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.