2008 Woodie Awards
Banning books is ridiculous
Christin Pepple
Issue date: 6/18/08 Section: Opinions
On May 7 the American Library Association released the list of the top ten most challenged books in the year of 2007.
This is the same ALA that celebrates "Banned Books Week," which is a week to celebrate the freedom to read whatever anyone chooses from Sept. 27 to Oct. 4.
Now I know it isn't September yet, but I figured I would give a shout out to this week early because the idea of banning books is a subject that is very near and dear to my heart.
To be more accurate, it makes my blood boil.
The most education I ever received was from reading books on my own when I was in grade school. I never learned more and I wouldn't have gotten into college if I hadn't strayed away from the required list of reading that was so called "acceptable" and read more on my own.
I feel strongly that if we as a society ban books for the future generation then that future generation is going to ban even more books and so forth and so on.
This is a crime against ourselves, for the people, against the people. I do, however, understand the other sides of the argument - to a degree. The other side wants to keep children safe from the evils of sexually and violently explicit images and words.
But what is the balance between keeping our children safe and innocent for a few more years versus keeping them in the darkness?
The ten most controversial books according to ALA's website are as follows:
And Tango Makes Three, by Justing Richardson/Peter Parnell for the reasons of anti-ethnic, sexism, homosexuality, anti-family, religious viewpoint and unsuited to age group.
The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier for the reasons of sexually explicit content, offensive language and violence.
Olive's Ocean, by Kevin Henkes for the reasons of sexually explicit content and offensive language.
The Golden Compass, by Phillip Pullman for the reason of religious viewpoint
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain for the reason of racism.
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker for reasons of homosexuality, sexually explicit content and offensive language.
TTYL, by Lauren Myracle for reasons of sexually explicit content, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou for the reason of sexually explicit content.
It's Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris for reasons of sex education and sexually explicit content.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky for reasons of homosexuality, sexually explicit content, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
This list is ridiculous and an insult to the great writers who didn't have any fear of revealing truths that sometimes people might not want to hear, but need to hear regardless.
I am in college now, where no book goes too far and nothing is banned because of sex, homosexuality or violence. I'm in a place where nothing is more important than questioning what you beleived before.
I am suited for any material or any offensive language because I am two years older than someone who is in high school.
What makes being 20-years-old more acceptable for sex and violence than 18? You can join the army and smoke, get married and vote at 18. And let's be honest, most people in high school have witnessed their share of sex and violence, so trying to keep them from reading a few offensive scenes in a book is fairly ridiculous.
Why should someone in high school not have the rights to some truly extraordinary works of literature that I have the ability to read at my leisure?
As Judith F. Krug said on the ALA Web site, "Free access to information is a core American value that should be protected. Not every book is right for each reader, but an individual's interpretation of a book should not take away my right to select reading materials for my family or myself." That is better than anything that I can say.
If school boards, parents, etc. are so worried about what children read, why don't the parents choose what books their children read in the home?
Other children and young adults should not be deprived of literary masterpeicses because of a few finnicky parents who over protect their children.
There are life lessons you must learn by experience, but at least you can learn of those expereinces you have to endure by reading.
I wouldn't be in college if I hadn't pioneered my own education through the bookshelves of any library I could find.
Let our children get into college too.
As someone much smarter than me said once:
"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas." Thank you Alfred Whitney Griswold.
Christin Pepple is a sophomore journalism major at MTSU.
This is the same ALA that celebrates "Banned Books Week," which is a week to celebrate the freedom to read whatever anyone chooses from Sept. 27 to Oct. 4.
Now I know it isn't September yet, but I figured I would give a shout out to this week early because the idea of banning books is a subject that is very near and dear to my heart.
To be more accurate, it makes my blood boil.
The most education I ever received was from reading books on my own when I was in grade school. I never learned more and I wouldn't have gotten into college if I hadn't strayed away from the required list of reading that was so called "acceptable" and read more on my own.
I feel strongly that if we as a society ban books for the future generation then that future generation is going to ban even more books and so forth and so on.
This is a crime against ourselves, for the people, against the people. I do, however, understand the other sides of the argument - to a degree. The other side wants to keep children safe from the evils of sexually and violently explicit images and words.
But what is the balance between keeping our children safe and innocent for a few more years versus keeping them in the darkness?
The ten most controversial books according to ALA's website are as follows:
And Tango Makes Three, by Justing Richardson/Peter Parnell for the reasons of anti-ethnic, sexism, homosexuality, anti-family, religious viewpoint and unsuited to age group.
The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier for the reasons of sexually explicit content, offensive language and violence.
Olive's Ocean, by Kevin Henkes for the reasons of sexually explicit content and offensive language.
The Golden Compass, by Phillip Pullman for the reason of religious viewpoint
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain for the reason of racism.
The Color Purple, by Alice Walker for reasons of homosexuality, sexually explicit content and offensive language.
TTYL, by Lauren Myracle for reasons of sexually explicit content, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, by Maya Angelou for the reason of sexually explicit content.
