This is just a recent lesson post from one of the channeling lessons I had Calia take. I thought it was pretty good though so I'm puting it here. If you're thoroughly confused, you probably have good reason. I can only recomend reading the books or doing a web search on them. Either might prove helpful, or at leas enlightening.
Novice Calia Selle
Calia shivered and felt her legs threaten to give out from under her as she released saidar. Never before had she been required to weave all five elements at the same time, and having to do so now had exhausted her, stretching her tiny ability to its limits. Light, but if she could only break whatever block prevented her from drawing more saidar! She wouldn't have to feel this way every time she channeled her weaker elements of Fire and Earth to do more than light a candle. Of course, that would also mean giving in to the marath'damane at the White Tower, and she wasn't willing to do that. She wouldn't allow herself to be kept against her will by the filthy Aes Sedai. She was a woman of the Seanchan Empire, a former sul'dam, and someday an obedient damane. Her block would be broken when she returned to her people and not before. Drawing her full power now would only connect her more firmly to the White Tower, and that couldn't be allowed. She had already spent far too long in novice whites.
"Now that you know the basics of warding, we will move onto shielding." Sloane Sedai - Or just Sloane. In my own mind I must not think of them as my equals, or worse, my betters. - announced once he had drawn the classes attention back from the theatrics of the last part of this lesson. Honestly, Calia thought she had never heard such screeching as that emitted by some of the novices. Light knew that would have never been tolerated from a damane. Worse yet, the Soldiers and Dedicated took it without a sound. What type of bloody institution were the Aes Sedai running anyway, that novices were so weak? Calia would have had her hands full with training just one of these women as a damane, it would be a difficult task for such small force of sul'dam as had made the crossing to train all those the White Tower housed.
"It's the same basic principle," the Aiel man continued, "except that this will be flat, going between another person and the Source, not surrounding yourself, and you will form it first, then slide it between the channeler and the Source instead of building it around them. Watch." With this, Sloane had officially lost had little of Calia's attention he had had. She had learned shielding in a lesson taught years ago by Teli Sedai. Not to mention the fat that the basic concept was something she had known for sixteen years, ever since she was chosen as a sul'dam. There were probably no others in this lesson who knew the shielding weave as well as she did, with the possible exception of Accepted Aranisia. That woman had also been a sul'dam once, but she had turned her back on their people and bound her fate to that of the White Tower. She wasn't the first, but with the information Calia hoped to bring back to their people, Aranisia Samin could be the last good Seanchan lost to the tempting of the Aes Sedai. Light knew that Calia wasn't going to give in; even if she was unable to escape until the day she died.
"Alright, partner up – it doesn't matter who your partner is as long as you're the same gender, and inter-tower mixing is encouraged – and practice the shields. The person being shielded should not be channeling. Accepted and Dedicated, we would like you to also practice shielding someone who is holding the One Power. Girls, be very careful because I can't Heal, and so if there's an accident we'll have to go find another man here who can Heal and is willing. Boys, just because the M'Hael can Heal doesn't mean you can be careless or horse around. Now partner up, you don't have much time!" Calia looked around for someone to partner with for this part of the lesson and cringed when it became apparent that one of only female channelers without a partner wore the blacks of a Soldier. Sure, Sloane had said the inter-tower mixing was encouraged, but Light burn Calia's soul if she had any desire to do so. Still, she could at least hope that the Soldier – a surprisingly young girl with a grim look painted on her features – was less skittish than some of the novices.
"Hello," Calia drawled as the Soldier came to a halt before her, "I suppose that you need a partner too then?" The girl nodded, pale curls of hair falling across her face as she did so. Pushing her own waves of raven hair behind her ears Calia continued in as civil a manner as she considered necessary, which was to say she treated the girl as she would an inferior. "I'm Calia, by the way."
"I don't particularly care what you're name is, novice." The Soldier said with a frown, "Let's just do this and be done with it. I'll shield you first."
Scowling, Calia nodded wordlessly. How dare a marath'damane - let alone a woman considered to be of 'equal' rank as her – presume to issue commands to her? She would see every one of these fools collared someday. If it wouldn't have gone against protocol she would have collared them herself, but seeing as she would likely be a damane it wouldn't have been allowed. Still, Calia would relish the day these Towers fell to the Ever Victorious Army. Until then she would allow the Aes Sedai to think she was giving in, Light knew that she had received, and still did receive, enough punishment for her unwillingness to conform to their standards. Right now she would watch the Soldier who stood across from her weave the shield. Still, she was mildly surprised when she felt the weave of Spirit fall over her and cut her off from access to saidar. As much as she hated to admit it, Calia was growing accustomed to the Source being with in her reach so attempting to embrace only to run headlong into and invisible wall between her and the sweetness of the Power was uncomfortable, to put it mildly.
