# data[].attributes.body
Learners develop and satisfy personal curiosity by:
Reflecting and questioning assumptions and possible misconceptions.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each book that is banned or censored is done so for the content within the pages. There are a few common reasons that books have been banned or censored in schools, libraries, and book stores. These include:

Racial Issues: About and/or encouraging racism towards one or more group of people.

Encouragement of "Damaging" Lifestyles: Content of book encourages lifestyle choices that are not of the norm or could be considered dangerous or damaging. This could include drug use, co-habitation without marriage, or homosexuality.

Blasphemous Dialog: The author of the book uses words such as "God" or "Jesus" as profanity. This could also include any use of profanity or swear words within the text that any reader might find offensive.

Sexual Situations or Dialog: Many books with content that include sexual situations or dialog are banned or censored.

Violence or Negativity: Books with content that include violence are often banned or censored. Some books have also been deemed too negative or depressing and have been banned or censored as well.

Presence of Witchcraft: Books that include magic or witchcraft themes. A common example of these types of books are J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Series.

Religious Affiliations (unpopular religions): Books have been banned or censored due to an unpopular religious views or opinions in the content of the book. This is most commonly related to satanic or witchcraft themes found in the book. Although, many books have also been banned or censored for any religious views in general that might not coincide with the public view.

Political Bias: Most Commonly occurs when books support or examine extreme political parties/philosophies such as: fascism, communism, anarchism, etc.

Age Inappropriate: These books have been banned or censored due to their content and the age level at which they are aimed. In some cases children's books are viewed to have "inappropriate" themes for the age level at which they are written for.

Many books have been banned or censored in one or more of these categories due to a misjudgment or misunderstanding about the books contents and message. Although a book may have been banned or labeled a certain way, it is important that the reader makes his/her own judgements on the book. Many books that have been banned or censored later were dropped from banned books lists and were no longer considered controversial. For this reason, banned books week occurs yearly to give readers a chance to revisit past or recently banned books to encourage a fresh look into the controversies the books faced.

Source: "Common Reasons for Banning Books," Fort Lewis College, John F. Reed Library. Banned Books, Censorship & Free Speech. November 15, 2013. Web. March 19, 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LibGuides: Banned Books: Reasons Books are Challenged

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each book that is banned or censored is done so for the content within the pages. There are a few common reasons that books have been banned or censored in schools, libraries, and book stores. These include: Racial Issues: About and/or encouraging racism towards one or more group of people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One of the enduring mysteries of my life is how I ended up raising two young children. Near as I can tell, the answer involves marriage and some basic biology, but beyond that, my qualifications for the job seem a bit hazy. Any accumulated wisdom from my own childhood begins and ends with thanking God I was raised in an era prior to ubiquitous camera phones. Otherwise, all my friends and I would be rotting in jail cells from here to Tijuana and back.

So then, it was no small victory when I was elected to serve on the board of the Lutheran school that my children attend. The school has a strong religious emphasis, a classical education curriculum and is located in the D.C. suburbs. The parents who send their kids to this school are well-educated and accomplished professionals who are actively interested in their children's education. I may have no choice but to be responsible for my progeny, but the fact that other parents entrust me to guide the inchoate minds of their children suggests I must be doing something right.

Looking back on my rebellious childhood, this is not how I thought things would turn out. I thought I'd be a famous author by now, living a life of casual debauchery in between hours spent ruminating at Parisian cafes. The Portrait of the Artist as a School Board Member is not a chapter of my life I thought I would end up writing. But here I am, hurtling toward middle age and volunteering my Thursday nights to hammer out a reasonable time line for accreditation procedures. I am, however, happy to report that dreams of my youth have not been entirely unrealized. I remained uncompromising enough that I did end up a journalist by trade, and I like to think my lifelong obsession with reading and writing on all manner of subjects, as well as generally crusading against injustice, makes me well-suited to oversee elementary school instruction.

It turns out that my responsibilities as a father and school board member are seemingly at odds with my vocation as a writer in a significant respect: I am someone who bans books. The younger me would be horrified by this turn of events, but then again, the younger me was an idiot who knew nothing about responsibility or children.

The younger me would be horrified by this turn of events, but then again, the younger me was an idiot who knew nothing about responsibility or children.

I admit I was reflexively surprised to learn that my children's school confiscates any questionable reading material that students might possess. Then again, this is exactly why I send my kids to a private religious school. With the way that public schools are slaloming toward Gomorrah, it is astonishing that any student learns to read. It's far too much to expect that government schools should take the next necessary step and develop a responsible framework examining how what students read might complement their moral development, to say nothing of the fact contemporary America is so dysfunctional such conversations in public schools tend to deploy platoons of lawyers.

And so we have reached a state of affairs where "book banning" has been defined down to mean "making responsible decisions about what reading material is edifying and and age-appropriate for school children." With great hyperbole, every fall the American Library Association celebrates Banned Books Week - a typical ALA press release is headlined " Book banning alive and well in the U.S."

Except that it's not. You might recall that back in 2008 a certain former mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, was vilified for inquiring about removing two objectionable books from the local library. This was gleefully singled out as proof Sarah Palin was a backwards rube, but the fact of the matter is that schools and public libraries remove books from their shelves all the time. "Tintin and the Congo" from the venerable children's comic series has been yanked from many a library because it has some unfortunate racial tropes leftover from the heyday of Belgium's colonial period when it was written. Is it censorship that you're unable to go to your local taxpayer-funded branch and check out a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"? For better or for worse, these books are still widely available. Your local community has simply decided that finite public resources are not going to be spent disseminating them. Judgments are made all the time about what goes on shelves for both practical and moral reasons. This is not book banning.

Aside from being an awkward reminder that Banned Books Week isn't really about books being banned, the list of frequently challenged books ultimately serves to highlight how the "Young Adult fiction" market has become a cesspool.

If you read the fine print at the ALA, the idea that book banning is "alive and well" is exposed for the lie that it really is. Every year, the "Office for Intellectual Freedom" - the grandiosely named division of the ALA charged with patrolling the DMZ between civilization and chaos - celebrates Banned Books week by publishing a list of "Frequently Challenged Books." Again, it's a list of books that are neither banned or even necessarily removed from shelves, merely "challenged" by people from the community for one reason or another. Yes, many of these reasons are stupid. From time to time a legitimately classic work of fiction ends up on the list. But it's telling that such books are as likely to be challenged for politically correct reasons as they are for violating narrow ideas about traditional morality. In 2011, "To Kill a Mockingbird" made the list, and according to the ALA, people objected due to "offensive language [and] racism" despite the obviously righteous context.

Aside from being an awkward reminder that Banned Books Week isn't really about books being banned, the list of frequently challenged books ultimately serves to highlight how the "Young Adult fiction" market has become a cesspool. The state of kids publishing is such that it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about what agenda-driven and/or prurient content they're peddling. As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of books cropping up on the ALA's most challenged list are books written for kids that are deemed age inappropriate for one reason or another. This includes pretty heavy doses of explicit sex and other adult themes such as drug abuse. It would be one thing if all these books were the lexical equivalent of after school specials, but salaciousness sells.

One of my undergrad instructors assigned me "Oranges Aren't the Only Fruit," the, uh, seminal lesbian sexual awakening novel, which I submit as proof that such themes can be written about in way that is sensitive, literary, and about as exciting as an Ikea instruction manual.

An educator recently showed me a book that a junior high student was reading. It was one of the "Pretty Little Liars" novels, which spawned a show that airs on the ABC Family network. Without knowing much beyond that, I'd venture that most parents would think that this means it's probably a safe choice for kids. The woman who took the book from the student explained that she flipped to a page at random and found two teenage girls engaged in some pretty hot and heavy lesbian action. I saw the passage in question, and as an adult heterosexual male I am shamefully well-suited to tell you that the titillation factor far outweighed any redeeming qualities. Furthering my bona fides on this subject, one of my undergrad instructors assigned me "Oranges Aren't the Only Fruit," the, uh, seminal lesbian sexual awakening novel, which I submit as proof that such themes can be written about in way that is sensitive, literary, and about as exciting as an Ikea instruction manual.

