Saturday, May 2, 2009

Censorship


While I knew censorship was quite political, I never realized that it was so wide spread and so varied in its reasons. Most of the time when I hear about censorship it deals with the “Right” side’s viewpoint. But, after reading “Thin Gruel”, I realized that the “Left” side censorship is just as influential (if not more). Both sides are assuming that kids will model “their behavior on whatever they read” but, because nothing can ever be censored enough, they might as well be saying kids shouldn’t read at all.

The “Right” side seems so old-fashioned in their views and it was interesting to note that textbooks 100 years ago had many of the stories they now object to. Diane Ravitch makes a good point that kids “confront, sooner or later, the reality of death and loss”. Censorship from the right focuses on “protecting” kids from the “harsh” reality of life, but they are sure to encounter that reality soon anyway. Plus, by never reading any stories about those tough situations, kids might feel as if they are the only ones going through those emotions, making them feel isolated.

The “Left” side seems to have a justified reason to censor books (after all who wants sexism, racism etc. in their books?) but the truth is that, by being too politically correct, they’re almost moving backwards. As a feminist I see the need for equality but do we really need to cover up the truth? I completely disagree that people in a minority group are the only ones who can write about that group. Different perspectives are what make stories so interesting sometimes. Plus, some women really are passive and some African Americans are athletic so censoring stories so those traits are never represented, we are denying children the right to see all kinds of people. By trying to hard to make everyone equal, the “Left” side is wiping out individuality. (As author Nat Hentoff said, “…political correctness would stifle free expression”).

“Literary quality became secondary to representational issues”. The purpose of these textbooks is to improve kids’ reading skills. I highly doubt that by simply reading a book or story a child will be scarred for life. There are so many other influences that kids have too (like television and video games) that are probably worse than a book. I think the real problem is that people tend to think kids are stupid. But that assumption that kids can’t think for themselves is creating a world similar to the one described in 1984. I don’t think people are really protecting the children, I think they are protecting themselves. By limiting the children’s’ selection of stories we’re only hurting their future, not ours.

No comments: