Please visit the following website list bellow, read each document, and post a response to the class in the comments section. This can include questions, thoughts, or suggestions for further inquiry. Post your response on or before Feb. 27th.
*Remember to respond to at least one other person!
ala.org (Search for the Freedom to Read Statement as well as the Freedom to Read Act)
Based on what I read the Freedom to Read Act as well as the Freedom to Read Statement they provide individuals the rights to select books that meet their needs. Our consumers (patrons) should be able to have access to a variety of texts that focus on things they need. Although I understand that some parents may object, this is their child's right. Each person who goes into the public library has the option to select a book of their choice. No one tells them that because it has homosexuality or vulgar words, that we are unable to check it out. Reading is one of the freedoms we have and this act protects it. Without this act, libraries would be forced to only have "approved" books for students which would not meet the needs of the entire population. Furthermore, after reading this I truly believe that this allows for people in different areas to provide the literature that people need. This act protects us as future librarians and also allows our patrons to select the books that will mean the most to them; which is ultimately our goal.
As I read over both of these Acts, I see that the Freedom to Read statement was first published and adopted in 1953. Then was amended in 1972, 1991, 2000, and 2004. The Freedom to Read (Protection)Act was a bill written in March of 2003. It looks as if this bill was written to protect our rights because of the 'Patriot Act' after September 11. If I'm wrong, someone can let me know. It looks as if these Representatives wanted to make sure that our rights to read would still be in protected after the Patriot Act was put into place.
The Freedom to Read statement was written during the time we refer to as "The Cold War" era. It was after WWII and just before the time of McCarthyism. The writers of this statement realized that censorship is a dangerous idea. WWII showed us how propaganda can change people, and how all ideas must be made available to citizens. People need to be able to use their minds and exercise their free will. The F to R statement reminds us that diversity is good and that all views and expressions should be included. It was also reminding librarians that we should never bar access to anyones views or opinions. It also stated that librarians should not endorse a particular idea, or make their person beliefs known.
Vicki, I am glad that you mentioned the era in which this statement was published, because just after World War II would have been right after the defeat of the Nazis, who used harmful propaganda, and among other things, prohibited the reading of “Non-German” books, and listening to “Non-German” radio, etc. Obviously, we are all too familiar with the results. I think that the historical perspective that you brought up was important, because some people are all too comfortable with having little freedoms taken away (the patriot act) because of faith in the general good of the government, and respect for our laws. Your example reminds us that there must be a very clear and relevant justification, even for acts of a trusted and respected government. This statement goes beyond government as well, to all institutions, education especially. If we are going to avoid certain opinions, and ban certain books, we need to be able to explain why, and we must be very careful not to let the popular point of view dominate all others.
To clarify, The Freedom to Read Statement is a reminder of our indigenous constitutional/individual rights to freedom of speech. The Freedom to Read Act of 2005 (H.R. 1157)was written to counter the Patriot Act. This particular act was never passed into law and is still in committee.
Several interesting points have been made. I think that when Danielle said, "I think that the historical perspective that you brought up was important, because some people are all too comfortable with having little freedoms taken away (the patriot act) because of faith in the general good of the government, and respect for our laws..." many people do easily relinquish the little freedoms that are often taken for granted believing that the government is looking toward the general good, but I sadly believe that we do need to be wary and really pay attention to the little things. Once those freedoms are gone, they may never be given back. In other places, those special rights are not available and never have been. No government is completely uncorrupt and many politicians have their own agendas they wish to see to fruition… We as Americans must be informed and careful to be sure our best interests are always at the forefront. I should be able to read what I want to be able to read.
I also think that while I may not agree or even buy into someone else’s philosophy or ideas, it is not my right to prohibit another from researching it and making their own decisions, or anyone else to censor me in a similar manner. Propaganda, news, politics, and many other forms of communication fight to convert the general population to one cause or another. It is only through the Freedom to Read Act that individuals can research a variety of sources to discover their own path and decide what they believe or don’t believe.