This is not to suggest that controversial topics should be avoided by those who write books for kids. But far too often the explicit nature of the work is the selling point. As a colleague of mine has noted, ABC Family is pretty much the go-to network if you're looking for shows marketed to teenagers about oral sex and silly portrayals of lesbian experimentation. We've long been coming to terms with a popular culture that exposes children to explicit content, but marketing it as family friendly is an especially brazen new trend. Even iconic childhood characters are being exploited for shock value. Remember Archie comics? They're kind of lame and strangely beloved, and they've put many preteens on a glide path to understanding what healthy, if heavily sanitized, teenage tomfoolery and courtship should look like. It was probably inevitable that Archie would change with the times, but I don't think anyone thought the comic needed to become a statement about The Way We Live Now, where "we" is defined as some narrow subset of the urban creative class. In 2012, the gang in Riverdale confronted an occupy protest and attended a gay marriage. Of course, the gay marriage issue of Archie flew off the shelves, so it's hard to tell whether the publisher is just capitalizing on the novelty to make a quick buck or actively trying to redefine cultural norms. But looked at over a long enough time horizon, the former will accomplish the latter. As for the future of Archie comics, well, big plans are in store:

Before becoming a staff writer for TV shows like Big Love and Glee, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa made a name for himself as a playwright, starting with a play called Weird Comic Book Fantasy that imagined classic comic-book character Archie Andrews coming out of the closet. He's since gone on to write actual Archie comics in the form of the extraordinary Afterlife With Archie horror series, and earlier today, Aguirre-Sacasa was named Archie Comics' new Chief Creative Officer, a position that "will be exploring the potential to take Archie's Pals and Gals outside of comics and into different media." One of Aguirre-Sacasa's first moves as CCO is recruiting Girls creator Lena Dunham to write a four-part story...

Yet, many parents still don't seem to grasp that the problem of needlessly confrontational and transgressive children's entertainment has migrated to books. And it's really egregious. In 2005, Simon and Schuster published a book called "Rainbow Party" that, according to Publishers Weekly, is appropriate for ages 14 and up. Before I explain what a rainbow party is, let me preemptively apologize. A rainbow party is a party where teenagers get together and all the girls put on different shades of bright lipstick. Once all the different guys and girls at the party are done living gland to mouth, the various colors left on the males' members are said to resemble... well, you get the idea. You'd be forgiven for believing this absurdity is the result of an editor at one of New York's biggest publishing houses trying to win a bet about what he could get away with marketing to kids. But no, we're told this is really an educational and cautionary tale about a gonorrhea outbreak among the sophomore class.

"We knew it would be controversial," the author Paul Ruditis told the New York Times. "But everyone involved felt it was an issue worth exploring in a fictional setting. And I don't think anyone who reads the book could come out wanting to have a rainbow party." That's good to know the author thinks no one who reads the book would want to have a rainbow party, because there's no documented evidence of any teenagers anywhere having a rainbow party despite Ruditis' suggestion. "One day we have never heard of rainbow parties and then suddenly they are everywhere, feeding on adults' fears that morally bankrupt sexuality among younger teens is rampant, despite any actual evidence, as well as evidence to the contrary," observed Dr. Deborah Tolman, director of the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality at San Francisco State University. That's right. Someone who studies sexual behavior in San Francisco thinks that this book is needlessly provocative. Alas, we can safely assume the article about the ginned-up controversy in the New York Times sold a few copies nonetheless.

That's right. Someone who studies sexual behavior in San Francisco thinks that this book is needlessly provocative.

Maybe this is crazy, but I'm beginning to suspect young adult fiction authors don't always have the best interests of your kids at heart. As a matter of branding, even the term "young adult fiction" is dishonest. The target market isn't comprised of "young adults" in any legal or cultural sense, but the phrase is a bit of patronizing flattery designed to appeal to kids who are naturally beginning to question authority. Questions about the need for parental authority aren't really much of a concern for our new breed of edgy children's authors. If anything, they are quite outspoken about the slings and arrows they suffer at the hands parents and educators who dare to question the value of their work.

Lauren Myracle proudly calls herself "the most banned writer in the US," insofar as being banned means having near permanent residence on the ALA's ridiculous list. (For what it's worth, despite sounding focused-grouped, that is not a nom de plume.) Myracle is best known as the author of a series of books including "ttyl," "ttfn," "l8r, gr8r." Those are the actual titles. Ms. Myracle's books are formatted to look like a Mac chat window and are post-modern epistolary novels from the point of view of teen girls who exclusively use "text speak," e.g. "ttyl" is short for "talk to you later." Text speak might be yet another classic example of a faddish teenage behavior that adults erroneously believe is more prevalent than it is. If the most famous literary diss is Capote's crack about Kerouac-"that's not writing that's typing"-I'm not sure Myracle even managed the typing part. Critical acclaim for the book is indeed scant. "ttyl" features a single endorsement on both the front and back covers and they amount to the two most unintentionally backhanded blurbs in the history of publishing: "'Changing the way you read.' -Teen magazine" and "'Perfectly contemporary.' -Kirkus Reviews."

If you're forced to read "ttyl," what you're left with is teenage girls chatting about visiting porn sites, lubricant, "put[ing] on crotchless panties and do[ing] a lap dance," and circulating naked photos from a drunken frat party. The villain of the book is, of course, a lecherous Christian teacher who likes to bring female students back to his hot tub. And, again, all of this is discussed in a way that is literally subliterate:

snow angel: our seats r right next to each other, and tonite when i do my homework, i get to fantasize about his summer sausage. *nudge, nudge, wink, wink*

zoegirl: great, while i'll be reading 5000 pages of The Great Gatsby and answering probing questions about the american dream. mr. h expects us to read a book a week. can u believe that?

snow angel: like that'll be a problem for u.

snow angel: did he stare at your boobs?

zoegirl: who, mr. h?

snow angel: maddie and i had him for journalism last year, and he was always staring at some girl's boobs, mostly maddie's. he was always "reading" her shirts.

snow angel: so watch out. he makes a big deal of being Christian, but what that MEANS is he's majorly sexually repressed. whereas i, on the other hand, am not sexually repressed at all. speaking of, better start practicing for rob. bye!

It goes on like that for some 200 pages, with a bonus excerpt of Myracle's book "Rhymes With Witches." I'd say it's fair to conclude Myracle is a very challenged author in more ways than one, and if there's any redeeming value here, it's primarily justifying the concerns of people like myself who help operate religious schools. But what do I know? They just published a special tenth anniversary edition of "ttyl."

If you're forced to read "ttyl," what you're left with is teenage girls chatting about visiting porn sites, lubricant, "put[ing] on crotchless panties and do[ing] a lap dance," and circulating naked photos from a drunken frat party.

Still, my suspicions were further confirmed when Myracle recently held an "Ask Me Anything" conversation with the website Reddit. She was asked about what could be done to prevent books being "banned." Quelle surprise, but Myracle has no problem making sharp value judgments about the mean people who make sharp value judgments. "Talk to the parents of your students (if you work at a school) or offer a presentation to parents at your local library (if that's where you work). Tell them that knowledge NEVER hurts. (Guns do! Rush Limbaugh does!)," she said. It is oh-so-perfect that in the process of defending the free exchange of knowledge, Myracle throws in a gratuitous dig at the nation's most popular broadcaster, to say nothing of whether teaching your kid to operate a gun in America is a matter of public safety. But you certainly don't have to be fan of controversial conservative talk radio hosts to see what's wrong with Myracle's self-absorbed and defensive posturing. The invocation of these obvious cultural signifiers is a bright flashing neon sign that Myracle has no compunctions aggressively pushing her own highly debatable politics and values, even as she's immune to the irony of suggesting that parents who disagree with her are harming their own kids.

But it's Myracle's contention that "knowledge NEVER hurts" that is most risible. It's a near perfect distillation of the fuzzy post-modern sentiment that intentions trump outcomes, and on a basic level, it's empirically untrue: If I gave al Qaeda the plans to build a suitcase nuke, I'm pretty sure that knowledge would end up hurting a lot of people. That's an extreme example, but it's also true that every responsible parent makes determinations every day about how much they should inform their children about the tragic and difficult aspects of life relative to their need to know and maturity level. As a practical matter, it is universally understood that knowledge given to those who are unprepared to responsibly apply it will, in fact, hurt.

To say that knowledge never hurts is to deny that books have any power to influence people at all.

