Opinion | To Ban or Not to Ban: The Debate About Books

Censorship of materials in libraries and school curricula is not new, but with the rise of critical race theory and queer pedagogy in the classroom, the debate about which books should be accessible to students and which should not is trending again. Earlier this year, author Art Spiegelman protested the decision of a school district in Tennessee (United States) to remove his graphic novel Maus from the curriculum, a work about Spiegelman’s relationship with his father, a Holocaust survivor. The book portrays Jews as mice and Nazis as cats. The reasons cited to challenge the distribution of this book in schools are that it includes nude images and profane language. Decisions like this open a necessary conversation about how possible it is to completely avoid these elements in the narrative of the true history of the Holocaust, recalling the ethical, historical, and emotional value of never forgetting such an episode.

Understanding the historical roots, causes, and the personal cost to those who lived that historical moment and how it continues to reverberate through generations of affected families is the purpose of books that bring such learnings to children and young people. Books about slavery and the experiences of African Americans, immigrants, and LGBTQ minorities have similar purposes. Why remove books that come from these communities to tell their stories? Why attach importance to an obscene word or uncomfortable content to justify censorship instead of a conversation and learning?

The elephant in the library

It is essential to recognize and validate concerns that topics or content may not be appropriate for children of certain ages. However, there is a difference between being clear about this point of judgment and simply removing books from all school programs without considering the students’ ages. We can understand that the experiences related by authors such as Charles Dickens, Herman Hesse, or Albert Camus are not suitable for elementary school children. We also realize that removing them entirely from the school catalog would cut off access for teenage students, who should have the opportunity to ask questions and generate the conversations that the works of these authors provoke. Still, there’s hardly an effort or debate to remove these authors from school libraries. But what if an author wants to talk about the changes in puberty? About racism? About people’s lives outside of heteronormativity?

According to The American Library Association, from 2018 to 2019, most censored books included LGBTQ elements or themes. The ten most challenged books in 2020 discussed African-American history, diversity, and racism. Books with historical plots written by people of color are especially vulnerable to censorship because they often portray historical moments that are difficult to address in a more aware social climate. The same applies to non-fiction works that describe the origin and impact of social imbalance on minorities.

Less censorship, more conversations

There is a direct correlation between the topics of censored books and the conversations parents dread to have with their children. The idea that censorship is seen as an easy way to avoid these discussions is a severe problem.

In works about racism, one of the strongest arguments favoring restriction is to protect children from content that causes them anguish or stress. Another is that learning about racial discrimination causes children shame, guilt for being white, inferiority if they belong to a racial minority, antipatriotic feelings, or social divisions in the classroom. When books or classes handle topics about sexual education, the argument for restriction is also to protect minors from information not appropriate for their age and that families should have the right to decide when and how their children’s sex education begins. There is a constant conversation about the moral dilemma of this point of view.

We can ban the books that spark the conversations we don’t want to have with children about race and sex. We can also put in the effort to create policies that ensure younger kids will not be exposed to content they are not ready to handle. But the thing we cannot do is to make the realities depicted in these books disappear, nor prevent children or teenagers from encountering these realities at some point in their lives.

When we choose to censor rather than discuss, we suppress the conversations children need to develop fundamental tools that will help them understand the world around them or even themselves. The absence of these spaces of dialogue has a significant negative impact on many young students, especially those belonging to social minorities.

“I ignored my sexuality for a really long time. I think that as a young girl if a book had shown me that this is a life that could be lived, I would have had a lot more peace and coming to terms with my bisexuality,” commented Gabrielle Izu, a student at James E. Taylor high school in Houston, Texas. The restriction in libraries and classrooms of topics related to racial, sexual, and gender identities is a profound and personal issue. It is also true for many students in that area who felt their perspective and right to visibility erased from their educational space. So commented Gabriel for the Texas Tribune, in conjunction with students determined to take agency over their learning and delve into difficult conversations, a position many adults find difficult to undertake.

The way we address education from an adult-centered perspective says a lot about what
we need to question and assess to be better educators, whether at home or school. Regarding education and race, the problem is not that children receive reading material that causes them shame for being white or inferiority for being a minority. The problem is that adults fail to teach them that the historical past and its social context provide opportunities to recognize and learn, not to be ashamed or depressed; the adults have not learned this themselves. Moreover, when the topic is sex education, perhaps the key is to understand that dialogue, critical thinking, and empathy will always be better teaching resources than silence.

Translation by Daniel Wetta

Disclaimer: This is an Op-ed article. The viewpoints expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, viewpoints, and official policies of Tecnológico de Monterrey.

Sofía García-Bullé

Share

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0