Still scowling, Calia glared daggers at the Soldier who was still holding the weave until she finally dropped it. What had she been trying to prove by holding it so long when she already knew that Calia couldn't reach saidar? Once she saw the glowing halo of saidar disappear from around the young Soldier, Calia embraced the Source herself, and resisting smiling as what little she could draw flooded her. Light send that the girl didn't try anything foolish while Calia wove. Drawing on strands of Spirit, Calia laid out the net-like weave carefully and blunted the edges, leaving them soft and fuzzy so as not to sever the Soldier. Briefly, knowing the whole time it was something the Aes Sedai would discourage and doing it simply because she knew that one fact, Calia allowed herself to check the strength of the Soldier, realizing in an instant that the girl far surpassed her. Then she laid the completed shield over the girl, knowing that if she had been holding the Power she would have stood no chance of cutting her off. For that matter, Calia realized as she felt the gentle probing against the weave that if the Soldier had thrown her full power into it she would have shattered the pitiful thing that was her shield. Irritation at that fact tugged at Calia's mind until firmly put down. What did she care that she could barely channel enough to make it through novice lessons? She didn't, and that was that.
As Sloane and Ronan drew the group back into a loose group, Calia allowed the Power to flow out of her with reluctance. She might not like what she was, but just holding the Source was exhilarating. "Now we will move on to slicing weaves, a very useful weave whether you're in the White Tower or Black." Raising an eyebrow skeptically Calia had to wonder if Sloane had known about that lesson of Teli's. She had taught this weave as well, so Calia was able to again let her attention wander as Aes Sedai and Asha'man explained the weave. Or rather, as Sloane explained the weave; Ronan seemed to feel that was beneath her. "Back into your pairs to practice." Sloane announced once the demonstration was finished, "Accepted and Dedicated, when you pair up, we'd like you to gather in groups of four; one female pair and one male pair. Once you've sliced the weaves you can see, you will move on to those you cannot. Any questions, just put your hand up, we'll be right there."
Looking to the pale haired Soldier again Calia frowned and resisted an urge yell at the girl. She was just so full of herself, thinking she was better simply because Calia was a novice. She didn't even have the sense to fear a Seanchan, and a sul'dam at that! As the glow enveloped the Soldier, Calia allowed herself to open to the Power despite how tired she was quickly becoming. Weaves on such a large scale were rather taxing for her. Waiting silently to see what the Soldier would weave, Calia drew out strands of Spirit knowing she would need them. As she saw the shield begin to form, she wove a knife shaped blade, blunting one edge and honing the other to razor sharpness. She supposed it was easier for her because she had done this before in a lesson, so when the shield came at her she was ready. Her blade cut into to, eventually snapping the flows with a good deal more effort that she had thought would be necessary. Still, Calia smirked in satisfaction as she witnessed the flows recoil back into the Soldier. Served her right for the way she acted.
Weaving her own shield, Calia waited until she saw the Soldier had finished her blade before attempting to settle the weave over her. The Soldier's Spirit blade cut through Calia's shield like a hot knife through butter, proving just how much above her in strength this girl stood. The flows of Spirit recoiled sharply, physically forcing Calia backward to maintain her balance. The former sul'dam had to wonder – and not for the first time, though she'd never admit it – what it was like to have such strength in the Power. However, in that moment something else did happen for the first time. A seed of envy bloomed in Calia before she had a chance to crush it.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Censorship
This is a research paper I wrote for one of my classes about the effects of censorship on children and in our public schools. I thought I'd put it here, just as a sample of some non-fiction as well as some opinion. The works cited will be included at the bottom for all those interested.
Do underage citizens, in other words children, have the same rights under the law as their adult counterparts? Many believe that the answer is simple, but it is this question that lies at the core of the debate over censorship in public schools. Yet, when a nation begins to deny the rights of one of its most vulnerable groups of citizens, it serves only as a precedent to denying the rights of all citizens. Even with the best intentions, such actions can only lead to future deficiencies. Censorship of educational materials in public schools needs to be reduced to prevent infringement upon the students' rights and their diminished development.