I am teaching my son now to be a reader. Granted he’s only six, but good habits are important to form at an early age. It is my hope that he will delve into many genres of literature and desire to research things he doesn’t know. While I will carefully watch what he reads, rather than tell him not to read something, I’d rather read it with him and discuss any potential “challenging” issues. If I don’t discuss it with him, he’ll just get it somewhere else, and may get the wrong information.
In my class, I have read The Giver, by Lois Lowry every year for the last 8 years. Each class takes something different from it. Yes, every year I get the giggles about Jonas’s “ stirrings,” but most of them really think about the societal issues in the book. It generates wonderful discussions. It makes them think and ask questions. My first year teaching, I read The Final Journey, by Gudrun Pausewang. Looking back now it wasn’t really a wise book to read as a read aloud, however I did get the reaction I was going for. I wanted the students to see the hatred and senselessness of the holocaust. It was vivid, wrenching, and shocking. Some students were shocked and several cried. I had a very “tough” group that year. After that book they thought more about their actions. While wiser and more experienced, I would not read this book as a read-aloud again, I would have it in my library for someone who wanted to read about the horrors of the holocaust from a young girls point of view in hopes that they would never participate in the hatred or indifference allowed to happen. I try to I read to my students: The Giver, The Watsons Go TO Birminngham-1963, Holes, Small Steps, Wait Till Helen Comes, Bridge to Teribithia, Tuck Everlasting, Bud Not Buddy, A Dog Called Kitty, There’s a Boy in the Girls Bathroom… Last Year I read 13 novels to my students, not counting picture books!
While reading The Freedom to Read Statement, I was reminded how attempts at censorship usually result in the opposite reaction that was intended - people then flock to books, movies, cd's, etc. to see why people are fighting to ban certain materials. As much as I personally despise some of the garbage that is published, I believe that if censorship is allowed, we are on a very slippery slope because everyone's judgement and discernment differs from person to person. Where do you draw the line? I agree that people need to be exposed to divergent views. You need to be educated on all sides of a matter and need to be informed of differing viewpoints in order to think critically and make informed decisions. As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility, not the government's or any agency, to dictate what my kids can or cannot read. Our country was founded on the basic principles of freedom and taking away our right to read and write what we want is unconstitutional.
I too appreciated Vicki's insight to the time The Freedom to Read Statement had been originally issued. I think she's right, that because of censorship and propaganda during that era, it put the wheels in motion to create this statement thereby ensuring that our rights be protected.
Agreeing with Tammie, having a young son myself, I also understand the importance of reading. Although you want to monitor what they read, you don't want to stifle the selection process. I choose to be nearby to discuss challenging issues together. Hopefully, through guided instruction he will learn to question topics to search for validity and morality. Knowledge is Power!
The freedom to read is an inherant right. We are born with certain indigneous rights. The constitution does not give us these rights. The first ammendment provides a barrier specifically from the congress to interfere or censor this natural born right. With this being said, it is important to remember that the free-speech guarantee can not keep private entities from publishing or providing materials they dislike. Most librarians work for public employers. It then is their responsibility to provide a wide range of materials with opposing viewpoints. A private library would not be under the same obligation. What I like about the Freedom to Read Statement is that it reminds us that we are at liberty to read, write, listen and watch what we want without interference. While the listen/watch part is becoming corrupt, libraries remain the one source of information that has not been completely tainted. As we know, the television and radio markets are already heavily regulated by the government.It is my hope as a future librarian that libraries do not let themselves become censored in the times of "emergency" to come.
I believe there is a slippery slope here. Yes, we need to protect the privacy of our patrons. But isn't there a time when what someone is reading can become a cause for concern? In the school library, let's say a student is all of a sudden preoccupied with death and suicide. As a caring individual, I would probably try to build a rapport with the child--but I would also feel compelled to notify the appropriate people so the child can get help and a threat assessment can be made ... Does this make sense?
On the other hand, I feel it's no one's business what our patrons are reading. If a parent has a problem, the can challenge it (or run for the hills when they see the required paperwork).
