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

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...

Experiment

My social studies students and I are studying Islam right now. The other day, we were reading about one of the Five Pillars, zakat (charity in Islam that means "that which purifies"). Muslims believe that giving away money helps to purify it and also "safeguards [them] against miserliness" (1). I asked the class if this was true, that giving money away makes us less greedy. They generally agreed that it does. I wanted to test whether or not they really believed this, so I handed a volunteer a $10 bill. I told the class that I would ask for the bill back the next day. I said that they should pass the bill around among their classmates, and that as a result, there would be no way for me to know who had the bill. For that reason, whoever wanted to keep the money could keep it. Even if I did learn who kept it, I told them, I would not punish that person. I wanted them to be motivated by their own honesty. The next day, I asked for the bill, and a student handed it to me...

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...