It鈥檚 hard to have grown up in the 50s and 60s as I did and not have been aware of how governments鈥攅ven ours in the US鈥攈ave impinged on their citizens鈥� rights to know and read by enforcing education only in the philosophies of those in power.
In Germany as Hitler rose to power, the ideals of the Reich were considered the only acceptable ideals. The German Student Union promoted those ideals and purged all other ideals by conducting the infamous. During the 1950鈥檚 in America, considered communist and to take those books out of circulation both in the states and in libraries the US oversaw overseas.
Here in 2019 in America, while I think we should know better, several states are considering legislation to limit students鈥� access to books and the knowledge they bring in classrooms.
Things heated up in Maine when Representative Amy Arata introduced legislation that would allow parents and legislators to commonly taught modern classics such as Beloved and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. See . And, just as that bill was put to bed without being approved, , was released. Thankfully is now dead.
In Florida, a new law states that
any district resident鈥攔egardless of whether they have a child in school鈥攃an now challenge material as pornographic, biased, inaccurate or a violation of state law and get a hearing before an outside mediator.
The mediator advises the local school board, whose decision is final. Previously, challenges could only be made by parents to the school or district. There was also no mediator and fewer mandates. Districts must now also post online a list of all new books and material by grade level to make monitoring easier.
This law was drafted by the 聽which is Titles include Kate Chopin鈥檚 The Awakening, Toni Morrison鈥檚 The Bluest Eye, Anthony Burgess鈥� A Clockwork Orange, and Frank McCourt鈥檚 Angela鈥檚 Ashes and textbooks, including Harcourt Publishing鈥檚 Modern World History 9th Grade and Pearson鈥檚 Essentials of Oceanography听(.聽 A hearing on the bill was held on March 26 and just beforehand the from 24 pages to 6, removing much of the language that would take away schools’ rights to choose texts for students. The FCA is also advocating for to . The National Coalition Against Censorship outlines and they provide on counteracting FCA’s challenges. 起点传媒is one of the partners working with NCAC on this issue.
Back up the coast in New Jersey, two Assembly members have initiated a resolution to ban the teaching of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in New Jersey Schools. ,
“The novel鈥檚 use of a racial slur and its depictions of racist attitudes can cause students to feel upset, marginalized or humiliated and can create an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom.” It also cited school districts in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Minnesota and Mississippi that have taken Huck Finn out of the curricula.
There is no doubt that texts like Huck Finn are controversial, even for teachers (see the four articles in the ),聽 but whether the text is taught or not is an educator鈥檚 decision (see NCTE’s聽) and whether the text is read is a student鈥檚 or their individual parents鈥� decision.
In fact, the Supreme Court in Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982) (plurality opinion) has cautioned that school officials 鈥渕ay not remove books from library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to 鈥榩rescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.鈥�
What the legislative actions in Maine, Florida, and New Jersey have in common is that, based on a few people’s personal ideas, they鈥檙e attempting to prescribe what should and shouldn鈥檛 be taught in schools鈥攕chools that are charged not to indoctrinate students but rather to educate them, to introduce students to both sides of controversial issues, and to challenge students to read and learn about worlds other than their own.
In the words of聽Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972), 鈥淸A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.鈥�
Because, I might add, to restrict learning is to burn at least some part of knowledge students would otherwise have attained.