Overall, I just find that as teachers AND librarians, we have a duty to be concerned while still protecting privacy ...
Tammie mentioned the Holocaust in her post. My students are currently studying it and reading The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Prior to reading this book, though, we had to build a lot of background knowledge through primary sources, other books, and film clips. Certain individuals at school mentioned concern about the graphic images. Those images are a critical part of understanding (or attempting to understand) those horrific events. I feel my students would have been done an injustice if not allowed to freely peruse primary photo resources. It's better for many kids to encounter those images at school where we can discuss them--as opposed to their computers at home where many parents are uninvolved and unable to discuss the Holocaust. I guess my point is that the Freedom to Read also extends to visual literacy.
Of course I'm a proponent for the freedom to read. I believe censorship is dangerous and a tool for people of power with evil intentions. At the "grassroots" level, I also feel that people can be hypocrites when they say they worry about the content of books. Christina got a little flak about her junior high kids being exposed to the horrors of the holocaust but those same kids play games that show worse violence - and it's imposed by their own remote controls. Parents I've had in the past wouldn't have a leg to stand on because I know their kids have watched violent, repulsive "R" movies with no redeeming values that don't bring about any discussion toward values. How does "Chuckie" bring forth discussion and questions toward building character? But a bunch of my kids have seen him. And I teach 1st and 2nd grade. So I guess my point is that I'm saddened protection for our right to read even needs to be in place. And I find it hypocritical for many to question what I read aloud to my kids or offer in my library when I know what disgusting garbage is bought for their Xboxes. But, on the other hand, I'm grateful people had the foresight in the face of the Patriot Act to know the dangers being presented and take protective measures.
Well, I guess I'm the last to post a comment (which is not unusual for me) and thus there isn't much that hasn't been said. I will confess that I am a dyed in the wool liberal and believe wholly in our nation's Freedom of Speech right and thus the ALA's Freedom to Read statement. Yet amongst educated peers such as you, my classmates, I will admit an angst that I have always had concerning hate speech. The Freedom to Read Statement says, "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe." Americans have such a strong overall belief in our system that I agree in the inherent truth of this statement. However, fringe elements do exist in our society that do promote and flock to beliefs that are so insidiously harmful to others. At times my conscience falters, and I think, "Well, maybe some limits could be set. Can't we somehow wipe violence, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and every other form of hatred from our collective consciousness?" After a while, when my rational side comes to and I tell myself that this isn't possible, I go back to the belief that good radiates in the reflection of evil. Freedom at its core is what we are about as Americans and hate speech is as much about denying freedom as the specific idea it attacks. So, I calm down and thank (you fill in the blank) that we live in a free society.
In terms of the Freedom to Read Protection Act, I was shocked that I've been so politically ignorant to not have remembered this. I was greatly saddened that this act never passed and was only defeated by political grandstanding. Even though the vote reflects the polarizing split in politics that our country has gone back and forth between throughout our history, I do hope that it eventually passes. As many of us have said, it speaks to the most cherished tenets of our constitution. I have hope that if it is reintroduced, the climate is such for it to be passed. Once it is established, hopefully it will be a concept harder to be taken away in the future...
On a side note, the career of Bernie Sanders, the sponsor of the Freedom to Read Protection Act is fascinating. Here is a link to his Wikipedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
I really like how Jennifer put it that when we restrict material, some may be more apt to flock to it. Some members of society have a contrariness that draws them to unpopular beliefs. As we know, the appeal of forbidden things is a very old concept. Some who feel marginalized, whether rightly so or not, may find a kinship/be drawn towards ideas just because they go against perceived social norms. It is our responsibility as a society to not create these vacuums that suck in the confused, but to vociferously counter antisocial beliefs through education. In some cases, we learn best when presented both sides of the argument. Hopefully, for most, the strength of a belief can be heightened by awareness of its antithesis.
I also agree that we need to monitor what our children read. We can do this at school, as well as at home. I don't mean to ban books, but to guide children to age appropriate books on a wide variety of topics. It is important to choose books that are thought provoking and lead to discussions. The children will be more apt to select books outside of their usual interests and will be able to become critical readers on their own in time.