Before one can fully understand the motivations behind censorship, a reliable and consistent definition of censorship must be established. Most commonly, the dictionary definition of censorship is "the suppression of information by government or other officials," (Clark). Although definitions may vary between different peoples and groups, the basic gist is almost always the same. This basic definition generally includes the suppression of ideas. The broadest definition of censorship is perhaps that of the law, "the denial of freedom of speech," as found in Orn's Dictionary of the Law (Hanna). However, these broad definitions of censorship are not always the best and are, in many instances, not sufficient because of their scope. The American Library Association (ALA) has its own, narrower, view which more effectively defines censorship as "the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons – individuals, groups or officials – find objectionable or dangerous," (Clark). This definition supports the view of the ALA against the practice of censorship, but many hold something very similar as a standard definition. Yet, the best definition of censorship is perhaps that given by Robert Hanna, that censorship is "the imposition of legal restraints upon the production, publication, sale, or distribution of any book, pamphlet, magazine, newspaper, photograph, or art object, in order to make it unavailable to most people." When considering censorship in schools, the best way to describe censorship is a combination of the more everyday definition given by the ALA and the more legal definition given by Hanna. Yet, defining what constitutes censorship is only part of the battle. It is also important to understand why people feel a need to ban certain works.
There are four major categories most censorship falls under: political content, religious content, sexual content, and social issues (Noble 269). The first of these categories, political content, is likely the least common of all reasons to censor materials, especially in schools. Works considered anti-government in content are banned under this category, generally to protect the state. This form of censorship originally arose in the early years of the United States independence as a way for the government to prevent rebellion with the country, but it still appears occasionally today. Most notably, this way of prohibiting access was brought back in to use for a short period after the September 11 attacks before dropping off again. This category has been on the decline in recent years; however, the next category of censorship, religious content, has been on the rise.
The religious category of censorship is used much more often as a way to prevent children from gaining access to materials that some may see as being Satanic or related to the occult. It is this reason for censoring that is used most often against popular works such as the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Predominant themes of magic in this series is what is found offensive by religion and what churches and religious groups use against it. Also censored under this category is the popular Impressions series of text books which some Christians complain promote witchcraft, pop psychology, violence, and despair (Clark). Yet, as Judge Bronson states about these claims:
"We have been cited no authority, or has our own research uncovered any, which holds that any portion of any constitution is violated simply because a novel, utilized in a public school, 'contains and makes reference to religious matters'" (Hanna).
It is clearly stated by this judge that in no way does the discussion of religion infringe upon the right of citizens to practice their own religions feely. This censorship continues to an extreme though, to the point that in one district school officials had to go through 1700 religious, abstinence only, sex education books, "with black felt-tip pens, inking out forbidden ideas. The result was texts that looked like the letters GIs send home during World War II," (Feder 83). Any materials seen as anti-religious, or as painting an unflattering picture of a certain religion, can be censored in this category; but as Feder shows, the religious category can also cross into another: the sexual content category.
Surprisingly, the sexual content reason for censoring materials is not most applied to risqué works of fiction, but instead, to textbooks essential to teaching fourth and fifth grade children about their changing bodies. The most prevalent excuse for censoring in this category is that the material in question is unsuitable for the age level where it is being used. From this, many would-be censors draw the conclusion that these formal and scientific texts are corrupting the innocent minds of the children and, therefore, some feel they should not be used (Clark). Yet, at some point children have to learn about being an adult; their parents cannot protect their innocence forever. In this category of censorship, it is often important to consider if the educational value of a material outweighs the potential moral questions that surround it (DeMitchell 48). It is also possible for fictional works to be censored under this category for nudity or frank discussions of sex, but it is not as common a reason in the school environment. This is often a very well defined category, the purpose of which is to shelter the naivety of children, but the final category is much less definite in its purpose.
The final reason to censor is what is called the social issues category. Originally, this was a term for censorship by minorities who viewed a particular piece of literature as racist or degrading. This was first shown in an outcry against Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for using terms that degraded African-Americans (Noble 270). Since that first attempt of censorship, this area has expanded to encompass works that openly deal with the multi-faceted debate over gay and lesbian rights and homosexuality. This category, while the least specific, is the most frequently used and is often defined simply as offensive material. As Michael Granberry, author of the article, "Books are Being Banned", explains:
"Material that is offensive to people seems to be the common refrain heard from officials explaining why they restricted access to books, ranging from classics by John Steinbeck, William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway to Dr. Seuss and even the Bible" (66) .
Social issues is the most fluid and changing of the four categories, but it is also the most commonly used justification by various groups of censors, including those one would least expect: teachers.
