Censorship, Stupidity, Viruses and Immune Systems...

"Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us."—Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas," The One Un-American Act." Nieman Reports, vol. 7, no. 1 (Jan. 1953): p. 20.

There has been an annoying spat of censorship events at various schools recently. The most recent was twitted about by He With His Finger On The Pulse Of All Things Biblio, M. Lieberman of BookPatrol. The story revolves around a teen poetry anthology (POETRY...being read by TEENS. Holy crap) called Paint Me Like I Am:

Paint Me Like I Am is a collection of poems by teens who have taken part in writing programs run by a national nonprofit organization called WritersCorps. To read the words of these young people is to hear the diverse voices of teenagers everywhere.

Unfortunately, "[t]o read the words of these young people" has apparently offended ONE mother of a teen who complained of the Superintendent of the Vineland, NJ school her son attends. Sup. Charles Ottinger read the offending poem and said "in no way, shape or form" should the book be allowed on school shelves. The principle did an interesting, though also egregious, thing in that rather than complying with the Super's order to pull the book, he TORE OUT THE TWO PAGES that contained the offending poem so the rest of the book could be shelved for student use. [Side note, while I appreciate the Solomonetic approach of splitting the proverbial book...tearing pages out is a rather lame solution. You are *still* censoring the book *AND* you have mutilated the book itself.] The poem, which I have tragically failed to find in full online, is apparently laden with "bad words" and written from the point of view of a drunken abusive step-father...arguably not a "happy, shiny people" piece.

I am tired of the Lowest Common Denominator being allowed to define and direct our schools and libraries (and government, but that is another rant). One person complains about a given book [or books] and FAR too many schools/libraries are willing to just roll over and pull the material. Sometimes it is because the administrator is of an equally small mind but more often than not, I wager, it is because it is just not seen as a fight worth having. I suggest that it is a fight worth having...to fail in this fight is to guarantee the ascendance of mediocrity and the rule of the narrowest mind. 

Children do not need to be protected from challenging material, they need *context*. They do not need to be told they are not able/old enough/mature enough to read certain things, they need the intellectual guidance to *understand* the material as written. To refuse the exposure doesn't "protect" a child, it denies from the child a necessary skillset for adult life...the ability to read, absorb, contemplate and embody challenging ideas...in all their forms. 

A virus analogy is quite apt. It is well established that our over-use of certain antibiotics in children has lead to not only to the evolution of drug-resistant bugs but, far more dangerous, the impairment of kids/young adults immune systems to be able to fight common bugs. Kids *need* to get sick...because it is by exposure/illness that the body builds antibodies to fight future infections. We make kids *more* susceptible to *serious* illness by denying them the ability to get sick now and again and, thereby, allowing them to build up antibodies.

Reading...the exposure to the ideas embodied in books...works on the mind in much the same way. The more you read, the greater your ability to comprehend complex/difficult/challenging material in all forms. Context is the critical variable...obviously there is a burden put upon parents (and teacher, etc) to help kids understand the things they read, *especially* when that material upsets or troubles them. But is is through that process of getting upset and resolving those feelings that a child *learns*. Denying children challenging material is simply to deny them the ability to learn.

Children are not infants. They do not need to be protected from the likes of the Brothers Grimm; the racism of Huckleberry Finn or the violence of Lord of the Flies or the language in Of Mice and Men. They need context. They need to be able to read these things and talk about them...with parents, teachers and peers. They embody the things they read and it makes them stronger...and smarter...and able to process bigger, more complex challenges down the road.

Treating kids like they need to be protected from any thought or idea that might challenge/offend/frighten them serves *no* purpose but to impair their ability to rationally analyze the data that bombards them every day. Dumbing down our books and, worse, dumbing down our libraries does nothing but dumb down our children. They deserve better. They *need* better.

At a time when the world is becoming more complex and arguably more dangerous, there are far too many people doing all they can to impair the next generation's ability to analyze and rationalize. Dogmatically held positions are held sacrosanct and those that dare challenge them with logical analysis are dismissed as "elitist". We need kids to read more...to be exposed to more...to build up the intellectual capacity to combat the myopic worldview that is becoming far too prevalent. 

It's 215am...I am confident I should read the above and edit out 1/2 or so...but I wont. I'm tired. It is all Brian Cassidy's fault, for telling me to blog my rant after I had twitted about it. If you are interested, see the ALA's Censorship in the Schools resources and definitely bookmark Blogging Censorship. In the end, I'm with Oscar Wilde:

There is no such thing as a moral book or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.