OPINIONS
THE COST OF CENSORSHIP Examining the detrimental effects of the absence of literature
W
opinions editor | social media manager
hen used in the context of pedagogy, the word ‘censorship’ often conjures up visions of book-fueled bonfires: mountains of novels, textbooks and newspapers enveloped in ritualistic flames as crowds gather to watch. From the demolition of Aztec codices by King Itzcoatl in the 1430s to the Nazi Book Burnings of 1933, the practice dates back to the great civilizations of antiquity and prior. This incandescent association with censorship, while outdated, still holds weight, even as book banning has evolved throughout the centuries: There is no place for censorship in education. It will only lead to a lack of proper development and self-expression during a pivotal time for youth.
12 | DESIGNED BY NATALIE CHEN
Implications in Education
The primary justifications for book banning center around explicit content deemed inappropriate for younger audiences. Although parental protection is reasonable, removing books from curriculums only prevents students from properly understanding complex subjects in literature. This argument rests on two premises: the impossibility of banning books and that attempting to “protect” children only deprives them
of professional instruction. Due to the infinite nature of the internet, book banning today holds purely symbolic meaning. Rather than a literal attempt to destroy writing, it serves as an outspoken opposition to the teachings of themes present in writing. In truth, challenging books only increases perusal, seen in the surge of popularity nationwide following the removal of Art Spiegelman’s Holocaust memoir, Maus, from McMinn County’s district curriculum. If it is insurmountable to censor a book, the notion of limiting a child’s mind should be entirely out of the
“
DEPRIVING STUDENTS OF LITERATURE ONLY HINDERS THEM FROM KNOWLEDGE, NOT WRITING ITSELF.
“
NATALIE CHEN | TANVEE SAI
question. Banning books does not remove them from the hands of students—it displaces them from classroom environments and strips students of professional guidance by educators. When dealing with complex topics, students are left vulnerable to misconceptions on societal issues such as racism and inequality. In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger’s unorthodox interpretation of adolescent innocence perfectly captures the moral dilemma present in parental jurisdiction. Should
the pristine naivety of youth remain unshattered, even at the expense of freedom? The answer is clear in Salinger’s writing: Towards the novel’s end, after attempting to protect his younger sister from the horrors of reality, Holden Caulfield, the protagonist, realizes that she will inevitably be submerged into the harshness of adulthood and that his interventions might only traumatize her more, after living under excess protection bordering on falsity. With the established vanity of banning books comes the condemnation of the action itself. In all human beings are natural rights, defined in discourse by John Locke as the “law of nature” and in writing by the First Amendment. If perfect protection is inevitable, there is no excuse as to why literature should be redacted. To do so would simultaneously be fruitless and a violation of civil liberties.
PHOTO | STEVEN ERRICO