It's Perfectly Normal, by Robie Harris for reasons of sex education and sexually explicit content.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky for reasons of homosexuality, sexually explicit content, offensive language and unsuited to age group.
This list is ridiculous and an insult to the great writers who didn't have any fear of revealing truths that sometimes people might not want to hear, but need to hear regardless.
I am in college now, where no book goes too far and nothing is banned because of sex, homosexuality or violence. I'm in a place where nothing is more important than questioning what you beleived before.
I am suited for any material or any offensive language because I am two years older than someone who is in high school.
What makes being 20-years-old more acceptable for sex and violence than 18? You can join the army and smoke, get married and vote at 18. And let's be honest, most people in high school have witnessed their share of sex and violence, so trying to keep them from reading a few offensive scenes in a book is fairly ridiculous.
Why should someone in high school not have the rights to some truly extraordinary works of literature that I have the ability to read at my leisure?
As Judith F. Krug said on the ALA Web site, "Free access to information is a core American value that should be protected. Not every book is right for each reader, but an individual's interpretation of a book should not take away my right to select reading materials for my family or myself." That is better than anything that I can say.
If school boards, parents, etc. are so worried about what children read, why don't the parents choose what books their children read in the home?
Other children and young adults should not be deprived of literary masterpeicses because of a few finnicky parents who over protect their children.
There are life lessons you must learn by experience, but at least you can learn of those expereinces you have to endure by reading.
I wouldn't be in college if I hadn't pioneered my own education through the bookshelves of any library I could find.
Let our children get into college too.
As someone much smarter than me said once:
"Books won't stay banned. They won't burn. Ideas won't go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas." Thank you Alfred Whitney Griswold.
Christin Pepple is a sophomore journalism major at MTSU.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 24
news across the neocon empire
posted 6/18/08 @ 12:35 AM CST
Great Op-ed Christin!!!
I really enjoyed reading it. It was most informative, well written, and entertaining -- and all at the same time.
Its an interesting note that one of the first things Authoritarian and Totalitarian Dictatorships do is ban books -- mostly books that will help you see how evil these governments are. (Continued…)
Carl A. Patton
Carl A. Patton
posted 6/18/08 @ 8:23 AM CST
TAKEN FROM THE FREEDOMJOURNAL ARCHIVES
For the record all of our books: "Big Ralph: Reflections of a Black Police Chief," "The Cry of Humanity: Love Peace and Paradise, Poetry and Prose," and "Fallen Letters: Mis-education and Intellectual Confusion (Essays on the Black Experience)" are CENSORED AND BANNED AT MTSU AND ALL OTHER COLLEGES THAT WE KNOW OF. (Continued…)
SafeLibraries
posted 6/18/08 @ 11:15 AM CST
"If school boards, parents, etc. are so worried about what children read, why don't the parents choose what books their children read in the home?"
Because they trust the ALA to make recommendations for them and do not realize the ALA recommendations can no longer be trusted. (Continued…)
Daniel Bridges
posted 6/18/08 @ 1:28 PM CST
To be honest, I lost interest in reading this article about halfway through. (Too much ranting.)
The reason information is withheld from children is very simple, in fact the same reason that teachers today use textbooks rather than an encyclopedia: Some issues are so complex that one must be prepared to engage it. (Continued…)
Carl A. Patton
Carl A. Patton
posted 6/18/08 @ 1:53 PM CST
FROM THE FREEDOMJOURNAL ARCHIVES
LIBRARIES AND BOOKSTORES THAT DO NOT BELIEVE IN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
The people that operate Libraries and Bookstores should be determined advocates of Free Speech and Freedom of Expression. (Continued…)
Ken
posted 6/19/08 @ 9:59 AM CST
I think you are making a mistake by inferring that somehow restricting book access based on what is deemed "age appropriate" is the same as book burning or that big government is restricting adults from access to said books. (Continued…)
M.R. Fox
posted 6/20/08 @ 5:00 AM CST
Always love your pieces, Christin.
Banning books is a disgrace to American society. "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" is one of the best books I've ever read, and is also one that I recommend most often. (Continued…)
Carl A. Patton
Carl A. Patton
posted 6/24/08 @ 9:42 AM CST
Greetings:
Are there any Independent Black intellectuals? Are Academic Freedoms exclusive to White intellectuals? Does the power to think and reason afford one independence or dependence? DID MORALS, PRINCIPLES, INTEGRITY AND HUMAN DECENCY PASS WITH THE BELIEF IN THE FLESH AND NOT GOD? I HEARD A STORM ON YESTERDAY, TODAY I SAW THE SUNSHINE. (Continued…)
josephine
posted 6/25/08 @ 7:14 AM CST
There are those who have worked continuously to demonize the South, and have used their power to ban anything about the South that does not show shackles, manacles, whips and nooses. (Continued…)
OZZy
posted 6/25/08 @ 10:26 AM CST
Ken:
I am not saying that all religious people are zealots.
That's not the point.
The point is that, from a philosophical standpoint, by getting behind the idea that ANY scripture is some kind of "word of god" one is in fact tacitly complicit with radicals who are, after all, just following the "word of god" as they see it. (Continued…)
Post a Comment