In schools, censorship often begins long before a student or parent would ever be made aware of questionable materials; it begins when teachers censor out of fear. With the growth of a recent trend of not only censoring the objectionable work, but also removing the teacher who saw no issue in presenting it, many educators have their livelihoods to think of when choosing what they will teach in their classrooms (Spindel 77). The fear of being fired from their jobs drives many educators, who question a work themselves, to choose alternative activities that objectors will consider safer for the students. Censorship that occurs in this manner is known as self-censorship and is a tragic result of an increasingly protective society. An educator’s fear is likely the most common form of censorship that no one but the teacher will ever know about (Napier). Self-censorship is easily the most damaging form of suppression employed, yet materials censored this way, will never gain the attention of a work one attempts to censor in the public eye.
The most publicly recognized censors are those fundamentalist groups that support the religious and political right. These are the censors that back community members who object to educational materials, usually for moral and religious reasons, showing them how to organize and have the offensive material removed from schools. Many of these groups claim to have no involvement in censorship, but in 1990 protestors to the Impressions series of textbooks admited to accepting aid from the Christian Educators Association (Napier).Other such groups include the influential Christian Coalition and Family Friendly Libraries. These groups, especially Family Friendly Libraries (FFL), are against the American Library Association, a defender of the right of the people to have access to all worthwhile materials. In fact, FFL says the ALA is "pro-homosexuality, anti-family, and holds an all too radical position on most issues" (Karim 63). This religious right group also sees the general tolerance of librarians for all material as "masking a leftist political agenda" (Karim 63). Argument against a too secular or leftist agenda is often a defense of censorship used by religious conservative groups. Moral issues are also the grounds of censorship used by conservatives who "more often than not object to an author's use of 'four-letter-words'" (Feder 84). However, it has long been considered that the value of the classics read in a classroom outweighs any issues over the use of profanities, even though it is also believed parents have a right to request their child not be exposed to such material. However, it is thought by many against the attacks of the right that they "believe that children should be told what to think rather than how to think," an idea that is highly contradictory to the current educational system (Spindel 76). Despite the fact that censorship by religious and political conservatives is that which gets the spotlight, the political left is just as bad when it comes to censoring behind the scenes.
Generally, the liberal political left is seen to be firmly against censorship; the truth is that the left is simply quieter about censoring when it suits their needs. This is because the political liberals are "more likely to want to censor the content rather than the specific language of a book" (Feder 84). Censorship in this form is often claimed to be political correctness and is, therefore, often found to be acceptable as a protection of people of a specific race or lifestyle. As Feder explains, "Censorship from the illiberal left takes place quietly and efficiently behind the scenes, while censorship from the religious right becomes a hot topic for ridicule by the media" (86). This behind the scenes censorship is disguised as protection and leveled by respected groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It is organizations such as the NAACP that have spearheaded the campaign which defined what can be discussed in books pertaining to minority groups. Restrictions that resulted include that material:
"Not undermine the dignity and status of any group of people based on class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, linguistic characteristics, or ability; and that materials be free of unnecessary emphasis on violence" (Sipe 43).
Despite the large role politics seems to play in the censorship battle, the parents of students are an even more important group of censors when it comes to education.
Only one group of people truly has any right to decide what a child may or may not be exposed to, and that is the child's parents. As the legal guardians of their own children under the age of eighteen, it is within the rights of the parents to ask that their own child not be allowed access to certain materials. However, "Requests to remove or restrict materials for all students…go beyond parental involvement to an infringement on other parents' rights" (Spindel 75). It is not wrong for parents to want to protect the minds of their own children if they see it to be necessary. The real problem is that many can go too far, even with their own children, because "There's a big difference between wanting to screen what your kids are watching…and wanting to keep them in a hermetically sealed bubble that admits nothing of the outside world" (Taylor). As much as children will occasionally need to be protected from an idea that might be too grown-up for them at the moment, parents also need to understand there is a time for their children to learn most things. Once these children are adults, it will be too late, as they are entering a very new and different world. These children have a right to learn and are entitled to the same First Amendment rights. "Parents' frustration isn't a good enough reason to limit the First Amendment" (Taylor). This form of censorship, while often beginning as a good way for parents to teach children values, is often taken too far. Those who oppose censorship; oppose this, as well as political organizations censoring the materials that children have access to in school.
Just as there are organizations that feel that censorship is necessary for the development of a moral society, there are also those who stand against them, and find censorship to be in opposition to citizens' rights. One such organization is the American Library Association. In its own Library Bill of Rights the ALA states, "Books and other library materials should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves" (Granberry 68). In connection to this, the ALA also asserts, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment" (Granberry 68). The ALA has even, as part of the quest to bring an end to the censorship of ideas, created an event known as Banned Books Week. This protest of censorship, specifically book banning, occurs in late September or early October and challenges everyone to read a banned book to make their own decisions about it. Groups, such as the ALA, are raising awareness about censorship and attempting to put an end to it legally.
