Should Parents Censor Textbooks for Children in Schools - Research Paper Example

Should parents and other interested citizens censor textbooks and other literature for children in schools? Introduction: The concept of censorship in any form is not in accordance with the First amendment to the constitution of the country. So every citizens and legalized resident can make use of the above mentioned freedoms according to law in the United States. But the question is to the extent to which this freedom can be exercised. In this context, this paper argues the extent of freedom with regard to textbooks and other literature that is exposed to children in American schools. Thesis statement: Parents and other interested citizens have the moral (if not legal) authority to bring about censorship of literature in textbooks and other literature aimed at children in the United States. In the process, it will conduct a review of literature that looks at the various viewpoints regarding this area. Literature review: The American Library Association provides information about the first amendment along with comments and opinions. The site first gives the specific text of the first amendment which is as follows – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” (First Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution, 2010). The above statement indicates a level of relative freedom for the citizens of the country with importance given to freedom of expression which can include literature and textbooks intended for schoolchildren. The above article further highlights the observation of the 1791 ruling of the Supreme Court which states that censorship of a society is a sign of weakness and can be seen as autocratic or authoritarian. What is to be mentioned here about the site is that it does not provide any clarifications or any other opinions about these observations and statutes. But it does provide links to other sites like the Cornell Law University and other government sites that could provide further light on the topic. So, it can be seen as an introduction to the First Amendment with good links to other literature on the topic. These issues and opinions will now be reviewed with other available literature. The problem or the confusion with regard to freedom or expression and censorship is that the law does not specifically state or define the limits of these two topics. Hence the concept of censorship has to be viewed from other angles including philosophical and social views and individual court decisions. It can be said that “Probably no other provision of the Constitution has given rise to so many different views with respect to its underlying philosophical foundations, and hence proper interpretive framework, as has the guarantee of freedom of expression--the free speech and free press clauses” (Freedom of expression: the philosophical basis, 2010). But the article goes on to provide several (philosophical and legal) viewpoints on the area which will be discussed here. Some view the concept as too complex to provide a clear cut definition or limits to freedom and censorship. Others say that since it is a constitutional amendment, the rights are limited to political views alone. Taking this into consideration, the concept of censorship can be seen as a right with regard to textbooks and other children’s literature since it is outside the ambit of political thought. One extreme view is that freedom of speech should even include mistakes or erroneous statements. “Protecting speech, even speech in error, is necessary to the eventual ascertainment of the truth, through conflict of ideas in the marketplace” (Loukaidēs, 1994, 8). The author had referred to the ideas of Milton and Mill in stating the above observation. But he adds that courts have the right to curtail any form of freedom that prevents right to information. But here again, there is no indication that censorship can be imposed by parents or other interested parties. It is to be mentioned here that the author has done a lot of research (peer review) and hence the opinions provided are based on extensive review of literature. The above views generally support freedom of speech and condone censoring of any form that curtails this right. The only thing that can be supportive of censorship is the view that freedom of expression is limited to politics (mentioned above). Further review of literature in deemed necessary in order to arrive at a conclusion. A review of the book ‘Banned in the USA: a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries’ provides some interesting examples of book censorship by parents, teachers and school authorities in the United States. The authors go to the extent of naming the Kanawha County (West Virginia) incident in 1973 as the ‘mother of all school censorship battles’. The brief facts of the case are given below. It also appears from the facts of the incident that this censorship exercise was based on prejudice rather than on the welfare of the student community. The West Virginia Education Board appointed a committee to select a series of textbooks and other literature that should portray the real character, history and nature of the community. One of the panelists in the committee raised a protest that the books were biased, filthy and favored the black population of the community. She managed to get the support of other influential members of the committee and the local society including the parent teacher association and created support against the selection of the books. But a multi-religious coalition opposed the move by issuing the following statement – “Any treatment, especially in schools, of questions like war and peace, racism – black and white - religion and patriotism, is bound to raise disagreements and stir emotional response. We know of no way to stimulate the growth of our youth if we insulate them from the real issues. We feel this program will help our students to think intelligently about their lives and society” (Foerstel, 2002, 2). The view as given by the multi-religious coalition is worth noting here. What they want is textbooks and literature that portray an unbiased view of actual recording of history and facts. Any attempt to protect children from these issues will only bring about lack of understanding of the real facts of life. It can be seen that the above statement is in accordance with the fundamental principles of the US Constitution (the First Amendment). Any bias towards religion, caste, or color should not be included in school literature. But care should be taken to see that only true facts be presented. Parents and school authorities should take this matter into consideration and should attempt to create an atmosphere of understanding and cooperation rather than one of hostility and mistrust. The problem with the section of this book is that it does not look into other issues which concern parents and interested parties. Reichman apparently adds to the confusion regarding the above issues with regard to what is taught in schools. The author argues that while standard knowledge, technical skills, a world view etc are being taught in schools, there are other issues of concern regarding the content and the not within the preview of teachers and school authorities. “For some, the problem is sex education: there is too much of it or, perhaps, not enough – from prayer in school to the teaching of evolution or even, as increasing number of allege, of witchcraft and the occult” (Reichman, 2001, 1). The author goes on to argue that the question of censorship is still not decided. According to him, even the issue of what needs to be censured, if it is possible, is not clear. His stand on the matter is that any matter that is provided or available to schoolchildren that is ‘morally or otherwise’ objectionable should be subject to scrutiny and censure. Reichman adds that throughout the history of the US education system stakeholders including parents, citizen groups, and school administration have taken a stand on what should be taught in schools. It can now be argued that any matter that is morally or otherwise objectionable can be taken up by parents and other interested parties as an issue for censorship. The question now that arises is to decide the matter of ‘morally and otherwise’ objectionable material. The second matter that needs to be addressed is the genuineness of the objection as can be seen from the Kanawha County case mentioned above. A search for a clear definition of the term ‘morally and otherwise’ did not yield any results (for explaining the term). So, a definition of morality alone is given here as an alternative. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines the term as “descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons” (The definition of morality, 2008). This can be considered as a good source since it is published by a well known university. The definition suggests that anything that is offensive to the society, a group, religion, or individual can be termed as immoral. It also states that morality is also a code of conduct developed over the years through a process of rational thought. While it does not specify any area or topic, the definition provides an idea to the reader about morality. This again indicates the difficulty in defining what is offensive or not with regard to censorship. Other definition by various authors also is illustrative of the above observation. For example, “historically, there has been a gradual, though continuous progress towards codes of conduct which makes for the preservation of life and for happiness” (Dowsett, 2007, 25). It can be seen that the author is unable to specify any particular act as being moral or immoral. Dowsett writes that the word ‘moral’ was derived from the original Latin term ‘mores’, which literally means customs. In other words, morality is a code of conduct developed (over the years) by a particular society or country which specifies that certain acts and speech is not acceptable. It should not be offensive to a particular group, religion, or individual. It should also not deviate from the truth or in other words, intended to spread untruth. Author David Mills reviews certain books termed as ‘young adult literature’. His books are based on the Christian religion and he has also worked as editor for various magazines. The books reviewed were fiction written for children that depicted (apparently) real life problems faced by young individuals. He regrets that these books do sell well, but has the effect of corrupting or misleading impressionable minds of children. “They were mostly “problem books,” the problems usually being the typical teenage struggles with boyfriends or girlfriends or the lack thereof, cruel teachers, clueless parents, vicious peers, bad skin, bad hair, fat thighs, insecurity, and fear, though they are sometimes serious problems like sexual abuse and drug addiction” (Mills 2010). Mills takes a stand that any literature (or textbook) that can corrupt or mislead children should not be provided as reading material. This stand is different from what has been mentioned earlier in this paper. In other words, truth and morality alone does not matter, it is the capacity of the literature that should be taken into account. What can be assumed here is that children who do not have proper guidance from parents, family members, and teachers are vulnerable to such publications (and textbooks). Petress, in his journal article provides definitive views on the idea of censorship in schools. “It is argued here that censorship is only valid, ethical, and required when it appears to be the only way to avoid or to mitigate provable physical, social, emotional, or intellectual harmful outcomes for students, teachers, or the school itself” (Petress, 2005, 248). In other words, anything that is not moral or is harmful to children is eligible for censorship. But the author goes one step further by stating that too much caution on the part of parents and other interested parties may have some detrimental effects. Children are generally inquisitive and curious by nature. If they find that certain areas are banned, they may find other ways or sources to find them out. An interesting case study with regard to censorship would be the banning of Mark Twain’s classic, ‘The adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ by many schools in the country. The argument is that there are a lot of derogatory words in the text. For example, Twain has extensively used the word ‘nigger’ in the book. White children in a multiracial school would often snicker and stare at their colored classmates who in turn becomes embarrassed and uncomfortable (Thomas, 2008, 23). It is true that the author has a point regarding the use of derogatory words. The author further provides the opinion of a white child. She states that while there are racist words in the book, Twain’s intention was actually to ridicule the white mentality of the time. He used the word nigger just because it was a common usage during slavery. But the legal standpoint on this issue was delivered in a Supreme Court judgment of the case School Board v Pico. The learned court observed that school authorities and other interested parties have full right to control the curriculum, but does not have the right to curtail the ‘right of freedom’ of students with regard to library books (Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 1982).. Conclusion: It can be seen from the review of literature that the question of censorship in general and schools in particular is a contentious issue. Some argue (like Milton) that there should be a total ban on any form of censorship. The First Amendment is also seen supportive of the fact. Others argue that morality (and other objectionable material) should form the criteria for censoring. Still others argue that only untrue and harmful material should be banned. One author cautions that too much of restriction will only encourage the curious mind to find it out from other (potentially harmful) sources. US law respects censorship in curriculum but not on any other reading material. The one common thread observed is that censorship can be allowed. In conclusion, this paper takes the following stand. Censorship can be allowed under certain conditions. It should be based on morality, truth, and respecting the sentiments and feelings of the society (which includes caste, religion, color and the individual). It is up to the parents and other interested parties to see that children are made to understand the facts of life and then imbibe values necessary to make them good and responsible citizens of the community and country. Censorship is a necessity with regard to what a society provides as reading material to school children. The legal aspect of providing unrestricted reading material in school libraries remains a subject of contention. References Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982). Boston College, retrieved 30 September 2010 from, http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html Dowsett, C.F. (2007). Problems of conduct, The Echo Library. First Amendment to the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution (2010). American Library Association, retrieved 29 September 2010, http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/firstamendment/firstamendment.cfm Foerstel, H.N. (2002). Banned in the USA: a reference guide to book censorship in schools and public libraries, Information Age Publishing. Freedom of expression: the philosophical basis (2010). FindLaw.com, retrieved 30 September 2010 from, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment01/07.html#1 Loukaidēs, L.G. (1994). Essays on the developing law of human rights, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers Mills, D. (2010). Bad books for kids, Touchstone, retrieved 30 September 2010 from, http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=22-06-022-f Petress, K (2005). The role of censorship in school, Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(3), 248 – 252. Reichman, H. (2001). Censorship and selection: issues and awards for school, American Library Association. The definition of morality. (2008). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, retrieved 30 September 2010, from, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ Thomas, R.M. (2008). What schools ban and why, Greenwood Publishing Group. Read More