While researching "Dr. Seuss" tonight I came across the following article:
I thought it tied in nicely with our discussion here and it reminded me of how seemingly "simple" books can be used to teach societal issues.
Here's a question: If a student repeatedly checks out books about weapons or researches such things on the computer, would you feel compelled to discuss this with the student? If so, would you act on it? I know that an interest in this does not mean there is any intention of doing anything, but with what happened at Columbine and then last year at Northern Illinois University (my Alma Mater), it would be difficult not to discuss.
Another question: When we use Collection Selection tools and filters on school computers, are we in a way censoring what students can have access to?
FEBRUARY 26, 2009 11:33 PM
I am reposting this here because I'm not sure I posted correctly before. This blogging thing is pretty new to me.
Augh! So many passwords! Readig is easy, post a blog has been a challenge! Anyway...
In regards to what Linda said, I think we all have an obligation to be aware of what's going on around us. Especially if we see a pattern in what is being checked out. It is not for us to dictate, but look for those red flags that might pop up. One might just ask a few non-threatening questions, and if they have a gut feeling follow it up with the next appropriate person.
Thank you Di! Also, I've had many students on the years past who have also watched movies that I wouldn't watch due to content: violence, sex, gore... as well as played violent games like Grand Theft Auto and numerous others. I think sometimes the right things are not being challenged. Parents should be looking closely at what exactly they and their children are doing when they challenge something. I have not been challenged as of yet for what I have read to my students, but other than that one book, I have not really pushed the envelope.
I think in the aspect of private libraries and school libraries, they have to be careful, not because they want to censor, but because of the limitations posed upon them. Public libraries have more freedom. For example, the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer is very popular. I myself have read all of the books. I would not recommend it to my 10 and 11 year old students, or have them in my classroom,as I am not desiring to have to get into those deeper converstations with my students, but I would not prevent them from reading them. I think they are entertaining quick reads. Their parents should be aware of what is in the books and lead the various conversations needed.
I think something no has mentioned up to now is the author's point of view. An author writes a story or a book with the expectation that it is going to be read and that people will respond and react to the story he has created or the information he has presented. When writing a book an author does not say, I'm not going to write this or that because it will cause controversy or people will try to stop it from being read. They write the stories with the impression that whatever they write, people are going to read and then react. I think in many cases where freedom to read is being accosted, there is a jump to conclusions about what the content of a story really entails. One librarian in an article I read said she banned the Harry Potter books because other school librarians around her were, even though they were the most checked out books in her school library until she took them off the shelf. How many students got interested in reading because of the interest in those books. She admitted she hadn't read all the books that she pulled. Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance?
I agree with ssport, the author's point of view and purpose are two very important issues... Excellent point.
I know the Potter series made many of my students in years past want to read... Not only do they love having the actual novel in their hands, but they feel a thrill exploring the adventures with Harry and his friends.
Another valid point... "Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance..." Very well put. Sadly, I think the majority is most likely ignorance and fear.
This simple quote from the Freedom to Read Statement speaks volumes, "Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive."
I feel it is all too easy for people to think they know what is best for others and therefore censor what they read, listen to, or view. We need to remember that sometimes we need to be exposed to materials outside of our comfort zone to more fully grasp what we do believe. Everyone deserves this right.
Also, a comment on the above post. I'm surprised that a librarian would remove books just because other school librarians did and didn't even read them on top of it. I hope he/she thinks more about this when a similar occasion arises. Maybe, it was a learning experience.
Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance?
Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss. Maybe some want to use their power to keep others ignorant.
There a lot of good points people brought up. Freedom to read is important yet we do still need to consider the parental requests. There are is a large selection of books that are challenged or parents just do not want read but as educators we have to provide what the students need and if can can encourage reading through books like Harry Potter, that is what needs to be done.
Based on what I read the Freedom to Read Act as well as the Freedom to Read Statement they provide individuals the rights to select books that meet their needs. Our consumers (patrons) should be able to have access to a variety of texts that focus on things they need. Although I understand that some parents may object, this is their child's right. Each person who goes into the public library has the option to select a book of their choice. No one tells them that because it has homosexuality or vulgar words, that we are unable to check it out. Reading is one of the freedoms we have and this act protects it. Without this act, libraries would be forced to only have "approved" books for students which would not meet the needs of the entire population. Furthermore, after reading this I truly believe that this allows for people in different areas to provide the literature that people need. This act protects us as future librarians and also allows our patrons to select the books that will mean the most to them; which is ultimately our goal.
ReplyDeleteAs I read over both of these Acts, I see that the Freedom to Read statement was first published and adopted in 1953. Then was amended in 1972, 1991, 2000, and 2004.
ReplyDeleteThe Freedom to Read (Protection)Act was a bill written in March of 2003. It looks as if this bill was written to protect our rights because of the 'Patriot Act' after September 11.
If I'm wrong, someone can let me know. It looks as if these Representatives wanted to make sure that our rights to read would still be in protected after the Patriot Act was put into place.
The Freedom to Read statement was written during the time we refer to as "The Cold War" era. It was after WWII and just before the time of McCarthyism. The writers of this statement realized that censorship is a dangerous idea. WWII showed us how propaganda can change people, and how all ideas must be made available to citizens. People need to be able to use their minds and exercise their free will.
ReplyDeleteThe F to R statement reminds us that diversity is good and that all views and expressions should be included. It was also reminding librarians that we should never bar access to anyones views or opinions. It also stated that librarians should not endorse a particular idea, or make their person beliefs known.
Vicki, I am glad that you mentioned the era in which this statement was published, because just after World War II would have been right after the defeat of the Nazis, who used harmful propaganda, and among other things, prohibited the reading of “Non-German” books, and listening to “Non-German” radio, etc. Obviously, we are all too familiar with the results. I think that the historical perspective that you brought up was important, because some people are all too comfortable with having little freedoms taken away (the patriot act) because of faith in the general good of the government, and respect for our laws. Your example reminds us that there must be a very clear and relevant justification, even for acts of a trusted and respected government. This statement goes beyond government as well, to all institutions, education especially. If we are going to avoid certain opinions, and ban certain books, we need to be able to explain why, and we must be very careful not to let the popular point of view dominate all others.
ReplyDeleteTo clarify, The Freedom to Read Statement is a reminder of our indigenous constitutional/individual rights to freedom of speech. The Freedom to Read Act of 2005 (H.R. 1157)was written to counter the Patriot Act. This particular act was never passed into law and is still in committee.
ReplyDeleteSeveral interesting points have been made. I think that when Danielle said, "I think that the historical perspective that you brought up was important, because some people are all too comfortable with having little freedoms taken away (the patriot act) because of faith in the general good of the government, and respect for our laws..." many people do easily relinquish the little freedoms that are often taken for granted believing that the government is looking toward the general good, but I sadly believe that we do need to be wary and really pay attention to the little things. Once those freedoms are gone, they may never be given back. In other places, those special rights are not available and never have been. No government is completely uncorrupt and many politicians have their own agendas they wish to see to fruition… We as Americans must be informed and careful to be sure our best interests are always at the forefront. I should be able to read what I want to be able to read.
ReplyDeleteI also think that while I may not agree or even buy into someone else’s philosophy or ideas, it is not my right to prohibit another from researching it and making their own decisions, or anyone else to censor me in a similar manner. Propaganda, news, politics, and many other forms of communication fight to convert the general population to one cause or another. It is only through the Freedom to Read Act that individuals can research a variety of sources to discover their own path and decide what they believe or don’t believe.
I am teaching my son now to be a reader. Granted he’s only six, but good habits are important to form at an early age. It is my hope that he will delve into many genres of literature and desire to research things he doesn’t know. While I will carefully watch what he reads, rather than tell him not to read something, I’d rather read it with him and discuss any potential “challenging” issues. If I don’t discuss it with him, he’ll just get it somewhere else, and may get the wrong information.
