This past week in class, we briefly mentioned how certain books can be banned from curriculums for containing foul language or sexual content. The Catcher in the Rye was used as an example of a book once banned (and still banned in some school districts) for its use of the f-word. This topic really interested me, so I conducted further research to see if there is a correlation between the act of banning books and better learning. There isn't.In fact, it appears to me that banning books from school libraries and curriculums hurts the education process. During the research I conducted over the weekend, I have discovered that states with extensive lists of banned books (i.e. Arizona and Alabama) have significantly worse education systems than states with fewer/no banned books (i.e. Iowa and Illinois). SAT Scores in the Critical Reading section and state literacy rates further legitimize the notion that banning books hurts education.
Over the past few decades, fewer and fewer states and school districts actually bother to maintain lists of banned books. While this phenomena occurs, there has been a sharp increase in the interest of previously banned books. This is demonstrated by the increasing number of banned-book reading marathons, plus the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week", which celebrates the freedom to read all texts.
Thankfully, our country is headed down the right path by choosing to worry less about censorship and more about quality education. With a system focused more on diversifying students' reading curriculums rather than restraining it, America can finally start its long journey back toward the top of the world education rankings.
I have always been against any type of censorship for the same reasons. It takes away one's ability to learn, as you've shown. For example, there is much more to The Catcher in the Rye than just the f-word, so it would be a mistake to ban this novel from schools just because of that word when there are so many more themes that would be useful for kids to read about.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with your argument, I'd like to point out one thing: correlation does not equal causation. Just because Arizona and Alabama might have worse overall academic performance, I don't think it's appropriate to blame it on censorship. The poor state of education in those states is likely predicated upon many other factors, including the most rudimentary one: a lack of sufficient funding.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'd have to agree on your stance against censorship. As Ross correctly pointed out, there is much more to a novel than a few F-bombs. But aside from the purely anecdotal argument, I think teachers, parents, and students should be free to make their own decisions. If a few curses cause outrage in a certain community, I'd be fine with a particular school making a voluntary decision to relinquish the use of those books. At the same time, I'm sure the vast majority of communities would have little to no qualms, so censorship wouldn't be necessary in those circumstances. This way, no community would be bound to follow rules they wouldn't support as a majority.
Jason, Nice to see you use JT research here, but I like David's caveat. I'd also like to point out how fraught the term "world education rankings" is -- especially in light of your JT findings. Last: your total # of posts is a little low, no?
ReplyDelete