Dear Ms. Berner, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Potter Stewart is quoted with saying, "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself" and I strongly believe in this. For centuries, religious, political and social leaders have taken advantage of their power and tried to control what books people read, what music they listen to and many other activities people find enjoyment in. It has also become common for parents to ask the school to remove certain books from classroom and school libraries, believing they know what is best for every student in the school. I believe that books should not be banned as students should be trusted with what they choose to read and teachers should be respected enough to be trusted with instruction.
Restricting what children can read can limit their views on the world. Sherman Alexie explains in his article, "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood," how reading books about controversial topics won't damage kids. The article states that how, "I have yet to receive a letter from a child somehow debilitated by the domestic violence, drug abuse, racism, poverty, sexuality, and murder contained in my book." Overprotective parents need to realize that when limiting their children's view on the world, they are causing the kid to be naive and not know the real dangers of the world. By reading books with dark themes, teens learn more about the real world and not the perfect world that they are told exist. Also, by reading about darker themes, teens will understand them more and be able to help those in need, as explained in the article, "Reading literary fiction improves empathy, study finds," by Liz Bury. The article states that, "reading literary fiction enhances the ability to detect and understand other people's emotions, a crucial skill in navigating complex social relationships." By reading stories of situations, we as readers can learn how to handle or help someone else manage similar circumstances. If someone reads a story of someone who cuts their arms, and then find out a friend self-injures, they will be better prepared to help them. Not only does banning books limit someones view on the world, it can also prevent them from important social skills.
Another reason why banning books is unreasonable is that when banning books, a select group of parents, teachers or social leaders are deciding not just for their children but for all of the children that use a specific library while there are parents who encourage their kids to delve into darker subjects. In the article,"Man from ministry bans Potter," Tania deLuzuriaga writes about the pastor of a catholic school who banned the immensely popular Harry Potter series from the school library. The article states that "Rev. Ron Barker, removed the books, declaring that the themes of witchcraft and sorcery were inappropriate." Following the removal of the Harry Potter series, some parents showed their support while other expressed their frustration with the school. I feel that in this situation, if parents feel that their children shouldn't be reading certain books, they have a right to prohibit what books their children read, but for the parents who disagree with the ban, their children have a right to read what they want to and should not have what one man deems inappropriate affect all of the students in the school. It is unfair for the children who have the permission of their parents to read certain books to have that freedom taken away from them. Also, the article, "Teen fiction plots are darker and starker," by William Porter, explains how there are many parents who want their children to read controversial and thought provoking topics. The article states that, "At 17, Kristina Palmer of Arvada reads at a book-a-day pace. 'My parents always supported my love of reading and let me read whatever I could get my hands on,' she said." Had her school library banned certain books that Kristina couldn't get her hands on, she might not have read the wide variety of books that she has and might not have been as empathetic as she is. By having parents who allow her to read anything and everything, Kristina is able to be more empathetic and excepting. By putting the power of censorship into one person's hands, they are able to control a whole community of children, making decisions for other parents.
Some may argue that some young teens may not be able to handle books with dark themes or that they may bring back trauma of rape victims or veterans. Meghan Cox Gurdon writes in her slanted article, "Darkness Took Visible" about how she believes that youth fiction is too focused on dark topics. She states that "Now, whether you care if adolescents spend their time immersed in ugliness probably depends on your philosophical outlook… It has to do with a child's happiness, moral development and tenderness of heart. Entertainment does not merely gratify taste, after all, but creates it." Gudron believes that teens on a deeper level are disturbed by these books and get distorted views on the world because of reading dark books. She implies that children can't be trusted to choose what they read because they gain an entertainment in unhappiness after reading dark books. Another alternative to banning books while still protecting kids is explained in Jennifer Medina's article, "Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm," which is about the idea of "trigger warnings," or notices in books that something could be offensive or upsetting, and their newfound popularity in certain colleges. The article states that in response to the call for "trigger warnings" some people believe that, "Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace." This also applies to banning books. Academically, we should learn to learn from what is uncomfortable to us. While I agree that for victims of sexual assault or war veterans, images or books containing rape or war could lead to post-traumatic stress disorder, I feel that bombarding any books containing violence or any controversial topic with trigger warnings is futile. Both banning books and excessive trigger warnings are putting people in a position where they can avoid an uneasiness that many authors strive to achieve in their writing and teachers use to provoke thought.
Banning books prevents students from reaching their full academic potential. Reading books with themes of darkness can help readers learn how to react in their own life when they encounter troubling situations. Also, by banning books, all children, not just the ones with parents who are against controversial themes, are affected. Finally, while many argue that books can damage teens, a level of discomfort can actually be helpful in academic discussions. Banning books is a part of our society which represents the distrust of people to make decisions for themselves.
Works Cited
Gurdon, Meghan Cox. "Darkness Too Visible." Wsj.com. The Wall Street Journal, 4 June 2011. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
B, Liz. "Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds." N.p., n.d. Web.
Bury, Liz. "Reading Literary Fiction Improves Empathy, Study Finds." Theguardian.com. The Guardian, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 4 Dec. 2014.
DeLuzuriaga, Tania. "Man from Ministry Bans Potter." Boston.com. The Boston Globe, 25 Oct. 2007. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
Medina, Jennifer. "Warning: The Literary Canon Could Make Students Squirm." Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 17 May 2014. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
Porter, William. "Teen Fiction Plots Are Darker and Starker." Denverpost.com. The Denver Post, 7 May 2009. Web. 04 Dec. 2014.
No comments:
Post a Comment