To say that knowledge never hurts is to deny that books have any power to influence people at all. And if you're not trying to influence people, why write? Clearly, Myracle and many of her controversial peers do think they're influencing kids for the better, so they want to have it both ways. By claiming they are victims of "book banning" in the broadest, most meaningless sense, they are deligitimizing value-based critics of their work by stigmatizing them as ignorant and anti-democratic. Yet, it's these parents and educators who actually bear the responsibility of determining what's appropriate for their specific children, not to mention suffer the consequences of screwing up here. Certainly, other authors think it's not crazy to suggest it can be harmful when undeveloped minds are exposed to the wrong books. Stephen King pulled his story "Rage," about a kid who shoots his algebra teacher and holds his class hostage, from publication after it was connected to four different teenage shootings. "My book did not break [these teenagers] or turn them into killers; they found something in my book that spoke to them, because they were already broken," he said. "Yet I did see 'Rage' as a possible accelerant, which is why I pulled it from sale. You don't leave a can of gasoline where a boy with firebug tendencies can lay hands on it." In a better world, King shouldn't feel he has to keep "Rage" from being sold. There would be enough responsible adults around to keep disturbed kids from reading it. This is the difference between actual book banning and what the American Library Association thinks it is.

To some extent, the reason the specter of book banning still looms large is that it is cast against the backdrop of a mythic America that no longer exists. "Banned in Boston" is such an anachronism that virtually no one under 30 has an idea what it refers to. Liberals perpetually scoff that cultural conservatives want to wind back the clock to an idealized version of the 1950s, but when pressed about potentially harmful effects of our anything-goes culture, they pretend the country is still dotted with communities such as the one in "Footloose," where scowling reverends have passed town ordinances against youthful expressions of joy.

In the age of Google and celebrity sex tapes, whatever America's problems are, an abundance of repressive attitudes and ignorance of popular culture are not among them. Kids have access to more books and information than ever, and try as we might, Pandora's not closing the box. We need more involved parents and authority figures acting as responsible gatekeepers, and we need to be having more conversations about what constitutes an appropriate cultural climate for children in an era of information overload. To preempt any dialogue about this by claiming it puts us on a slippery slope to heaving Tolstoy on the bonfire is fundamentally dishonest. And if this is the kind of sophistry necessary to accuse me of banning books, it turns out that I will have no trouble learning to live with myself.
Mark Hemingway is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Follow him on Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One of the enduring mysteries of my life is how I ended up raising two young children. Near as I can tell, the answer involves marriage and some basic biology, but beyond that, my qualifications for the job seem a bit hazy.

# data[].attributes.body
7th and 8th Grade

# data[].attributes.headline
Should middle school students have the right to read books of their own choosing at school?

# data[].attributes.subject
Should middle school students have the right to read books of their own choosing at school?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Every year since 1982, an event known as Banned Books Week has brought attention to literary works frequently challenged by parents, schools, and libraries. The books in question sometimes feature scenes of violence or offensive language; sometimes they're opposed for religious reasons (as in the case of both Harry Potter and the Bible). But one unfortunate outcome is that 52 percent of the books challenged or banned in the last 10 years feature so-called "diverse content"-that is, they explore issues such as race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental illness, and disability. As a result, the organizers of Banned Books Week, which started Sunday, chose the theme "Celebrating Diversity" for 2016.

Since the inception of the American children's literature industry in the 1820s, publishers have had to grapple with the question of who their primary audience should be. Do kids' books cater to parents and adult cultural gatekeepers, or to young readers themselves? But as books that address issues of diversity face a growing number of challenges, the related question of which children both the industry and educators should serve has become more prominent recently. Who benefits when Sherman Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of Part-Time Indian, which deals with racism, poverty, and disability, is banned for language and "anti-Christian content"? Who's hurt when Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings's picture book I Am Jazz, about a transgender girl, is banned? The history of children's book publishing in America offers insight into the ways in which traditional attitudes about "appropriate" stories often end up marginalizing the lives and experiences of many young readers, rather than protecting them.

During the 19th and early 20th centuries, debates over the target audience of the American children's-literature industry largely centered around the question of how much adults should trust children to choose what they read. Before the Civil War, the prevailing answer was "very little." Accordingly, kids' books and magazines addressed the instructional concerns of adults without worrying much about readers' interests. New entertainment options, from dime novels to nickelodeons, led to a greater effort to retaining children's attention by amusing them. Yet even as publishers focused more on engagement, they carefully avoided subjects that riled the parents who bought the books.

In researching my book Commercializing Childhood, I discovered that children's stories and magazines during the 19th century rarely discussed slavery. When the popular children's magazine The Juvenile Miscellany ran anti-slavery stories in the early 1830s, its largely New England-based audience abandoned it, and the magazine collapsed within 18 months. The outcome had a chilling effect on other publications. The subject of slavery had a brief revival during the war (when it served to highlight the evils of Southern society), but afterward the topic remained unpopular within the industry. Indeed, the recent #SlaveryWithASmile controversy over two books' depiction of slaves' lives indicates that publishers today still haven't figured out how to address the subject for younger children in a way that's both historically accurate and acceptable to parents.

When librarians and teachers reject works that may be "emotionally inappropriate" for children (a common reason), they're adhering to the traditional and mostly prevailing view that children's literature should avoid controversial topics. It's understandable that adults want to minimize children's anxiety, and schools are often under intense social and financial pressure to maintain established standards. But it 's also important to recognize that this tradition was established in the 19th century to serve the needs of the white, wealthy Protestant producers and consumers who have dominated the field of American children's literature for much of the past 200 years.

The distinction between books that have inspired calls for censorship (including series like Nancy Drew and The Hunger Games) versus the works that more often have actually been kept out of children's hands ( Huckleberry Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, the novels of Judy Blume) reveals the insidious effects of this tradition. Whereas violence or elements of fantasy rarely leads to widespread censorship, concerns about race or sexuality are more likely to restrict circulation. It's an especially troubling tendency, considering the structural biases within the publishing industry that have made it harder for minority authors to get children's books published. In effect, this pattern means the industry serves those who benefit from the status quo, which is why most scholars see children's literature as a conservative force in American society.

There is an alternative tradition of using children's literature specifically to introduce more diverse perspectives to young readers that dates back to The Juvenile Miscellany, which encouraged empathy for American Indian and slave characters. This practice mostly remained economically and culturally marginalized until the 1960s, when books like Ezra Jack Keats' The Snowy Day and Don Freeman's Corduroy began to naturalize the experiences of children of color. Around the same time, Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are and In The Night Kitchen challenged cultural taboos about addressing children's normal stages of psychological and emotional development.

Perhaps no recent book has illuminated the benefits of such an approach for young readers as much as R.J. Palacio's 2012 bestseller Wonder. This novel narrates the school year of 10-year-old Augie, a boy with a severe facial deformity, from his own perspective as well as those of the people that surround him. By encouraging children to imagine themselves in the place of Augie and his classmates, Wonder transports them beyond their own experiences and instills the feelings of empathy and humility that are an essential part of the reason why we tell stories.
Keeping books about certain types of children out of libraries perpetuates a vision of a sheltered American childhood that has rarely existed.
Despite Wonder's commercial success, a recent survey of 574 librarians by the School Library Journal suggests a trend toward a more conservative approach to producing and curating children's books. Content labels, restricted access areas, and self-censorship have all been on the rise since 2008, and in 2014, a group of children's book authors started the We Need Diverse Books campaign to highlight the lack of diversity in children's publishing.

Quiet decisions by libraries not to carry titles such as Kate Messner's The Seventh Wish, whose protagonist has an older sibling grappling with addiction, or Alex Gino's George, which is about the life of a transgender fourth-grader, reflect a resurgent fear and misinterpretation of difference. As Messner wrote on her blog after being disinvited from a planned school talk, "When we say 'This book is inappropriate,' we're telling those children 'your situation ... your family ... your life is inappropriate." More broadly, keeping books about certain types of children or experiences out of libraries or putting them on separate shelves perpetuates a troubling vision of a sheltered American childhood that in fact has rarely existed.

After publishing The Seventh Wish, Messner received several messages from librarians and parents concerned about the topics her book dealt with. One elementary-school librarian explained why she wouldn't share Messner's book with her students. "For now," the librarian said, "I just need the 10 and 11-year-olds biggest worry to be about friendships, summer camps, and maybe their first pimple or two." Messner responded by emphasizing a broader obligation that parents, teachers, writers, and publishers all share. "We don't serve only our children," Messner said. "We serve children in the real world."

