How does censorship affect education

Censorship is alive and well. Further, it is sometimes part of a larger campaign by conservative or religious fundamentalist groups to impose their particular curriculum focus on public schools and to build support for public school alternatives such as vouchers. As with any issue, however, scratch beneath the surface and complexities emerge.

What distinctions might be made between complaints about a required book in a required class versus an optional book in an elective class, or calls to ban a book from the school library? Are complaints about curricula potentially grounded in a larger problem of poor relations between a teacher and parents? Teachers must also address the issue of self-censorship.

Censorship in school primarily involve issues of curriculum and library materials. Other dimensions of censorship include student speech, teacher speech particularly around issues of foreign policy and sexual orientation and, increasingly, the Internet. There are no hard and fast rules about which books may be targeted. The prime targets for censorship are books that mention sex, talk about sex education, or deal with gay and lesbian issues.

Rarely do those challenging books use the word censorship. There are generally three levels of challenges to school materials, according to Deanna Duby, director of education policy for People for the American Way, a Washington D. The first type of challenge is often worked out at the classroom level when a teacher explains the curricular purpose of a book or how a book with profane language can still have educational merit, or offers an alternative reading assignment to a student.

While there is a tendency to sometimes lump together censorship and challenges to books, teachers need to understand that any parent has the right to question the educational appropriateness of a particular book. The Bill of Rights protects not only freedom of speech but the right to petition the government for redress of grievances — and public school teachers are government employees.

Most experts on censorship argue that the line is crossed when the parent demands that no one in the class, or in the entire school, should read the book or material being challenged. And that, we think, is censorship. The clearest cases of censorship involve demands to remove an existing book from the library. Cindy Robinson, associate director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, notes that there are sometimes different issues involved in challenges to materials in the curriculum versus materials in the school library.

The most explosive controversies, even if not the most common, involve complaints that are part of an organized campaign. Most of these broader attacks are launched by organizations or individuals affiliated with what is commonly called the religious right — religious fundamentalist groups which advocate a literal interpretation of the Bible and which organize politically to impose their religious perspective on public institutions. For example, administrators and faculty might agree to take a discussion of evolution out of the second grade curriculum because the students lack sufficient background to understand it, and decide to introduce it in fourth grade instead.

As long as they were not motivated by hostility to the idea of teaching about evolution, this would not ordinarily be deemed censorship; the choice to include the material in the fourth grade curriculum demonstrates this was a pedagogical judgment, not an act of censorship. Not every situation is that simple. If professional educators can articulate a legitimate pedagogical rationale to maintain such material, it is unlikely that an effort to remove it would be successful.

Of course, hardly anyone admits to "censoring" something. Most people do not consider it censorship when they attempt to rid the school of material they consider profane or immoral, or when they insist that the materials selected show respect for religion, morality, or parental authority.

School officials who accede to such demands may be engaging in censorship. 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.

Efforts to suppress controversial views or ideas are educationally and constitutionally suspect. Society of Sisters, U. What's so bad about getting rid of materials containing profanity?

Many people don't want their children using that kind of language, and believe that seeing profanity in books or hearing others swear encourages youngsters to do the same, especially if the act goes unpunished. Yet profanity appears in many worthwhile books, films, and other materials for the same reasons many people use it in their everyday language—for emphasis or to convey emotion. Works with profanity often contain realistic portrayals of how an individual might respond in a situation, and some teachers intentionally select such materials to remove the allure from cursing.

But even minor use of profanity has not shielded books from attack. Katherine Paterson's award-winning book Bridge to Terabithia contains only mild profanity, but it has been repeatedly challenged on that ground, as have long-acknowledged classics like Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck.

Profanity, however, is only one of many grounds on which books are challenged. As these examples illustrate, censorship based on individual sensitivities and concerns restricts the knowledge available to students.

Based on personal views, some parents wish to eliminate material depicting violence; others object to references to sexuality, or to racially-laden speech or images.

If these and other individual preferences were legitimate criteria for censoring materials, school curricula would narrow to only the least controversial—and probably least relevant—material.

It would hardly address students' real concerns, satisfy their curiosity or prepare them for life. Censorship also harms teachers. By limiting resources and flexibility, censorship hampers teachers' ability to explore all possible avenues to motivate and "reach" students. By curtailing ideas that can be discussed in class, censorship takes creativity and vitality out of the art of teaching; instruction is reduced to bland, formulaic, pre-approved exercises carried out in an environment that discourages the give-and-take that can spark students' enthusiasm.

Teachers need latitude to respond to unanticipated questions and discussion, and the freedom to draw on their professional judgment, without fear of consequences if someone objects, disagrees or takes offense. When we strip teachers of their professional judgment, we forfeit the educational vitality we prize. When we quell controversy for the sake of congeniality, we deprive democracy of its mentors.

Alfred Wilder. Censorship chills creativity and in that way impacts everyone. In a volume titled Places I Never Meant To Be , author Judy Blume, whose books are a common target of censorship efforts, collected statements of censored writers about the harms of censorship.

According to one frequently censored author, Katherine Paterson: "When our chief goal is not to offend someone, we are not likely to write a book that will deeply affect anyone. Julius Lester observed: "Censorship is an attitude of mistrust and suspicion that seeks to deprive the human experience of mystery and complexity. But without mystery and complexity, there is no wonder; there is no awe; there is no laughter.

Norma Fox Mazur added: "…where once I went to my writing without a backward glance, now I sometimes have to consciously clear my mind of those shadowy censorious presences. That's bad for me as a writer, bad for you as a reader. Censorship is crippling, negating, stifling.

It should be unthinkable in a country like ours. Readers deserve to pick their own books. Writers need the freedom of their minds. That's all we writers have, anyway: our minds and imaginations.

To allow the censors even the tiniest space in there with us can only lead to dullness, imitation and mediocrity. Censorship represents a "tyranny over the mind," said Thomas Jefferson—and is harmful wherever it occurs.

Censorship is particularly harmful in the schools because it prevents student with inquiring minds from exploring the world, seeking truth and reason, stretching their intellectual capacities, and becoming critical thinkers. When the classroom environment is chilled, honest exchange of views is replaced by guarded discourse and teachers lose the ability to guide their students effectively. Censorship occurs every day. Sometimes it's obvious even if no one uses the "C" word.

Sometimes it's invisible—when a teacher decides not to use a particular story or book or when a librarian decides not to order a particular magazine because of fears about possible complaints. No one can quantify this kind of "chilling effect" and its consequences for education. After discovering his novel Boy Toy fell prey to such "self-censorship," acclaimed YA author Barry Lyga called it " sort of a soft, quiet, very insidious censorship, where nobody is raising a stink, nobody is complaining, nobody is burning books….

The American Library Association ALA , which tracks and reports censorship incidents, records a problem of significant magnitude, and they estimate that for each incident reported, there are four or five that go unreported. ALA states that between and , 5, challenges were reported to or recorded by its Office for Intellectual Freedom.

During the school year alone, there were challenges to educational materials, according to People for the American Way PFAW. Most of the remainder are aimed at public libraries. The ALA offers an instructive analysis of the motivation behind most censorship incidents:. Such a picture, however, is misleading. In most cases, the one to bring a complaint to the library is a concerned parent or a citizen sincerely interested in the future well being of the community.

Although complainants may not have a broad knowledge of literature or of the principles of freedom of expression, their motives in questioning a book or other library material are seldom unusual. Any number of reasons are given for recommending that certain material be removed from the library. Complainants may believe that the materials will corrupt children and adolescents, offend the sensitive or unwary reader, or undermine basic values and beliefs.

Sometimes, because of these reasons, they may argue that the materials are of no interest or value to the community. Of more than 5, challenges recorded by the ALA over the past eight years, 1, challenges alleged the materials' content was "sexually explicit;" 1, objections concerned "offensive language" in the material; 1, alleged the material was "unsuited to age group;" complained about an "occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism;" and concerned objections about homosexual issues or "promoting homosexuality.

While demands for censorship can come from almost anyone and involve any topic or form of expression, most involve concerns about sexual content, religion, profanity or racial language. Many incidents involve only one complaint, but can nonetheless trigger a contentious review process. Often, parents who support free expression do not step forward to the same extent as those seeking to remove materials, leaving school officials and teachers relatively isolated.

It is then their task to carefully assess the pedagogical value of the materials, to avoid simply giving in to angry demands that could undermine educational objectives and invite additional challenges in the future.

One of the most common demands for censorship involves the claim that certain school materials are not "age appropriate.

The objection usually comes up when the material concerns sexuality, reflecting a fear that exposure to this subject undermines moral or religious values. Since many non-objecting parents support informing even young children about sexual matters, it is clear that the content of the material as much as the age of the child lies at the heart of the objection.

Acceding to pressure to censor in this situation can be tantamount to endorsing one moral or religious view over another. Conversely, educators generally use the term "age appropriate" for the point at which children have sufficient life experience and cognitive skills to comprehend certain material. Education proceeds in stages, with increasingly complex material presented as students gain the intellectual ability and knowledge to understand and process it.

For this reason, young children usually do not learn physics or read Shakespeare. Similarly, educators may decide that detailed scientific information about human reproduction might not be age-appropriate for six-year-olds, but would be appropriate for year-olds who have been introduced to basic biology.

She observes, however, that the rationale for psychological descriptions of the age at which certain behaviors generally occur has limited relevance to the selection of educational materials and literature in the classroom. These media outlets already deal with censorship, and adding more censorship would be harmful to today's education process.

By limiting our access to different subjects as well as different viewpoints, there would be a major hindrance on the need to gain knowledge. Many people actively utilize their local media centers, moreover, if censorship was abundant within these facilities, many people would be starved of the knowledge they are seeking. They contain knowledge, thoughts, beliefs, wisdom, and insight. When these valuable instruments of learning are taken away, the results can be detrimental.

Censoring is an age-old tactic used to control the thoughts and actions of people. Today, it poses one of the largest threats to learning. Censorship of books is a very controversial and frequently debated topic. Many teachers, parents, and school boards believe that they need to censor books in order to keep children away from profanity, sex, and immorality books which are considered offensive and vulgar.

However, many of these people do not see that, by censoring books, important life lessons are being left out of the formative years which will have a negative effect on children as they, inevitably, come in contact with these situations.

My goal for this project is to research and understand the positive and negative effects of dictatorships on the academic growth as well as growth in the humanities.

There are clear negative effects like the loss of literature in countries such as Germany, where specific types of book from certain eras were burned. Censorship is something that needs to be held closely in check if our children are to grow up with the proper awareness of the world as it really exists. Schools should be upheld as standards of education and should be able to prepare students for life in an open world.

If schools continue to succumb to the desires of special interest groups, they run the risk of closing minds and leaving children in the dark when it comes to various important social issues. The impact of censorship in schools is significant in light of the way of the world and in light of the ever-changing social climate.

By subscribing you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Health Topics. Health Tools. Kids' Health. Medically Reviewed. Censorship in schools is a complicated situation because there are many variables involved that can impact the way children learn and the way schools serve to educate. Censorship in schools usually exists in the form of the removal or manipulation of materials or learning processes. These materials might range from that which officials and parents have generally decided is inappropriate for our children, such as nudity, to teaching subjects that some find objectionable, such as evolution versus creationism.