A single, solid legal argument against censorship is found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are specifically granted. Speaking, writing, and public expression all fall under the protection of the First Amendment, yet the right to have access to these acknowledged forms of speech is conspicuously missing. This right to access information is only protected by a vague notion of "intellectual freedom", which is not acknowledged everywhere and does not seem to apply to children (Karim 61). In regards to reading, Supreme Court Justice Brennan notes, “Nothing in the body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says anything in terms about a freedom to read… Yet we know that such liberties are there just as surely as if it were expressly written into the First Amendment” (Hanna). This lack of explicit mention in the Constitution, regarding the right to have access to information, leaves much access can be restricted open to a variety of interpretations; especially when it comes to the right of a student to access information in school. The question of whether or not students give up their rights upon going to school is pivotal to the debate of censorship in schools. Supreme Court Justices first addressed this question in the courts decision of the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Their decision stated that:
"School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect; just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State" (DeMitchell 47).
With this firm stand, that underage students are persons under the law with the same rights as any other citizen, it becomes apparent that censoring educational materials in schools only harms the student.
Many times, those who censor materials in schools feel it is their duty to do so in protection of the children. However, children who have been sheltered all through their developing years cannot possibly be prepared for the world they will enter as adults. As Charles Taylor, author of an article about the ineffectiveness of censorship as a way to protect children, puts it; these children cannot be expected to be ready for the real world "especially when at age 18 – poof! – they magically become 'adults'". Taylor goes on to say that restricting children's access to certain materials only serves as a way to stunt their emotional and intellectual growth. This hurts not only these children, but also the society they will eventually become an important part of. Persis Karim explains the final impact of this censorship in the article, "Books Are Often Banned" where it is stated that "If you make children afraid of the consequences of reading and asking questions, you make them so leery of a place like a library, that they no longer want to be there" (Karim 64). Yet, these problems in child development are only half of the damage done by censorship; the other half is provided in the decreased quality of education that censorship creates.
The ability of a student to learn is also harmed when materials are censored. Schools' first goal should be the proper education of young people and satisfying all requirements necessary to give children the best learning environment possible. Along with this, education should challenge students intellectually and teach them to think critically; as well as to use their imaginations and better judgment. Healthy respect for the
opinions of others should also be fostered by education, but censorship directly contradicts this by allowing the rejection of differing opinions or ideas. When censorship occurs everyone loses because students learn only one thing, as author Barbara Spindel notes, "The one lesson they do learn – the unfortunate lesson – is that censorship is an appropriate response to controversial ideas" (80). In the end, this deficiency, this intolerance created by the suppression of ideas, harms the very society that was supposedly being protected.
Censorship in public schools needs to be reduced to continue to protect the rights of students, as well as, their ability to develop educationally and socially. Yet, an overwhelming number of those adults, who are supposed to protect these rights for children who cannot, seem to feel a need to isolate minors from the influences of the world. If this trend continues, the eventual harm to society as a whole will become irreversible. The question remains, do children have the same rights as adults? Simply put, the answer is yes. More importantly, those rights need to be protected, especially in public schools.
Clark, Charles S. "School Censorship." The CQ Researcher Online. 1993. CQ Press. Brookfield Central High School Library. 29 November 2004 http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre19930219001.
This Title Has Been Censored:
The Effects of Censorship in Public Schools
The Effects of Censorship in Public Schools
Do underage citizens, in other words children, have the same rights under the law as their adult counterparts? Many believe that the answer is simple, but it is this question that lies at the core of the debate over censorship in public schools. Yet, when a nation begins to deny the rights of one of its most vulnerable groups of citizens, it serves only as a precedent to denying the rights of all citizens. Even with the best intentions, such actions can only lead to future deficiencies. Censorship of educational materials in public schools needs to be reduced to prevent infringement upon the students' rights and their diminished development.
Before one can fully understand the motivations behind censorship, a reliable and consistent definition of censorship must be established. Most commonly, the dictionary definition of censorship is "the suppression of information by government or other officials," (Clark). Although definitions may vary between different peoples and groups, the basic gist is almost always the same. This basic definition generally includes the suppression of ideas. The broadest definition of censorship is perhaps that of the law, "the denial of freedom of speech," as found in Orn's Dictionary of the Law (Hanna). However, these broad definitions of censorship are not always the best and are, in many instances, not sufficient because of their scope. The American Library Association (ALA) has its own, narrower, view which more effectively defines censorship as "the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons – individuals, groups or officials – find objectionable or dangerous," (Clark). This definition supports the view of the ALA against the practice of censorship, but many hold something very similar as a standard definition. Yet, the best definition of censorship is perhaps that given by Robert Hanna, that censorship is "the imposition of legal restraints upon the production, publication, sale, or distribution of any book, pamphlet, magazine, newspaper, photograph, or art object, in order to make it unavailable to most people." When considering censorship in schools, the best way to describe censorship is a combination of the more everyday definition given by the ALA and the more legal definition given by Hanna. Yet, defining what constitutes censorship is only part of the battle. It is also important to understand why people feel a need to ban certain works.