That message of tolerance, compassion, and affirmation aligns with the values of Banned Books Week, as well as with the ideals of children's literary classics ranging from Little Women and Tom Sawyer to The Diary of Anne Frank and Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. This shared sensibility is grounded in respect for young readers, which doesn't mean providing them with unfettered access to everything on the library shelves. Instead, it means that librarians, teachers, and parents curate children's choices with the goals of inspiring rather than obscuring new ideas. Such an approach allows kids to learn how to navigate imaginary worlds filled with differences, with the faith that they will apply those lessons to their own lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every year since 1982, an event known as Banned Books Week has brought attention to literary works frequently challenged by parents, schools, and libraries. The books in question sometimes feature scenes of violence or offensive language; sometimes they're opposed for religious reasons (as in the case of both Harry Potter and the Bible).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pro 1

Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material. "Literary works containing explicit sex, oral sex, explicit & violent descriptions of rape, masturbation, vulgar and obscene language" were on the approved reading list for grades 7-12, according to Speak up for Standards, a group seeking age-appropriate reading materials for students in Dallas, Texas. If books with inappropriate material are available in libraries, children or teens can be exposed to books their parents wouldn't approve of before the parents even find out what their children are reading. "[O]pting your child out of reading [a certain] book doesn't protect him or her. They are still surrounded by the other students who are going to be saturated with this book," said writer Macey France.

Con 1

Parents may control what their own children read, but don't have a right to restrict what books are available to other people. Parents who don't like specific books can have their kids "opt out" of an assignment without infringing on the rights of others. The National Coalition against Censorship explained that "Even books or materials that many find 'objectionable' may have educational value, and the decision about what to use in the classroom should be based on professional judgments and standards, not individual preferences." In the 1982 Supreme Court ruling on Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan wrote that taking books off of library shelves could violate students' First Amendment rights, adding that "Local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books."

Pro 2

Children should not be exposed to sex, violence, drug use, or other inappropriate topics in school or public libraries. Books in the young adult genre often contain adult themes that young people aren't ready to experience. Of the top ten most challenged books in 2018, six had LGBT content, and three were sexually explicit. According to Jenni White, a former public school science teacher, "Numerous studies on the use of graphic material by students indicate negative psychological effects," including having "more casual sex partners and [beginning] having sex at younger ages." The American Academy of Pediatrics has found that exposure to violence in media, including in books, can impact kids by making them act aggressively and desensitizing them to violence. Kim Heinecke, a mother of four, wrote to her local Superintendent of Public Schools that "It is not a matter of 'sheltering' kids. It is a matter of guiding them toward what is best. We are the adults. It is our job to protect them - no matter how unpopular that may seem."

Con 2

Many frequently challenged books help people get a better idea of the world and their place in it. Robie H. Harris, author of frequently challenged children's books including It's Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing up, Sex, and Sexual Health, stated, "I think these books look at the topics, the concerns, the worry, the fascination that kids have today... It's the world in which they're living." Many books that have long been considered to be required reading to become educated about literature and American history are frequently challenged, such as: The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger, The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck, To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Color Purple by Alice Walker, Beloved by Toni Morrison, and Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston. 46 of the Radcliffe Publishing Group's "Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century" are frequently challenged; banning them would deprive students of essential cultural and historical knowledge, as well as differing points of view.

Pro 3

Keeping books with inappropriate content out of libraries protects kids, but doesn't stop people from reading those books or prevent authors from writing them. Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council noted that removing certain books from libraries is about showing discretion and respecting a community's values, and doesn't prevent people from getting those books elsewhere: "It's an exaggeration to refer to this as book banning. There is nothing preventing books from being written or sold, nothing to prevent parents from buying it or children from reading it." What some call "book banning," many see as making responsible choices about what books are available in public and school libraries. "Is it censorship that you're unable to go to your local taxpayer-funded branch and check out a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'? For better or for worse, these books are still widely available. Your local community has simply decided that finite public resources are not going to be spent disseminating them," Weekly Standard writer and school board member Mark Hemingway stated.

Con 3

Books are a portal to different life experiences and reading encourages empathy and social-emotional development. One study found that reading J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series, which is frequently challenged for religious concerns about witchcraft, "improved attitudes" about immigrants, homosexuals, and refugees. Another study found that reading narrative fiction helped readers understand their peers and raised social abilities. A study in Basic and Applied Social Psychology found that people who read a story about a Muslim woman were less likely to make broad judgments based on race. Neil Gaiman, author of the frequently challenged novel Neverwhere, among other books, stated that fiction "build[s] empathy... You get to feel things, visit places and worlds you would never otherwise know. You learn that everyone else out there is a me, as well. You're being someone else, and when you return to your own world, you're going to be slightly changed. Empathy is a tool for building people into groups, for allowing us to function as more than self-obsessed individuals."

Source: American Library Association, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

Footnotes:

1. Loris Vezzali, et al., "The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice," Journal of Applied Social Psychology, July 23, 2014

2. Raymond A. Mar, et al., "Bookworms Versus Nerds: Exposure to Fiction Versus Non-Fiction, Divergent Associations with Social Ability, and the Simulation of Fictional Social Worlds," Journal of Research in Personality, 2006

3. Dan R. Johnson, Brandie L. Huffman, and Danny M. Jasper, "Changing Race Boundary Perception by Reading Narrative Fiction," Basic and Applied Social Psychology, Feb. 10, 2014

4. ALA, "Top 11 Challenged Books of 2018," ala.org (accessed Sep. 18, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned Books - Top 3 Pros and Cons - ProCon.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pro 1 Parents have the right to decide what material their children are exposed to and when. Having books with adult topics available in libraries limits parents' ability to choose when their children are mature enough to read specific material.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
At one time many public schools gave students time to read books of their own choosing, an activity based on the common-sense theory that kids will read what interests them, and that kids who can choose what they read will learn to enjoying reading, and, hence, read more. Unfortunately, many schools no longer let students choose any of the materials that they read. Why this is a problem is explained in this post by Joanne Yatvin, a one time Principal of the Year in Wisconsin and a past president of the National Council of Teachers of English, who has never been able to kick the reading habit.

By Joanne Yatvin

Consumed by the urgency to raise students' reading scores, policy makers and school officials have forgotten that children learn to read by reading. Acquiring the habit of turning to books for pleasure or to find out what you want to know does more for reading development than working on decoding words or trying to speed up fluency. Although, ideally, a fondness for books starts at home, reading can become a habit through opportunities to read self-chosen books at school.

One person who understands the importance of the reading habit is Carmen Farina, the new schools chancellor in New York City. She has long supported "balanced literacy" instruction, which includes independent reading. In many places, including New City, this approach to teaching reading has been abandoned in favor of systematic programs that promise to raise students test scores and prepare them for "college and the workplace." According to several recent articles in The New York Times and other sources, Farina is determined to restore at least one of the key components of "balanced literacy," independent reading, in city schools.

Back in the 1960's and '70's, daily sessions of independent reading called "Sustained Silent Reading" (SSR) were popular in classrooms everywhere. In line with recommendations from reading experts, teachers allocated 15 to 30 minutes to it every day. There were no written assignments or tests attached, just the visual and soundless evidence that students were immersed in their reading. Nevertheless, 50 years later it's hard to find classrooms anywhere that still include SSR. To a great extent, enthusiasm for the practice was undercut by the 2000 report of the National Reading Panel, which found little evidence to support its effectiveness in the few research studies that met their criteria. What the panel did not make clear, however, was that doing research on any practice that had not been converted into a structured and testable teaching method was very difficult, and thus seldomly undertaken.

As a teacher in the heyday of SSR, I can tell you that problems in classroom implementation also undermined its popularity. The main one was that SSR cut deeply into instructional time at the high school level where classes were only 45-50 minutes in length. Ironically, time was also a problem for students, but in a different way. Many of them were irritated by having to stop reading on command just when they were at an exciting or enlightening part of their book. The third problem was a shortage of appealing books in classrooms, especially in high poverty schools where most students didn't have the alternatives of bringing books from home or buying them.

Today, many teachers and school principals, like Farina, who know the value of the reading habit would like to revive independent classroom reading, but the term SSR is tarnished, and the problems noted above still exist. On top of that, many policy makers are calling for a longer school day to increase formal instruction. They would certainly yell louder and longer if precious classroom time were once again devoted to independent reading.

Nevertheless, there are ways to get around the inside problems and the outside criticism if school really try. At the elementary level, where classroom time is fairly flexible, teachers can stretch the reading block and even extend independent reading into the teaching of other subjects. At one school where I was principal, teachers had their students reading two books at the same time. One book was teacher assigned and used for group instruction; the other was self-chosen. When students were not meeting with the teacher or working on assignments, they were expected to read silently in their chosen books. Also, the only homework assigned was independent reading, with different amounts of time designated for each grade.