In my class, I have read The Giver, by Lois Lowry every year for the last 8 years. Each class takes something different from it. Yes, every year I get the giggles about Jonas’s “ stirrings,” but most of them really think about the societal issues in the book. It generates wonderful discussions. It makes them think and ask questions. My first year teaching, I read The Final Journey, by Gudrun Pausewang. Looking back now it wasn’t really a wise book to read as a read aloud, however I did get the reaction I was going for. I wanted the students to see the hatred and senselessness of the holocaust. It was vivid, wrenching, and shocking. Some students were shocked and several cried. I had a very “tough” group that year. After that book they thought more about their actions. While wiser and more experienced, I would not read this book as a read-aloud again, I would have it in my library for someone who wanted to read about the horrors of the holocaust from a young girls point of view in hopes that they would never participate in the hatred or indifference allowed to happen.
I try to I read to my students:
The Giver, The Watsons Go TO Birminngham-1963, Holes, Small Steps, Wait Till Helen Comes, Bridge to Teribithia, Tuck Everlasting, Bud Not Buddy, A Dog Called Kitty, There’s a Boy in the Girls Bathroom… Last Year I read 13 novels to my students, not counting picture books!
While reading The Freedom to Read Statement, I was reminded how attempts at censorship usually result in the opposite reaction that was intended - people then flock to books, movies, cd's, etc. to see why people are fighting to ban certain materials. As much as I personally despise some of the garbage that is published, I believe that if censorship is allowed, we are on a very slippery slope because everyone's judgement and discernment differs from person to person. Where do you draw the line? I agree that people need to be exposed to divergent views. You need to be educated on all sides of a matter and need to be informed of differing viewpoints in order to think critically and make informed decisions. As a parent, I believe it is my responsibility, not the government's or any agency, to dictate what my kids can or cannot read. Our country was founded on the basic principles of freedom and taking away our right to read and write what we want is unconstitutional.
ReplyDeleteI too appreciated Vicki's insight to the time The Freedom to Read Statement had been originally issued. I think she's right, that because of censorship and propaganda during that era, it put the wheels in motion to create this statement thereby ensuring that our rights be protected.
Agreeing with Tammie, having a young son myself, I also understand the importance of reading. Although you want to monitor what they read, you don't want to stifle the selection process. I choose to be nearby to discuss challenging issues together. Hopefully, through guided instruction he will learn to question topics to search for validity and morality. Knowledge is Power!
ReplyDeleteThe freedom to read is an inherant right. We are born with certain indigneous rights. The constitution does not give us these rights. The first ammendment provides a barrier specifically from the congress to interfere or censor this natural born right. With this being said, it is important to remember that the free-speech guarantee can not keep private entities from publishing or providing materials they dislike. Most librarians work for public employers. It then is their responsibility to provide a wide range of materials with opposing viewpoints. A private library would not be under the same obligation. What I like about the Freedom to Read Statement is that it reminds us that we are at liberty to read, write, listen and watch what we want without interference. While the listen/watch part is becoming corrupt, libraries remain the one source of information that has not been completely tainted. As we know, the television and radio markets are already heavily regulated by the government.It is my hope as a future librarian that libraries do not let themselves become censored in the times of "emergency" to come.
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a slippery slope here. Yes, we need to protect the privacy of our patrons. But isn't there a time when what someone is reading can become a cause for concern? In the school library, let's say a student is all of a sudden preoccupied with death and suicide. As a caring individual, I would probably try to build a rapport with the child--but I would also feel compelled to notify the appropriate people so the child can get help and a threat assessment can be made ... Does this make sense?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I feel it's no one's business what our patrons are reading. If a parent has a problem, the can challenge it (or run for the hills when they see the required paperwork).
Overall, I just find that as teachers AND librarians, we have a duty to be concerned while still protecting privacy ...