There are four major categories most censorship falls under: political content, religious content, sexual content, and social issues (Noble 269). The first of these categories, political content, is likely the least common of all reasons to censor materials, especially in schools. Works considered anti-government in content are banned under this category, generally to protect the state. This form of censorship originally arose in the early years of the United States independence as a way for the government to prevent rebellion with the country, but it still appears occasionally today. Most notably, this way of prohibiting access was brought back in to use for a short period after the September 11 attacks before dropping off again. This category has been on the decline in recent years; however, the next category of censorship, religious content, has been on the rise.
The religious category of censorship is used much more often as a way to prevent children from gaining access to materials that some may see as being Satanic or related to the occult. It is this reason for censoring that is used most often against popular works such as the Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling. Predominant themes of magic in this series is what is found offensive by religion and what churches and religious groups use against it. Also censored under this category is the popular Impressions series of text books which some Christians complain promote witchcraft, pop psychology, violence, and despair (Clark). Yet, as Judge Bronson states about these claims:
"We have been cited no authority, or has our own research uncovered any, which holds that any portion of any constitution is violated simply because a novel, utilized in a public school, 'contains and makes reference to religious matters'" (Hanna).
It is clearly stated by this judge that in no way does the discussion of religion infringe upon the right of citizens to practice their own religions feely. This censorship continues to an extreme though, to the point that in one district school officials had to go through 1700 religious, abstinence only, sex education books, "with black felt-tip pens, inking out forbidden ideas. The result was texts that looked like the letters GIs send home during World War II," (Feder 83). Any materials seen as anti-religious, or as painting an unflattering picture of a certain religion, can be censored in this category; but as Feder shows, the religious category can also cross into another: the sexual content category.
Surprisingly, the sexual content reason for censoring materials is not most applied to risqué works of fiction, but instead, to textbooks essential to teaching fourth and fifth grade children about their changing bodies. The most prevalent excuse for censoring in this category is that the material in question is unsuitable for the age level where it is being used. From this, many would-be censors draw the conclusion that these formal and scientific texts are corrupting the innocent minds of the children and, therefore, some feel they should not be used (Clark). Yet, at some point children have to learn about being an adult; their parents cannot protect their innocence forever. In this category of censorship, it is often important to consider if the educational value of a material outweighs the potential moral questions that surround it (DeMitchell 48). It is also possible for fictional works to be censored under this category for nudity or frank discussions of sex, but it is not as common a reason in the school environment. This is often a very well defined category, the purpose of which is to shelter the naivety of children, but the final category is much less definite in its purpose.
The final reason to censor is what is called the social issues category. Originally, this was a term for censorship by minorities who viewed a particular piece of literature as racist or degrading. This was first shown in an outcry against Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for using terms that degraded African-Americans (Noble 270). Since that first attempt of censorship, this area has expanded to encompass works that openly deal with the multi-faceted debate over gay and lesbian rights and homosexuality. This category, while the least specific, is the most frequently used and is often defined simply as offensive material. As Michael Granberry, author of the article, "Books are Being Banned", explains:
"Material that is offensive to people seems to be the common refrain heard from officials explaining why they restricted access to books, ranging from classics by John Steinbeck, William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway to Dr. Seuss and even the Bible" (66) .
Social issues is the most fluid and changing of the four categories, but it is also the most commonly used justification by various groups of censors, including those one would least expect: teachers.
In schools, censorship often begins long before a student or parent would ever be made aware of questionable materials; it begins when teachers censor out of fear. With the growth of a recent trend of not only censoring the objectionable work, but also removing the teacher who saw no issue in presenting it, many educators have their livelihoods to think of when choosing what they will teach in their classrooms (Spindel 77). The fear of being fired from their jobs drives many educators, who question a work themselves, to choose alternative activities that objectors will consider safer for the students. Censorship that occurs in this manner is known as self-censorship and is a tragic result of an increasingly protective society. An educator’s fear is likely the most common form of censorship that no one but the teacher will ever know about (Napier). Self-censorship is easily the most damaging form of suppression employed, yet materials censored this way, will never gain the attention of a work one attempts to censor in the public eye.