In middle schools or high schools, the easiest path is to make independent reading at least half of every day's homework by putting strict limits on subject matter assignments. But another possibility is for teachers of the same grade to select different days of the week for a full period of reading. Or schools that still have study hall time might decide that it would be better used for reading than for the socializing or napping that usually goes on. High poverty schools could make the same changes, but they would first have to figure out ways to get more books for students: free ones, used ones, a library grant, creating a school book exchange, or having a used book drive in the community. As someone once said, "Where there's a will, there's a way."

If I were Queen of the World, I would decree that all students be given the gifts of time and books they want to read throughout their schooling, and all pre-readers would have an adult who would read aloud to them everyday. Through independent reading children gain a wealth of background knowledge about many different things, come to understand story and non-fiction structures, absorb the essentials of English grammar, and continuously expand their vocabularies. Many also remember visually how to spell words.In a nutshell, the habit of reading does as much, if not more, than Direct Instruction and the rigorous demands of the Common Core. All without boring kids to death or persuading them that they're dumb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why kids should choose their own books to read in school

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
At one time many public schools gave students time to read books of their own choosing, an activity based on the common-sense theory that kids will read what interests them, and that kids who can choose what they read will learn to enjoying reading, and, hence, read more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
The Journal of Research on Libraries and Young Adults

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract
While attempted book banning in school libraries continues to this day, a rash of book challenges occurred during the 1980s. Parents, students, and other stakeholders brought lawsuits against groups and individuals attempting to ban books from school libraries. At that time, no legal precedents were in place to guide school administrators on appropriate responses to book challenges. As a result, in 1982, Board of Education v. Pico (457 U.S. 853) reached the Supreme Court. This paper closely examines Pico and other related court cases and investigates principles of the First Amendment with regard to students and their right to intellectual freedom. Recommendations for addressing book challenges are provided.

How is the freedom of speech taught in schools? Sometimes it is taught when it is violated by the school board and students have to fight to protect their rights. Throughout history, students have received their most powerful lessons regarding the First Amendment of the United States Constitution by standing up for their right to receive information and ideas-that is, by reading books school officials would rather they didn't see or discuss. One student, Steven Pico, who defended his freedom to read until it reached the highest court in the land, has said, "After twelve years of schooling, my education had in many ways finally begun." ¹

In the school library, parents, community members, or school board officials have encountered books that they believe kids should not read and have sought to have the books removed from the shelves. In 1976, three school board members of the Island Trees School District in New York, having recently received a list of thirty-three "objectionable books" at a conference hosted by a conservative parents' organization, had a janitor unlock the high school library. Once inside, they went through the card catalog and found eleven books from the list. In the following weeks, the school board ordered that all eleven books be removed from the district's schools, nine from the high school library and two from the junior high library. The nine books from the high school library were: Slaughter House Five by Kurt Vonnegut; The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris; Down These Mean Streets by Piri Thomas; Best Short Stories by Negro Writers by Langston Hughes; Go Ask Alice by Anonymous; Laughing Boy by Oliver Lafarge; Black Boy by Richard Wright; A Hero Ain't Nothin' But a Sandwich by Alice Childress; and Soul on Ice by Eldridge Cleaver. One of the books removed from the junior high was The Fixer by Bernard Malamud.

At first, the school superintendent objected to the school board's course of action. He asserted that a policy "designed expressly to handle such problems" ² was already in place and recommended it be followed, even stating that they should not remove materials merely based on a compiled list they knew little about, and that the school board should at least review the books first. In response, the school board appointed a committee of parents, school officials, and other members of the community to review the books : "The committee was to take into account the books' 'educational suitability,' 'good taste,' 'relevance,' and 'appropriateness to age and grade level.'" ³ The committee recommended that five books remain in the library ( The Fixer, Laughing Boy, Black Boy, Go Ask Alice, and Best Short Stories by Negro Writers) and that two be removed ( The Naked Ape and Down These Mean Streets). The committee was undecided on two of the books ( Soul on Ice and A Hero Ain't Nothin' But a Sandwich). However, the school board ultimately rejected the committee's recommendations and removed all the books from the library as it had originally intended.

Had the school board had followed the policy noted by the superintendent, the case may have had very different results. After a press release was disseminated announcing the decision and labeling the books "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy," Steven Pico, then a seventeen-year-old junior at Island Trees High School in New York, led a group of his peers into court to challenge the school board's order to remove the books from library, stating that the students' First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and information had been violated. 4 This challenge became the first school book banning case ever to be settled at the Supreme Court level. The battle lasted, in total, seven years.

The Board of Education v. Pico Supreme Court case was decided five to four in favor of Steven Pico and the other respondents. Justices Marshall, Stevens, Blackmun, and White concurred; Chief Justice Burger and Justices Powell, Rehnquist, and O'Connor dissented; and Justice Brennan delivered the plurality opinion of the court. 5 Most of the Justices wrote some sort of concurring or dissenting opinion asserting specific focal points they felt most relevant. While Pico was the first school library book banning case to reach the Supreme Court, it was by no means the first instance of book banning in schools-from the 1960s to the 1980s, a pervasive clash of viewpoints led to a rash of book banning in public schools across the country. In several instances, people seeking to have bans revoked turned to the courts, and ' many of the issues and ideas related to book banning and censorship are now inextricably linked to the precedents set in the resulting court cases. The themes addressed by the courts, and the main issues of conflict in many of the book banning events, were: school board discretion, student First Amendment rights, the right to receive information and ideas, and the selection and removal of books. The Board of Education v. Pico decisiondid not outlaw book banning or censorship, nor did it set clear guidelines for school boards to follow, and it did not even fully define students' First Amendment rights in relation to censorship and selection. All the same, the Supreme Court decision, as well as the events leading up to Pico 's hearing in Supreme Court, is worth further exploration for understanding how to respond to First Amendment threats in schools.

Before Board of Education v. Pico reached the Supreme Court in 1982, six cases were brought to lower federal court (i.e., district courts) to address virtually the same act of removing books from the school library. The courts' decisions were evenly split-three cases were decided in favor of the board of education (or whatever group or agency was seeking removal of books), and three were decided in favor of a student's right to receive the information contained in the books. These six previous cases, which so closely resembled Pico, addressed the main themes stated above, but in different ways. The issues surrounding the school boards' role with regard to books and school libraries, although still not entirely clear, can be explained further by critically examining related court cases, including Pico.
School Board Discretion
Despite multiple cases being previously addressed by lower courts, by the time Board of Education v. Pico reached the Supreme Court, there were still no clear answers or laws pertaining to the removal of books from school libraries. This absence is likely the reason that the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case even though it had rejected similar cases in the past-clarification was simply not emerging from the lower court decisions. Decisions in other lower court cases acknowledged that the daily operations of schools were best left to the school officials put in place to oversee them. In the dissenting opinion in Pico, Justice Burger held this opinion even after the Supreme Court had reviewed the case by stating, "[T]he issue comes down to two important propositions: first, whether local schools are to be administered by elected school boards, or by federal judges and teenage pupils..." ⁶ The school board members, it was argued, are elected school officials put in place to decide the curriculum and operation of the schools and have unfettered discretion to "protect" the students however they see fit. On the other hand, others wondered how this particular type of "protection" could co-exist with the essential freedom to exchange ideas.