Tammie mentioned the Holocaust in her post. My students are currently studying it and reading The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. Prior to reading this book, though, we had to build a lot of background knowledge through primary sources, other books, and film clips. Certain individuals at school mentioned concern about the graphic images. Those images are a critical part of understanding (or attempting to understand) those horrific events. I feel my students would have been done an injustice if not allowed to freely peruse primary photo resources. It's better for many kids to encounter those images at school where we can discuss them--as opposed to their computers at home where many parents are uninvolved and unable to discuss the Holocaust. I guess my point is that the Freedom to Read also extends to visual literacy.
ReplyDeleteOf course I'm a proponent for the freedom to read. I believe censorship is dangerous and a tool for people of power with evil intentions. At the "grassroots" level, I also feel that people can be hypocrites when they say they worry about the content of books. Christina got a little flak about her junior high kids being exposed to the horrors of the holocaust but those same kids play games that show worse violence - and it's imposed by their own remote controls. Parents I've had in the past wouldn't have a leg to stand on because I know their kids have watched violent, repulsive "R" movies with no redeeming values that don't bring about any discussion toward values. How does "Chuckie" bring forth discussion and questions toward building character? But a bunch of my kids have seen him. And I teach 1st and 2nd grade.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess my point is that I'm saddened protection for our right to read even needs to be in place. And I find it hypocritical for many to question what I read aloud to my kids or offer in my library when I know what disgusting garbage is bought for their Xboxes. But, on the other hand, I'm grateful people had the foresight in the face of the Patriot Act to know the dangers being presented and take protective measures.
Well, I guess I'm the last to post a comment (which is not unusual for me) and thus there isn't much that hasn't been said. I will confess that I am a dyed in the wool liberal and believe wholly in our nation's Freedom of Speech right and thus the ALA's Freedom to Read statement. Yet amongst educated peers such as you, my classmates, I will admit an angst that I have always had concerning hate speech. The Freedom to Read Statement says, "We trust Americans to recognize propaganda and misinformation, and to make their own decisions about what they read and believe." Americans have such a strong overall belief in our system that I agree in the inherent truth of this statement. However, fringe elements do exist in our society that do promote and flock to beliefs that are so insidiously harmful to others. At times my conscience falters, and I think, "Well, maybe some limits could be set. Can't we somehow wipe violence, racism, misogyny, religious intolerance, and every other form of hatred from our collective consciousness?" After a while, when my rational side comes to and I tell myself that this isn't possible, I go back to the belief that good radiates in the reflection of evil. Freedom at its core is what we are about as Americans and hate speech is as much about denying freedom as the specific idea it attacks. So, I calm down and thank (you fill in the blank) that we live in a free society.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the Freedom to Read Protection Act, I was shocked that I've been so politically ignorant to not have remembered this. I was greatly saddened that this act never passed and was only defeated by political grandstanding. Even though the vote reflects the polarizing split in politics that our country has gone back and forth between throughout our history, I do hope that it eventually passes. As many of us have said, it speaks to the most cherished tenets of our constitution. I have hope that if it is reintroduced, the climate is such for it to be passed. Once it is established, hopefully it will be a concept harder to be taken away in the future...
On a side note, the career of Bernie Sanders, the sponsor of the Freedom to Read Protection Act is fascinating. Here is a link to his Wikipedia bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
I really like how Jennifer put it that when we restrict material, some may be more apt to flock to it. Some members of society have a contrariness that draws them to unpopular beliefs. As we know, the appeal of forbidden things is a very old concept. Some who feel marginalized, whether rightly so or not, may find a kinship/be drawn towards ideas just because they go against perceived social norms. It is our responsibility as a society to not create these vacuums that suck in the confused, but to vociferously counter antisocial beliefs through education. In some cases, we learn best when presented both sides of the argument. Hopefully, for most, the strength of a belief can be heightened by awareness of its antithesis.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that we need to monitor what our children read. We can do this at school, as well as at home. I don't mean to ban books, but to guide children to age appropriate books on a wide variety of topics. It is important to choose books that are thought provoking and lead to discussions. The children will be more apt to select books outside of their usual interests and will be able to become critical readers on their own in time.