The most publicly recognized censors are those fundamentalist groups that support the religious and political right. These are the censors that back community members who object to educational materials, usually for moral and religious reasons, showing them how to organize and have the offensive material removed from schools. Many of these groups claim to have no involvement in censorship, but in 1990 protestors to the Impressions series of textbooks admited to accepting aid from the Christian Educators Association (Napier).Other such groups include the influential Christian Coalition and Family Friendly Libraries. These groups, especially Family Friendly Libraries (FFL), are against the American Library Association, a defender of the right of the people to have access to all worthwhile materials. In fact, FFL says the ALA is "pro-homosexuality, anti-family, and holds an all too radical position on most issues" (Karim 63). This religious right group also sees the general tolerance of librarians for all material as "masking a leftist political agenda" (Karim 63). Argument against a too secular or leftist agenda is often a defense of censorship used by religious conservative groups. Moral issues are also the grounds of censorship used by conservatives who "more often than not object to an author's use of 'four-letter-words'" (Feder 84). However, it has long been considered that the value of the classics read in a classroom outweighs any issues over the use of profanities, even though it is also believed parents have a right to request their child not be exposed to such material. However, it is thought by many against the attacks of the right that they "believe that children should be told what to think rather than how to think," an idea that is highly contradictory to the current educational system (Spindel 76). Despite the fact that censorship by religious and political conservatives is that which gets the spotlight, the political left is just as bad when it comes to censoring behind the scenes.
Generally, the liberal political left is seen to be firmly against censorship; the truth is that the left is simply quieter about censoring when it suits their needs. This is because the political liberals are "more likely to want to censor the content rather than the specific language of a book" (Feder 84). Censorship in this form is often claimed to be political correctness and is, therefore, often found to be acceptable as a protection of people of a specific race or lifestyle. As Feder explains, "Censorship from the illiberal left takes place quietly and efficiently behind the scenes, while censorship from the religious right becomes a hot topic for ridicule by the media" (86). This behind the scenes censorship is disguised as protection and leveled by respected groups such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). It is organizations such as the NAACP that have spearheaded the campaign which defined what can be discussed in books pertaining to minority groups. Restrictions that resulted include that material:
"Not undermine the dignity and status of any group of people based on class, race, ethnicity, religion, age, sex, linguistic characteristics, or ability; and that materials be free of unnecessary emphasis on violence" (Sipe 43).
Despite the large role politics seems to play in the censorship battle, the parents of students are an even more important group of censors when it comes to education.
Only one group of people truly has any right to decide what a child may or may not be exposed to, and that is the child's parents. As the legal guardians of their own children under the age of eighteen, it is within the rights of the parents to ask that their own child not be allowed access to certain materials. However, "Requests to remove or restrict materials for all students…go beyond parental involvement to an infringement on other parents' rights" (Spindel 75). It is not wrong for parents to want to protect the minds of their own children if they see it to be necessary. The real problem is that many can go too far, even with their own children, because "There's a big difference between wanting to screen what your kids are watching…and wanting to keep them in a hermetically sealed bubble that admits nothing of the outside world" (Taylor). As much as children will occasionally need to be protected from an idea that might be too grown-up for them at the moment, parents also need to understand there is a time for their children to learn most things. Once these children are adults, it will be too late, as they are entering a very new and different world. These children have a right to learn and are entitled to the same First Amendment rights. "Parents' frustration isn't a good enough reason to limit the First Amendment" (Taylor). This form of censorship, while often beginning as a good way for parents to teach children values, is often taken too far. Those who oppose censorship; oppose this, as well as political organizations censoring the materials that children have access to in school.
Just as there are organizations that feel that censorship is necessary for the development of a moral society, there are also those who stand against them, and find censorship to be in opposition to citizens' rights. One such organization is the American Library Association. In its own Library Bill of Rights the ALA states, "Books and other library materials should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves" (Granberry 68). In connection to this, the ALA also asserts, "Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment" (Granberry 68). The ALA has even, as part of the quest to bring an end to the censorship of ideas, created an event known as Banned Books Week. This protest of censorship, specifically book banning, occurs in late September or early October and challenges everyone to read a banned book to make their own decisions about it. Groups, such as the ALA, are raising awareness about censorship and attempting to put an end to it legally.