In 1972, in Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25, ⁷ the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school board's absolute discretion to restrict students' access to the book Down These Mean Streets by Piri Thomas, a highly regarded account of a Puerto Rican boy growing up in Spanish Harlem. In this case, as with Pico, ⁸ the issue of school board discretion was highlighted and the notion of First Amendment principles dismissed. Judge Mulligan, writing for the court, declared that someone must bear responsibility for book selection, and since school boards are statutorily empowered to operate the schools and prescribe the curriculum, the board is the appropriate body. ⁹ In cases with similar outcomes, like James v. Board of Education in 1975, ¹⁰ more justifications for school board discretion were upheld. One was the in loco parentis policy, which states that members of the school board and the school administration stand in place of parents while students are in school and consequently should be permitted to make decisions to oversee the growth of students' intellectual and social values. Another validation for the school board maintaining ultimate responsibility can be called indoctrination theory, which states that schools perform certain socialization and indoctrination functions. Local school boards therefore must be given broad discretion to shape the minds of the students to accomplish these goals. ¹¹ In Pico, the Supreme Court addressed the theories of school board discretion throughout the case. The plurality opinion of the court began by conceding, "Our precedents have long recognized certain constitutional limits upon the power of the State to control even the curriculum and classroom." The court then pointed out, however, that the respondents in the Pico case were not seeking to limit the board's discretion over the curriculum, and that the issue in the case related only to library books. At the Supreme Court level in Pico, it was to be up to the respondents to prove that the board had partisan concerns motivating their decisions to ban books, and subsequently, the board would have to prove that suppression of ideas was not their aim. Justice Brennan recognized that while the school board claimed reliance on their "duty to inculcate community values," they were, at the same time, duty-bound to follow First Amendment guidelines, just as schools had been forced to do in the case where it was decided "a student in a public school could not be compelled to salute the flag." ¹²

In summary, the plurality opinion found that although school boards do have a great deal of discretion with regard to school operations, states and boards must be in line with the First Amendment. Justice Brennan also pointed out that the "special characteristics" of a school library make it the most appropriate place for freedom of speech and expression to be recognized. Some concurring justices and all dissenting judges expressly disagreed with the tenet that school libraries have characteristics that set it apart from other school grounds, such as the classroom; a numerical majority of judges agreed that there should be no constitutional distinction between the classroom and the library. Nevertheless, Justice Brennan stated, "...We think that the First Amendment rights of students may be directly and sharply implicated by the removal of books from the shelves of a school library." ¹³

The five to four vote of the Supreme Court in Pico yielded several important results. First, it was decided that the school board does have absolute discretion over curriculum with Constitutional constraints, but beyond the classroom there should be some imposed limitations. Second, it was stated that school boards have a role in determining school library content, but that it too is limited. Third, with regard to the type of discretion used by school boards in the selection of materials, Justice Brennan stated, "Our constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas." ¹⁴ Finally, matters of opinion (e.g., politics, nationalism, and religion) should not be prescribed by limiting the availability of books or other learning materials.

To address the indoctrination theory, it was stated that indoctrination was "intended to describe the school's role in transmitting values...there is no suggestion...that the power of school officials extends beyond curriculum control to the suppression of ideas." ¹⁵ These somewhat concrete precedents emerged from the Pico case, but a great deal of disagreement and ambiguity remained concerning the school board and its relation to the school library, as well as matters of discretion. One interpretation of how limited discretion can be viewed was put forth when "Justice Blackmun explained that even if a majority of the community wished to eliminate certain ideas from the school library with which it disagreed, in our system, the Bill of Rights protects the minority from official imposition by the majority." ¹⁶ This was an important distinction and one that was likely ignored in earlier cases where the court ruled on behalf of the school board. It is true that it complicates the matter of school board discretion, and that it would be hard for parents to understand when they believe they have their child's welfare in mind. Nevertheless, it is an important principle of the Bill of Rights that should be upheld in a public school just as much as in other government institutions, if for no other reason than to avoid "the effect of governing school affairs simply by a vague and indefinite pall of orthodoxy." ¹⁷

In one circumstance that did not end up in a courtroom but where justice was still sought, the results were compromising. When Judy Blume's books such as Blubber, Deenie, and Starring Sally J. Friedman as Herself were removed from two Hanover, Pennsylvania elementary and middle school libraries in 1984, only the school librarian stood up against the censorship. The people she turned to for support included Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom, who wrote a letter to the Hanover School Board and pointed out, "[B]oards who would restrict the access of minors to materials and services because of actual or suspected parental objections should bear in mind that they do not serve in loco parentis." Further, Krug poignantly stated that "well-written, sensitive books that address the very real issues, questions and concerns of young people in our society...are extremely popular with young people for these very reasons." ¹⁸ The books were returned to the shelves but were restricted so that parental permission was required for students to check them out. The school librarian stated that she felt her job "now entails something of the role of police officer" and that "when students defy the order and try to peek into the restricted titles, should I report them to the principal for disobeying orders? The atmosphere of freedom in our library has been replaced by one of moderate tension and confusion." ¹⁹ It may be safe to assert that not even parents or school board officials seeking removal of certain titles intended to transform the school library into such a place. Often, the consequences of these and similar restrictions on library books are not considered or understood by the people involved at the time of their removal. This is perhaps more substantiation that the act of challenging book content (particularly popular, acclaimed, and generally accepted titles) is one of irrationality and fear, rather than one of thoughtfulness or even protection.
Student First Amendment Rights
Although some courts dismissed the idea that students' First Amendment rights were jeopardized when school boards removed books from their school library shelves or classrooms, the complaint kept arising. Thus, it was necessary to determine whether students at school were entitled to the freedoms that the Constitution guarantees citizens of the United States. In 1969, this was decided in Tinker v. Des Moines after students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school in order to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court established the now famously invoked principle that students and teachers do not "shed their Constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." ²⁰ It is understood, however, that the Constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression is still tenuous and not clearly defined. This holds true today even after the many precedents set by these court cases, including Pico.

When Pico was at first heard in the Federal District Court, the court ruled in favor of the Board of Education, stating that:

The board acted not on religious principles but on its conservative educational philosophy, and on its belief that the nine books removed from the school library and curriculum were irrelevant, vulgar, immoral, and in bad taste, making them educationally unsuitable for the district's junior and senior high school students. ²¹

On these grounds, the district court dismissed any implication of violation of the students' First Amendment rights. The lower court's decision cited many of the previous cases mentioned above, such as Presidents Council and James v. Board of Education. Using these standards, the district court judgment also stated that courts should not "intervene in the daily operations of school systems unless basic constitutional values were sharply implicated." ²² In this decision, the court found that they were not. Pico and the other respondents appealed this ruling. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the district court judgment, concluding, "[P]etitioners were obliged to demonstrate a reasonable basis for interfering with respondents' First Amendment rights." ²³ One of the three judges in the court of appeals concluded that the school board acted unreasonably and out of character in interfering with the school library, did not illustrate proper motivation for violating the students' rights to receive information, and' tried to conceal the fact that a free speech issue was at hand. The appeals court judge felt that because the motives were unclear, uncovering the school board's motivations would prove whether or not Constitutional values were breached. The motivations of those who attempted to remove books from a school library would become a focal point of Pico at the Supreme Court level as well as for future book banning cases. At this point, the petitioners (members of the Island Trees School Board) chose to submit their case to the U.S. Supreme Court rather than going back to trial at district court, because it is believed they didn't think it would be granted certiorari, or judicial review. ²⁴

Other cases have identified that there should not exist a "chilling" of student rights, which, as acknowledged by the court in Pico, are liberty of conscience, freedom of expression, and right to receive information and ideas. ²⁵ One such case was Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District,where the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the school board had infringed on students' First Amendment rights specifically by removing books from the library. The judge stated, "A library is a storehouse of knowledge...That privilege is not subject to being withdrawn by succeeding school boards whose members might desire to 'winnow' the library books for the contents of which occasioned their displeasure or disapproval." 26 Again, motivations are implied as the reason these types of acts are cast in opposition to principles of the First Amendment-the book banners were seeking to impose personal sensibilities upon the students. Even when a book contains language that is not appropriate for everyday use or describes unsavory ideas or feelings, the ability of the book to have a positive impact on the reader or provoke discussion or awareness is not necessarily diminished.
Right to Receive Information and Ideas
The clear delineation of students' right to freedom of speech in schools means that a tenet of those rights comes into question: namely, the right to receive information and ideas. Does freedom of speech and expression include the right to receive information? The Supreme Court has decided that this tenet should be inferred from the First Amendment. This was established in Lamont v. Postmaster General in 1965. When delivering the opinion of the court in this case, Justice Brennan stated, "The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them." ²⁷ In Board of Education v. Pico, Justice Brennan stated, "[T]he Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas." ²⁸ This idea includes, in effect, the intellectual freedom of the students. Even under the curriculum and guidance of a school setting, a student has a reserved right to intellectual freedom. If not, the school would closer resemble a totalitarian regime, where individuals are not free to seek outside ideas and gain information that is not prescribed to them. Again, in Pico, it was put forth that a school library is an especially appropriate place to uphold the First Amendment ideals that include the right to read and receive ideas. Although other judges did not agree with the distinction, this ideal is in line with the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights. If school boards are to truly uphold their "inculcating" function of readying young students to join society and learn community values, protecting their freedom to read and access ideas should be encouraged as a reflection of American society. Public libraries and the American Library Association help define and uphold intellectual freedom. If members of public school boards do not value these types of institutions, it seems they are denying students knowledge of, and appreciation for, a highly valued feature of society.

