What distinctions might be made between complaints about a required book in a required class versus an optional book in an elective class, or calls to ban a book from the school library? Are complaints about curricula potentially grounded in a larger problem of poor relations between a teacher and parents?
Teachers must also address the issue of self-censorship. Censorship in school primarily involve issues of curriculum and library materials. Other dimensions of censorship include student speech, teacher speech particularly around issues of foreign policy and sexual orientation and, increasingly, the Internet. There are no hard and fast rules about which books may be targeted.
The prime targets for censorship are books that mention sex, talk about sex education, or deal with gay and lesbian issues. Rarely do those challenging books use the word censorship. There are generally three levels of challenges to school materials, according to Deanna Duby, director of education policy for People for the American Way, a Washington D.
The first type of challenge is often worked out at the classroom level when a teacher explains the curricular purpose of a book or how a book with profane language can still have educational merit, or offers an alternative reading assignment to a student. While there is a tendency to sometimes lump together censorship and challenges to books, teachers need to understand that any parent has the right to question the educational appropriateness of a particular book. The Bill of Rights protects not only freedom of speech but the right to petition the government for redress of grievances — and public school teachers are government employees.
Most experts on censorship argue that the line is crossed when the parent demands that no one in the class, or in the entire school, should read the book or material being challenged. And that, we think, is censorship. The clearest cases of censorship involve demands to remove an existing book from the library. Cindy Robinson, associate director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, notes that there are sometimes different issues involved in challenges to materials in the curriculum versus materials in the school library.
The most explosive controversies, even if not the most common, involve complaints that are part of an organized campaign. Most of these broader attacks are launched by organizations or individuals affiliated with what is commonly called the religious right — religious fundamentalist groups which advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible and which organize politically to impose their religious perspective on public institutions.
One way for teachers to distinguish between legitimate parental concerns and organized campaigns is to look for patterns. Are objections from individual parents worded the same? Are other teachers getting similarly worded complaints? A particularly popular topic in schools today is book censorship. Learning about Darwin might be construed as offensive because of the possible conflict with the religious beliefs of the parents.
Sexual education is watered down until it is practically worthless because parents might be offended at sexual references in school, and classic books like The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn are being banned in some areas because they have racial references that might offend some people.
The Effects of Censorship. While the attempt to keep children pure for as long as possible is admirable, it takes the form of leaving gaping holes in their education, if not academically, then about life.
A child who grows up with no sex education will not have the knowledge of birth control or sexually transmitted diseases that could help keep her safe should she choose not to follow that particular piece of advice.
Worse, the only education on sex that she will have learned is the whispered advice of schoolyard friends. Without proper sex education, our girls may grow up believing rumors that they hear that may or may not be true. Censorship in schools can also lead to a narrow worldview with holes in the cultural and international education of our children.
If a child does not know from literary examples that African Americans were ever abused in our society, then how will those same children understand the implications of marches or rallies for black rights in modern society, or the struggles that people of color still go through to be treated as equals in all ways? These restrictive worldviews are the seeds of bigotry, with the implication being that anyone who believes differently from you must be foolish or misinformed.
In our international economy with interactions on many levels with diverse individuals, this kind of closed-minded worldview is one that will not be tolerated for long. There are practical and educational as well as legal reasons to adhere as closely as possible to the ideals of the First Amendment. School districts such as Panama City, Florida and Hawkins County, Tennessee have been stunned to find that acceding to demands for removal of a single book escalated to demands for revising entire classroom reading programs.
Other jurisdictions have been pressed to revise the science curriculum, the content of history courses, sex education, drug and alcohol education, and self-esteem programs.
Experience has shown far too many times that what appears to be capitulation to a minor adjustment can turn into the opening foray of a major curriculum content battle involving warring factions of parents and politicians, teachers, students and administrators.
Distinguishing Censorship from Selection: Teachers, principals, and school administrators make decisions all the time about which books and materials to retain, add or exclude from the curriculum. They are not committing an act of censorship every time they cross a book off a reading list, but if they decide to remove a book because of hostility to the ideas it contains, they could be.
For example, administrators and faculty might agree to take discussion of evolution out of the second grade curriculum because the students lack sufficient background to understand it, and decide to introduce it in the fourth grade instead.
As long as they were not motivated by hostility to the idea of teaching about evolution, this would not ordinarily be deemed censorship. The choice to include the material in the fourth grade curriculum tends to demonstrate this was a pedagogical judgment, not an act of censorship. Not every situation is that simple. On closer examination, it is clear their concern is not that students will not understand the material, but that the objecting adults do not want the students to have access to this type of information at this age.
If professional educators can articulate a legitimate pedagogical rationale to maintain such material in the curriculum, it is unlikely that an effort to remove it would be successful. Most people do not consider it censorship when they attempt to rid the school of material that they think is profane or immoral, or when they insist that the materials selected show respect for religion, morality, or parental authority. School officials who accede to demands to remove materials because of objections to their views or content may be engaging in censorship.
Efforts to suppress a disfavored view or controversial ideas are educationally unsound and constitutionally suspect. The role of censorship in school. Author: Ken Petress. Date: Sept. From: Journal of Instructional Psychology Vol. Publisher: George Uhlig Publisher. Document Type: Article. Length: 2, words. Translate Article.
0コメント