A single, solid legal argument against censorship is found in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are specifically granted. Speaking, writing, and public expression all fall under the protection of the First Amendment, yet the right to have access to these acknowledged forms of speech is conspicuously missing. This right to access information is only protected by a vague notion of "intellectual freedom", which is not acknowledged everywhere and does not seem to apply to children (Karim 61). In regards to reading, Supreme Court Justice Brennan notes, “Nothing in the body of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights says anything in terms about a freedom to read… Yet we know that such liberties are there just as surely as if it were expressly written into the First Amendment” (Hanna). This lack of explicit mention in the Constitution, regarding the right to have access to information, leaves much access can be restricted open to a variety of interpretations; especially when it comes to the right of a student to access information in school. The question of whether or not students give up their rights upon going to school is pivotal to the debate of censorship in schools. Supreme Court Justices first addressed this question in the courts decision of the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Their decision stated that:
"School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are 'persons' under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect; just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State" (DeMitchell 47).
With this firm stand, that underage students are persons under the law with the same rights as any other citizen, it becomes apparent that censoring educational materials in schools only harms the student.
Many times, those who censor materials in schools feel it is their duty to do so in protection of the children. However, children who have been sheltered all through their developing years cannot possibly be prepared for the world they will enter as adults. As Charles Taylor, author of an article about the ineffectiveness of censorship as a way to protect children, puts it; these children cannot be expected to be ready for the real world "especially when at age 18 – poof! – they magically become 'adults'". Taylor goes on to say that restricting children's access to certain materials only serves as a way to stunt their emotional and intellectual growth. This hurts not only these children, but also the society they will eventually become an important part of. Persis Karim explains the final impact of this censorship in the article, "Books Are Often Banned" where it is stated that "If you make children afraid of the consequences of reading and asking questions, you make them so leery of a place like a library, that they no longer want to be there" (Karim 64). Yet, these problems in child development are only half of the damage done by censorship; the other half is provided in the decreased quality of education that censorship creates.
The ability of a student to learn is also harmed when materials are censored. Schools' first goal should be the proper education of young people and satisfying all requirements necessary to give children the best learning environment possible. Along with this, education should challenge students intellectually and teach them to think critically; as well as to use their imaginations and better judgment. Healthy respect for the
opinions of others should also be fostered by education, but censorship directly contradicts this by allowing the rejection of differing opinions or ideas. When censorship occurs everyone loses because students learn only one thing, as author Barbara Spindel notes, "The one lesson they do learn – the unfortunate lesson – is that censorship is an appropriate response to controversial ideas" (80). In the end, this deficiency, this intolerance created by the suppression of ideas, harms the very society that was supposedly being protected.
Censorship in public schools needs to be reduced to continue to protect the rights of students, as well as, their ability to develop educationally and socially. Yet, an overwhelming number of those adults, who are supposed to protect these rights for children who cannot, seem to feel a need to isolate minors from the influences of the world. If this trend continues, the eventual harm to society as a whole will become irreversible. The question remains, do children have the same rights as adults? Simply put, the answer is yes. More importantly, those rights need to be protected, especially in public schools.
Works Cited
Clark, Charles S. "School Censorship." The CQ Researcher Online. 1993. CQ Press. Brookfield Central High School Library. 29 November 2004 http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre19930219001.
DeMitchell, Terri A. and Todd A. DeMitchell. "Censorship and the Public School Library: A Bi-Costal View." Journal of Research for School Executives Fall 1991: 46-52.
Feder, Dan and David L. Smith. "The Left is Censoring Educational Materials." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. 81-86.
Granberry, Michael. "Books are Being Banned." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. 64-69.
Hanna, Robert C. "Censorship of Written Curricular Materials in Public Schools: An Historical Investigation of Legal Parameters." 24 Oct. 1993. EBSCOHost. Brookfield Central High School Library. 2 Nov. 2005.
Karim, Persis M. "Books Are Often Banned." Censorship: Current Controversies. Ed. Laura K. Egenderf. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2001. 61-65.
Napier, Minta. "Teachers Making Decisions When We Know the Censors Are Watching." Nov. 1992. EBSCOHost. Brookfield Central High School Library. 2 Nov. 2005.
Noble, William. Bookbanning in America. Middlebury: Paul S. Eriksson, 1990.
Sipe, Rebecca Bowers. "Don't Confront Censors, Prepare for Them." Education Digest Feb. 1999: 42-46.
Spindel, Barbara and Deanna Duby. "The Right is Censoring Educational Materials." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. Byron L. Stay. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. 74-80.
Taylor, Charles. "Censorship Is Not an Effective Way to Protect Children." Opposing Viewpoints Research Center. 11 June, 2001, Thomson Gale. 2 Nov. 2005 http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC.
I know it was long, but I hope all of you who stuck in to the end got something out of it, good or bad. That's all for today!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)