As a reaction to the many challenges of intellectual freedom, including the right to receive information and ideas, the library community began to publish and speak out against censorship. The response grew in the 1980s and remained steady. As late at 1996, Betty J. Turlock, then president of the American Library Association, published an in-depth article in The American School Board Journal, where she stated:

The freedom to think and read what we choose without censorship or limitation is one of this nation's most precious freedoms. But in local school districts these days, it is a freedom that seems increasingly fragile: Censorship attacks on books are growing more common in school classrooms and media centers. ²⁹

She then went on to explicate that parents do, of course, have authority over what their children read, but that a parent's discretion extends only to their own children and it is an infringement of Constitutional liberties to attempt to extend them to other people's children. The right to read includes the antithesis, or even the antidote, to governmental mediation of what is read, expressed, or even thought.
Selection and Removal of Books
Like most of the book banning court cases in recent history, Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District was forced to address the issue of selection and removal of books. That is, censorship-what it entails, if it's necessary, who should do it, and how certain selection practices are mandated. Minarcini came to trial because the school board not only rejected teachers' request to add Joseph Heller's Catch-22 and a book by Kurt Vonnegut to the high school curriculum but also ordered the removal of those books from the school library. ³⁰ The school board gave no other reason for rejection other than that the books were "completely sick" and "garbage." The court ruled in favor of protecting intellectual freedom and that "once having created a library, the school board does not have the power to censor its contents based only on the social and political tastes of its members." ³¹

Although it was originally hoped the Pico decision would provide specific laws about book selection and removal, ' it is now known that the courts will not provide specific guidelines to those difficult scenarios, as ' interfering with the state and school affairs may be too imposing.' Rather, teachers and school officials now have access to plenty of literature, advice, and examples to choose from when developing procedures and guidelines around the selection of materials so as not to infringe on students' rights while still providing access to materials they deem appropriate for schools.

In 1978, Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea ³²further explored the principles of censorship. A poetry anthology entitled Male and Female, Under 18 was banned by school officials and subsequently challenged in federal district court by the Chelsea school librarian and a committee of supporters. A specific poem entitled "The City to a Young Girl" was stated as the reason for banning the book. The poem, written by a 15-year-old girl, expressed her feelings and frustrations about being sexually harassed on the streets of Brooklyn where she grew up. One parent wrote a newspaper article opposing the book and labeling it "filth." The familiar sentiments she expressed convey how "over and over again, the facts in these incidents are the same..." and that "most of these books deal with social problems such as ghetto life, discrimination and drug abuse." ³³ This perhaps provides a clue into the mind of a censor, i.e., people who feel that censoring books is appropriate appear to believe that removing literature about these issues will eliminate the issues. Despite there being no substantial evidence suggesting that literature can have harmful effects on students, denying children access to literature about such social difficulties effectively prevents children from being able to confront them.

Would-be censors at many schools often chose books of similar creed, substance, and literary value. In Pico, two of the books were Pulitzer Prize winners. Many times the books were approved and even hailed by teachers, librarians, and other professional educators for confronting social ills and highlighting marginalized groups in society. In defense of removing the books, school officials and parents used only excerpts of the books, particularly those containing "bad" words. Those seeking to censor such materials did not attempt to speak about the books as whole entities; rather, paragraphs or passages were taken out of context and put on display for interpretation' even though there is no way to truly interpret a text's meaning or impact in this manner. Upon close inspection of the facts, it seems that some school officials and parents were threatened by ideas or expressions that related in some way to intellectualism. This reaction can be supported by the idea that the only known effect of exposure to literature might be a level of awareness or sensitivity that was not present before.

As a result of the court's plurality opinions in the Pico case, a test for determining if a book removal has free speech implications was developed. The following are extracted from that case:

Those removing books should be able to prove "substantial and legitimate government interests" such as obsolescence, architectural necessity, or other legitimate educational considerations.

A balance test might be enacted: was the book removed solely because the school board disliked it? Or is there substantial evidence to the contrary? The motives will be considered, and they should not be ambiguous or suspect. If the motives are suspect in any way, the removal is censorship. The unconstitutional reason for the removal of books, however, must be shown as the decisive factor for it to be a violation of First Amendment free speech.

A court of law will review the procedures and guidelines used to make the removal decisions.

There can be no "unusual or irregular intervention in the school libraries' operations by persons not routinely concerned with their contents."

Finally, a board must prove concretely, not abstractly, "that the interests of discipline or sound education are materially and substantially jeopardized" by the material they are seeking to remove.³⁴

At the same time, school librarians, school boards, and other educators can now enact certain guidelines around selection and removal to prevent a First Amendment challenge from occurring. First, they must develop procedures and follow them. This caused a great deal of trouble for the school board in Pico when it became evident to the court that the board had violated its own policies by rejecting the appointed committee's recommendations. Justice Brennan went so far as to suggest that the outcome of the case might have been different had the school board sought the opinion of librarians and other professionals and heeded their advice. Second, the opinion in Pico emphasized that a school board can transmit "community values" and that which reflect a community's philosophy and ideas, but they must consider First Amendment principles and not impose certain ideas and values. This paradox would be difficult for anyone to interpret and enact, especially for those so concerned with the welfare of students and who believe that actual harm can come from exposure to specific words or ideas-certainly one of the most unclear and confusing outcomes of the book banning cases of the 1980s. The next guideline for school officials to consider, specifically when seeking to remove books are, is to bring order, protect the rights of others, or to promote standards of civility and decency. This provides yet another confusing and difficult guideline to follow. Presumably, one of these arguments might stand in as a passable justification for motivations based on personal responses, which may or may not infringe upon a student's right to receive the ideas contained within.

The next selection considerations, while still open to interpretation, are more straightforward and aim to provide a balanced presentation of viewpoints, types of literature, and so on. Further selection considerations are that some books provide needed variety, more factually accurate accounts, or might interest students more than others. Once more, selection of materials walks a fine line with censorship and there are no definitive rules for achieving proper selection; indeed, such a thing probably does not exist. In the case of book banning, however, the issue is typically with preventing rather than with providing. The hope and aim is to avoid book banning by properly selecting materials in the first place and informing school officials that it is a potential Constitutional violation to remove them from the shelves once they have been approved. "Selection, then, begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control." ³⁵

In the present day, book banning and censorship still occur but under somewhat different circumstances. This can be seen as a direct impact of the rash of court cases in the 1980s. It seems that today "local officials [will not] be eager to have their private lives and political motivations examined at trial and scrutinized in the press." 36 School boards, parents, and other members of the community no longer wish to be brought into the public eye just so they can take a few books off the library's shelves. This is not to say that books are not removed and challenges not brought to court. In 2001, a school in La Mirada, California removed Sophie's Choice from the library shelf after receiving a parental complaint about the book's sexual content. In response, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened to sue the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District if it wasn't replaced. During protests led by a student at La Mirada, the author of the book, William Styron, was quoted on his views about censorship, saying, "I think it's reprehensible. I find it shocking...it's improper to allow people to be browbeaten about books in this country." ³⁷ Nowadays it seems as though when challenges are brought, the district officials react carefully and according to policy and procedure. At La Mirada, the principal was said to have removed the book in order to review it in accordance with a policy stating that this must be done when parents find materials objectionable. It was later reported that the book was returned to the library shelves after being reviewed and after the ACLU's threat to bring a First Amendment lawsuit; a message from the superintendent of the Norwalk-La Mirada schools stated, "[W]e are definitely not into censorship." ³⁸ The book remained off school library shelves for three months while the principal decided if it was appropriate for curriculum. The managing attorney of the Southern California Chapter of the ACLU, however, reported that the book was returned for different reasons: "[T]he book is back in the library because district officials got some good advice from their attorneys-and realized they was [ sic] in the wrong." ³⁹ In addition, in this particular case, as with other cases, the popularity of the challenged book went up as a result of media coverage and curiosity. This is probably an unintentional result of book banning and, depending on the point of view, can be considered a positive or negative effect of the publicity received.

The ongoing complaints of parents and school board officials about what is on reading lists and in school libraries proves that the concerns and inclinations are much the same as they were twenty years ago. Challenges do appear to be brought less often, however, and other changes are taking place. These changes lean less towards obvious concerns over curriculum and values and more towards evolution and the recognition that one-size-fits-all educations should be a thing of the past (the emergence of charter schools being one example). Changes to public schools can be attributed to the need for hands-on learning and more personalized educations; however, much of the motivation for change is perhaps for the ability to directly cater to parents' and school officials' sensibilities, ones that they will not have to defend to the ACLU or any other organization concerned with intellectual freedom.

