Skip to main content

Censorship

My class's journals and debates this week centered on censorship. Essentially, the debate was one of freedom versus security, as so many other issues in our culture are (think search dogs in schools, child vaccinations, gun control, etc., all of which relate to the conflict between individual freedom versus social security). Our specific question was whether a school library should allow middle school students to read controversial books. On the one hand is the First Amendment's promises of the freedoms of speech and press, and on the other a desire to protect children who might not be mature enough for the content. More often than not in debates, the debaters dutifully fulfill their requirements, making clear arguments and supporting those arguments with evidence. This round, however, the debate turned impassioned, to the point where a few students grew angry with one another. The exchanges were such that I had to step in fairly often to remind the debaters of debate rules.

In fact, the conflict that poured forth in that room yesterday was a fitting example of the conflict inside many teachers. How much, we may ask, should we censor the material we teach? On a personal level, how controversial should I make my debate topics? For my part, I want my students to be passionate about what they are debating, but I also want to ensure that they are civil. I realize that I must have a level of trust that my students will be mature enough to handle real-life issues, but I also know that I have a responsibility to maintain a peaceful class climate. For that reason, I try to keep a middle ground in the topics I choose: I want topics they care about, but not topics over which they may grow too vindictive. I purposely avoid abortion, evolution versus creation, homosexuality, and other sensitive topics because they are so incendiary.

This is not to say we haven't broached controversial issues. We've debated euthanasia, legalizing marijuana, gun control, war, burning the American flag, and other issues. Typically, students are civil, and yesterday was no exception. They may have grown upset, but on the whole, they remained on topic and avoided personal attacks. The conflict that did result, however, served to remind me of the larger issue that plagues (or blesses) teachers as they make decisions about curriculum and class discussion. On the beach of real-world issues, where do we draw the line in the sand? On one side of this imaginary line is educational enrichment; and on the other, unwanted provocation. Every teacher draws this line in different places because, of course, every class is different. A teacher must be aware of how mature his or her class is, and this should inform his or her decisions about how much to expose and how much to censor. The balance we try to maintain won't always be perfect, but I have no doubt that purposely tipping it one way or the other is reckless on the one hand and stifling on the other.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Savior

This wasteland cold and dark runs free Its fearful creatures speak to me One fateful day one nudged my hand To set my eyes upon a tree He knew I could not understand For I was in his native land His signs became our common speech To lead me through the deadly sand Now stuck I saw him me beseech He could not lift me out to reach The firm foundation of a cave Outside the boundaries of this beach Withal, the beast became more brave To risk his own my life to save To carry me, its life it gave To carry me, its life it gave. This poem was inspired by Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening." That poem, like this one, has four four-line stanzas of eight syllables per stanza. Its rhyme scheme is AABA BBCB CCDC DDDD.

Ghosts

Exercising at a gym seems to be pretty important in our culture, but it's kind of weird to see the social dynamics when you're there. Usually, if you're running an errand, you see others doing the same thing, going about their days and focusing on what's in front of them. The same thing happens at the gym, only everyone is relatively stationary. They don't really go anywhere, except from one machine or area to another. One might think this lends itself to lots of interaction between members, especially since they're all there for the same purpose, but it isn't true. Not only do people generally avoid talking to one another, but they also avoid even looking at one another. It is as though there is no one else there, even though there are dozens on any given day. Most people follow this unwritten rule, unless something in the environment-- say, two people wanting to use the same set of weights-- gives them common ground to interact, or unless they've alr...

Evil, According to Republicans and Democrats

Please note that the following thoughts are only my observations. Please consider the evidence you see in the behavior of both parties for yourself. In our politically polarized climate, I was thinking about how Democrats and Republicans are different, and where those differences come from. Democrats seem to place more hope in institutions, and seek to reform those institutions when there is something wrong in society. Hence, there is more willingness to levy taxes to offer more social services as a support to those with less than others. They see the state as a way to equalize society. Thus, evil, to Democrats, seems to be a social issue: if there is a problem in society--poverty, racism, climate change, etc.--it is a problem with the structure of society and must be addressed as such: repair the system, and you will solve the problem. They are generally accepting of a larger state bureaucracy because they believe that increased accountability within a state structure will prevent evi...