Censorship in schools isn鈥檛 just about what books make it into a reading list. It鈥檚 also about whether we trust the professional judgment of the educators who are tasked with creating those lists.
A common misconception in society and the world of schools is that this judgment can somehow be made quantitatively鈥攖hrough 鈥渢rusted sources鈥� like the , , or . The trouble with these sites is that they count 鈥渙ffenses鈥� found in individual parts of the text (e.g., how the characters may be less than desirable people or how many 鈥淔 bombs鈥� or nude scenes appear) and offer their tallies under advisement to parents鈥攏ot to schools or libraries.
The explains why such rating systems just don鈥檛 work for schools, whose main job, of course, is education:
“Red-flagging” privileges the concerns of would-be censors over the professional judgment of teachers and librarians who review and select the books for their students. . . .
起点传媒believes that literature is more than the sum of its parts and has developed policies that strongly discourage censorship. Letter ratings and “red-flagging” is a blatant form of censorship; the practice reduces complex literary works to a few isolated elements鈥攖hose that some individuals may find objectionable鈥攔ather than viewing the work as a whole.
We select the texts we use in our classrooms to meet the aims of our courses and curricula. At the same time, we look for texts that are appropriate for our readers, texts that will interest and engage them and push them to think beyond their own local worlds. It鈥檚 not as clean a process as scanning a text and counting curse words鈥攊t鈥檚 a thoughtful, collaborative process that leads to deeper learning for everyone involved. Check out to learn more.