It has been stated that when "the Supreme Court chose to concern itself more with questions of procedure than with questions of substance, more questions were left unanswered than were decided." 40 This may be true, in part, from both sides of the debate. The Pico decision did not outline specific rules or regulations for acceptable content in books, which may be upsetting to parents especially concerned about it. It also did not outlaw book banning-a law which many proponents of intellectual freedom might have liked to see put in place. One person of particular authority of opinion is Steven Pico, who spent seven years of his life trying to get nine books put back on the shelves of his (former) high school library. He eventually succeeded, and some years later he stated in a speech to school librarians that it was imperative not to underestimate the importance of this decision. One must realize that Supreme Court doctrine evolves slowly. Consider that this case came to the most conservative court in sixty years, and that the court was being asked to recognize a First Amendment right which had no firm history in Constitutional law. This was the best decision we could have hoped for in this environment. ⁴¹

These are powerful realizations for anyone who might criticize the events and outcomes of the Pico case. In reality, precedents evolve slowly; ' however, progress has been made. Despite the ever-increasing modifications in the structure of public schools and the slow evolution of perceptions about intellectual freedom for students (or anybody), it is entirely too difficult to predict if students in public schools will forever have to learn about First Amendment the hard way.
References

1. Steven Pico, "An Introduction to Censorship," School Library Media Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1990), 84-87.

2. Ibid.

3. Larry Kraus, "Censorship: What Island Trees V. Pico Means to Schools," The Clearing House 57, 343-345.

4. Ibid.

5. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

6. Ibid.

7. Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board, 457 f.2d 289 (2d Cir. 1972).

8. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 474 f. supp 387 E.D.N.Y, 1979.

9. Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board, 457 f.2d 289 (2d Cir. 1972).

10. James v. Board of Education, 461 f.2d 566, 573 (2d Cir. 1972).

11. Timothy L. Coggins, "Book Removals from School Libraries and Students' First Amendment Rights," School Law Bulletin 17, no. 3 (1986), 17-21.

12. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

13. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

14. Ibid.

15. Ibid.

16. Gail Paulus Sorenson, "Removal of Books from School Libraries 1972 - 1982: Board of Education v. Pico and its Antecedents," Journal of Law of Education 12 (July 1983), 417-41.

17. Ibid.

18. Elyse Clark, "A Slow, Subtle Exercise in Censorship," School Library Journal 32, no. 7 (1986), 93-96.

19. Ibid.

20. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

21. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 474 f. supp 387 E.D.N.Y, 1979.

22. Ibid.

23. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 474 f. supp 387 E.D.N.Y, 1979, reversed: 638 f.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1980).

24. Steven Pico, "An Introduction to Censorship," School Library Media Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1990), 84-87.

25. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

26. Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 f.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976).

27. Lamont v. Postmaster General 381 U.S. 301 (1965).

28. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

29. Betty J. Turlock, "Locked Out, Censorship is on the Rise Again-and Students' Freedom to Read is in Your Hands," The American School Board Journal 183 (October 1996), 31-3.

30. Minarcini v. Strongsville City School District, 541 f.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976).

31. Gail Paulus Sorenson, "Removal of Books from School Libraries 1972-1982: Board of Education v. Pico and its Antecedents," Journal of Law of Education 12, (July 1983), 417-41.

32. Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, 454 f. supp 703, 711 (D. Mass 1978).

33. Steven Pico, "An Introduction to Censorship," School Library Media Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1990), 84-87.

34. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Steven A. Pico, et al. 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

35. Lester Asheim, "Not Censorship But Selection" Wilson Library Bulletin (September 1953).

36. Steven Pico, "An Introduction to Censorship," School library Media Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1990), 84-87.

37. Duke Helfand, "Students Fight for 'Sophie's Choice,'" Los Angeles Times, (December 22, 2001).

38. Andrea Perera, "Controversial Novel Returns to Library," Los Angeles Times (January 12, 2002).

39. Ibid.

40. Larry L. Kraus, "What Island Trees v. Pico Means to Schools," The Clearing House 57 (April 1984), 343-5.

41. Steven Pico, "An Introduction to Censorship," School Library Media Quarterly 18, no. 2 (1990), 84-87.

Bibliography
Reichman, Henry. Censorship and Selection, Issues and Answers for Schools. Chicago:American Library Association, 1993.

Rogers, Donald J. Banned! Book Censorship in Schools. New York: Simon and Schuster,Inc., 1988.
About the Author
Amy Pelman received her MLIS degree from UCLA in 2006.' She works as a public librarian focusing on teen advocacy, teen programming, and adult technology instruction.' She enjoys shining the spotlight on fellow librarian colleagues in her blog The Original Librarian Trading Cards.

Dr. Beverly Lynch is a professor of Information Studies at UCLA, Director of the Senior Fellows Program, and the Founding Director, California Rare Book School. Dr. Lynch's teaching and research interests center on structures of complex organizations, organizational environments and organizational change; measurement and evaluation of libraries and library services; libraries as organizations, and academic and research university libraries.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The School Library versus the School Board: An Exploration of the Book Banning Trend of the 1980s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Abstract While attempted book banning in school libraries continues to this day, a rash of book challenges occurred during the 1980s. Parents, students, and other stakeholders brought lawsuits against groups and individuals attempting to ban books from school libraries. At that time, no legal precedents were in place to guide school administrators on appropriate responses to book challenges.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Choices for Children: Why and How to Let Students Decide (*)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children’s Psychology: Contexts and Influences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children’s psychology focuses on the minds and behaviors of kids, from prenatal development through adolescence. Learn about its history, contexts, and influences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Author Robert A. Heinlein said about censorship: "The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." Since the printed word began, those rankled by its messages have worked to bowdlerize and ban it.

In the U.S., censorious impulses rose to a frenzy in the eighties, and it was then that Banned Books Week began. This year, Banned Books Week spans September 21-27, and, to honor the occasion, we've compiled a list of four famous cases of library censorship.

1. "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"

Mark Twain's classic has incited objections to its perceived immoral and sacrilegious content since its 1884 publication. One month after its publication, the Concord, MA library banned it, and other libraries followed suit. In the 1950s, the NAACP condemned the book as racist, and one parent even sued a school district in 1998 for making the book required reading. In the suit, Monteiro v. The Tempe Union High School District, the parent of a high school student accused the school district of exacerbating racial tensions at school with the book's racist overtones. The court refused to ban the book.

2. "Slaughterhouse-Five"

Kurt Vonnegut's tour de force was one of several books banned in Island Trees, NY schools in 1976 for its purportedly depraved and anti-Christian message. With the ACLU's help, five high school students sued the school district, and the battle went to the Supreme Court in Island Trees School District v. Pico in 1982.

In the Court's ruling for the students, Justice Brennan said, "We hold that local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of public opinion.'"

3. The "Harry Potter" Series

J.K. Rowling's beloved series has encountered virulent opposition from its nascenc e. In 2001, a group of parents in Maine planned a book-burning of "Harry Potter" and other books they believed promoted Satanism, violence, and witchcraft. Similarly disgruntled parents and school districts also objected to the books, and Counts v. Cedarville School District was the result.

There, the court ruled against a school board that required parental permission to read the book because it promoted disobedience and the occult. The court ordered the books returned to unrestricted circulation in the interest of students' First Amendment rights.

4. "The Scarlet Letter"

Moralistic objections have plagued Nathaniel Hawthorne's timeless novel since its publication in 1850. Critics objected to the author's seemingly sympathetic depiction of an adulteress and caustic criticism of the clergy. Almost 150 years later, parents from one school district called the book pornographic in the 1970s, and a spate of cases in the nineties sought to ban the book for values that conflicted with the community. Nevertheless, the novel remains a staple of sophomore English classes.

Banned Books Week is a celebration of our freedom to read. And, looking at this list of literary gems that came so close to being driven into obscurity by moralistic censors, we do indeed have reason to celebrate.
If you are interested in getting your degree in library science, please fill out our form or contact us.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Banned Books Week: 4 Famous Library Censorship Cases | USC Library Science Degree Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Author Robert A. Heinlein said about censorship: "The whole principle is wrong; it's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't eat steak." Since the printed word began, those rankled by its messages have worked to bowdlerize and ban it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit our COVID-19 Recovery pages for updates and recommended resources.