ReplyDeleteWhile researching "Dr. Seuss" tonight I came across the following article:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/101926/politics_in_childrens_literature_ogden_pg4.html?cat=37
I thought it tied in nicely with our discussion here and it reminded me of how seemingly "simple" books can be used to teach societal issues.
Here's a question:
If a student repeatedly checks out books about weapons or researches such things on the computer, would you feel compelled to discuss this with the student? If so, would you act on it? I know that an interest in this does not mean there is any intention of doing anything, but with what happened at Columbine and then last year at Northern Illinois University (my Alma Mater), it would be difficult not to discuss.
Another question:
When we use Collection Selection tools and filters on school computers, are we in a way censoring what students can have access to?
FEBRUARY 26, 2009 11:33 PM
I am reposting this here because I'm not sure I posted correctly before. This blogging thing is pretty new to me.
See everyone in class on Monday.
Augh! So many passwords! Readig is easy, post a blog has been a challenge! Anyway...
ReplyDeleteIn regards to what Linda said, I think we all have an obligation to be aware of what's going on around us. Especially if we see a pattern in what is being checked out. It is not for us to dictate, but look for those red flags that might pop up. One might just ask a few non-threatening questions, and if they have a gut feeling follow it up with the next appropriate person.
Thank you Di! Also, I've had many students on the years past who have also watched movies that I wouldn't watch due to content: violence, sex, gore... as well as played violent games like Grand Theft Auto and numerous others. I think sometimes the right things are not being challenged. Parents should be looking closely at what exactly they and their children are doing when they challenge something. I have not been challenged as of yet for what I have read to my students, but other than that one book, I have not really pushed the envelope.
I think in the aspect of private libraries and school libraries, they have to be careful, not because they want to censor, but because of the limitations posed upon them. Public libraries have more freedom. For example, the Twilight series by Stephanie Meyer is very popular. I myself have read all of the books. I would not recommend it to my 10 and 11 year old students, or have them in my classroom,as I am not desiring to have to get into those deeper converstations with my students, but I would not prevent them from reading them. I think they are entertaining quick reads. Their parents should be aware of what is in the books and lead the various conversations needed.
I think something no has mentioned up to now is the author's point of view. An author writes a story or a book with the expectation that it is going to be read and that people will respond and react to the story he has created or the information he has presented. When writing a book an author does not say, I'm not going to write this or that because it will cause controversy or people will try to stop it from being read. They write the stories with the impression that whatever they write, people are going to read and then react. I think in many cases where freedom to read is being accosted, there is a jump to conclusions about what the content of a story really entails. One librarian in an article I read said she banned the Harry Potter books because other school librarians around her were, even though they were the most checked out books in her school library until she took them off the shelf. How many students got interested in reading because of the interest in those books. She admitted she hadn't read all the books that she pulled. Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance?
ReplyDeleteI agree with ssport, the author's point of view and purpose are two very important issues... Excellent point.
ReplyDeleteI know the Potter series made many of my students in years past want to read... Not only do they love having the actual novel in their hands, but they feel a thrill exploring the adventures with Harry and his friends.
Another valid point... "Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance..." Very well put. Sadly, I think the majority is most likely ignorance and fear.
This simple quote from the Freedom to Read Statement speaks volumes, "Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive."
ReplyDeleteI feel it is all too easy for people to think they know what is best for others and therefore censor what they read, listen to, or view. We need to remember that sometimes we need to be exposed to materials outside of our comfort zone to more fully grasp what we do believe. Everyone deserves this right.
Also, a comment on the above post. I'm surprised that a librarian would remove books just because other school librarians did and didn't even read them on top of it. I hope he/she thinks more about this when a similar occasion arises. Maybe, it was a learning experience.
Are people reacting out of intellect or ignorance?
Knowledge is power, but ignorance is bliss. Maybe some want to use their power to keep others ignorant.
There a lot of good points people brought up. Freedom to read is important yet we do still need to consider the parental requests. There are is a large selection of books that are challenged or parents just do not want read but as educators we have to provide what the students need and if can can encourage reading through books like Harry Potter, that is what needs to be done.
ReplyDelete