would be given less status. Status, in this country, is usually taken away when someone has, say, committed a crime. For instance, felons are not allowed to vote. This country does have a history of loving someone being a crime, specifically interracial couples, but as Kristof said laws change.

An amendment entirely banning gay marriage or a law defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman could be a foul and disastrous choice. Until bigotry and hate subside, gay marriage should be seen on a state by state basis because, at least for the issue, one law would not correctly and healthily serve fifty unique states.

Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
Kristof: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03KRIS.html?ex=1393650000&en=ec2329074ea974dc&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND