What is censored in schools

But within the educational setting, the right to free speech is implemented in ways that do not interfere with schools' educational mission. Students cannot claim, for instance, that they have the right to have incorrect answers to an algebra quiz accepted as correct, nor can teachers claim a right to teach anything they choose. Censorship is not easy to define. In many countries, censorship is most often directed at political ideas or criticism of the government.

In the United States, censorship more often involves social issues, and in schools it is commonly directed at "controversial" materials. Advocates for censorship often target materials that discuss sexuality, religion, race and ethnicity—whether directly or indirectly. Others think schools are wrong to allow discussion about sexual orientation in sex education or family life classes, and others would eliminate The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn from the English curriculum because of racist language.

Most pressures for censorship come from parents who disapprove of language or ideas that differ from their personal values, but demands can emerge from anywhere across the religious, ideological, and political spectrum. The range of "controversial" topics appears limitless: religion, science, history, contemporary and classical literature, art, gender, sexuality, "one-worldism," health, multiculturalism, and so on.

Many demands appear motivated by anxiety about changing social conditions and traditions— from feminism to the removal of prayer from schools, or the emergence of the gay rights movement. Censorship demands require educators to balance First Amendment obligations against other concerns — maintaining the integrity of the educational program, meeting state education requirements, respecting the judgments of professional staff, and addressing deeply-held beliefs in students and the community.

Pursuant to these principles, lower courts generally defer to the professional judgment of educators. This sometimes means that courts will uphold a decision to remove a book or discipline a teacher if it appears to serve legitimate educational objectives, including administrative efficiency.

However, administrators and educators who reject demands for censorship are on equally strong or stronger grounds; most professional educational organizations strongly promote free expression and academic freedom.

It is highly improbable that a school official who relied on these principles and refused to accede to pressure to censor something with educational value would ever be ordered by a court to do so.

There are practical and educational as well as legal reasons to adhere as closely as possible to the ideals of the First Amendment. School districts such as Panama City, Florida and Hawkins County, Tennessee have been stunned to find that acceding to demands for removal of a single book escalated to demands for revising entire classroom reading programs. Other jurisdictions have been pressed to revise the science curriculum, the content of history courses, sex education, drug and alcohol education, and self-esteem programs.

Experience has shown far too many times that what appears to be capitulation to a minor adjustment can turn into the opening foray of a major curriculum content battle involving warring factions of parents and politicians, teachers, students and administrators.

Teachers, principals, and school administrators make decisions all the time about which books and materials to retain, add or exclude from the curriculum.

They are not committing an act of censorship every time they cross a book off of a reading list, but if they decide to remove a book because of hostility to the ideas it contains, they could be. As the National Council of Teachers of English NCTE and International Reading Association IRA note, there is an important distinction between selection based on professional guidelines and censorship: "Whereas the goal of censorship is to remove, eliminate or bar particular materials and methods, the goal of professional guidelines is to provide criteria for selection of materials and methods.

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.

Common targets included D. In the late s, attacks were launched on ideologies expressed in books. Often, the complaints arose from individual parents or school board members. At other times, however, the pressure to censor came from such public interest groups as the Moral Majority. Censorship — the suppression of ideas and information — can occur at any stage or level of publication, distribution, or institutional control.

Some pressure groups claim that the public funding of most schools and libraries makes community censorship of their holdings legitimate. To counter charges of censorship, opponents of publications sometimes use the tactic of restricting access rather than calling for the physical removal of books. Opponents of bans argue that by restricting information and discouraging freedom of thought, censors undermine one of the primary functions of education: teaching students how to think for themselves.

Such actions, assert free speech proponents, endanger tolerance, free expression, and democracy. Parents and teachers--and many others--are obliged by their legitimate positions to censor specific words and images from student access.

This article focuses on these teacher, school administrator, and school board endeavors that forbid, block, limit, or obstruct student access to information. Use this link to get back to this page.

The role of censorship in school. Author: Ken Petress. Date: Sept. From: Journal of Instructional Psychology Vol. Publisher: George Uhlig Publisher. As long as they were not motivated by hostility to the idea of teaching about evolution, this would not ordinarily be deemed censorship. The choice to include the material in the fourth grade curriculum tends to demonstrate this was a pedagogical judgment, not an act of censorship.

Not every situation is that simple. On closer examination, it is clear their concern is not that students will not understand the material, but that the objecting adults do not want the students to have access to this type of information at this age. If professional educators can articulate a legitimate pedagogical rationale to maintain such material in the curriculum, it is unlikely that an effort to remove it would be successful.

Most people do not consider it censorship when they attempt to rid the school of material that they think is profane or immoral, or when they insist that the materials selected show respect for religion, morality, or parental authority.

School officials who accede to demands to remove materials because of objections to their views or content may be engaging in censorship. Efforts to suppress a disfavored view or controversial ideas are educationally unsound and constitutionally suspect. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.

Society of Sisters, U. 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 containing 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. 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 world of knowledge available to students.