The Compass Rose, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2002

A young boy wandered into the local branch library in Boulder, Colorado. Earlier that day his mother had told him of a book she loved to read as a child. That book was Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl. After spending over an hour wandering among the shelves, he brushed a lock of brown hair out of his face and went in search of a librarian. At the front desk the old librarian smiled down at him and asked if he needed help. He nodded shyly and asked for the book his mother had told him about. Her smile soured so fast at the mention of the title the boy was glad he didn't have a glass of milk. Then she told him the library would never have that book in its collection. When he asked why, she answered, "the book [espouses] a poor philosophy of life" (Marsh 1991:38).

Who is qualified to decide what is a "poor philosophy of life?" Who is qualified to decide what we can or cannot read? Censorship is wrong--there are no two ways about it. There is no person or group qualified to decide what everyone else can read.

Although censorship exists in every form of media in today's society, censorship in our public and school libraries is particularly offensive. How does this kind of censorship sustain itself and how can its presence be explained? What is the history of this phenomenon? How did it evolve and become what it is now? What kind of countermovement or backlash has arisen to oppose censorship? These questions, as well as my own position on this issue will be discussed.

Who censors what we read? "In the typical censorship incident, an individual or very small group--sometimes parents, sometimes not--attempt[s] to dictate to an entire community what all children can or cannot read" (Kropp 1993:190). One typical, hypothetical situation might be one concerned parent wanting to protect our children from books such as Huckleberry Finn. That parent wouldn't want the black children of the community to be offended with Huck's frequent use of the word "nigger". This concerned parent might then approach another group that is usually active in censorship activities--the local elected school board. Being sympathetic to the parent's cause, the board would likely ban this book, in fear of the book's frequent use of the term "nigger" offending the local black community.

So, why not have Playboy and Penthouse on our library shelves next to Popular Mechanics or Time? True, I personally would be a little disgruntled with unabashedly pornographic periodicals openly displayed on the magazines racks, but who knows? Someone or several someones might think that to be a very good idea. So, I, too, am a censor. Who isn't? Yet everyone should have the choice to censor what they personally read but not to control what everyone reads.

The word "censor", the root term of censorship, derives from the Latin word "censere", which itself comes from the Sanskrit term for "recite" or "announce" (Green vii). The 1991 Concise Columbia Encyclopedia defines censorship as follows:

Official restriction of any expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. Although most often imposed by totalitarian, autocratic, or theocratic regimes or in times of war, censorship has long existed in the United States, where such materials as school texts . . . and literary works have often been surpressed as morally or ideologically subversive.

Another definition explains censorship as "the ultimate form of elitism" (Scales 1990:131). What this quote suggests is that the concept of censorship promotes the idea that an "elite" group in our society, whether it be church leaders, scholars, or other intellectuals, are the only ones truly qualified to choose what is proper and appropriate for everyone and for our society. Others see censorship as a useful tool in removing works from library collections that are considered offensive and inappropriate (Manely 1990:124). Groups that may make decisions on inappropriate works in libraries are most likely school boards, prominent members of the community such as church leaders, government officials, and parents. Some prominent national groups that are active in censoring literary works, according to the 1991 Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, include the Watch and Ward Society in Boston, Anthony Comstock's Society for the Suppression of Moral Vice, and the Moral Majority. Still, there is no one standard or definition of censorship--what one person finds offensive might be quite profound and useful to someone else. The definition literally depends on whom you ask.

The history of censorship is nearly as long as the history of civilization itself. The earliest known form of book censorship, according to the research materials available, was in 387 B.C.E. The Odyssey by Homer was banned in Greece because it expressed ideals of freedom that were considered too radical for its era. The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine was banned in England, and the author and publisher were both imprisoned (The reference did not specify why this book was banned.). More recently, Garfield: His Nine Lives by Jim Davis was moved to the adult section of the city library in Saginaw, Michigan in 1989. This decision was made after patrons said that they preferred children didn't have access to this particular book (Marsh 1991:37-41). Again, no reason was mentioned in the reference. Almost certainly, censorship was invented shortly after the introduction of writing, over four thousand years ago. Censorship seems to cause as many problems as it supposedly "solves". This is not a new problem, nor one that will go away if we ignore it long enough. Censorship reminds of us of the "old Pogo cartoon, 'We have met the enemy and he is us'" (Barlow 1992:35).

Censorship happens everywhere. "It's a highly ironic oddity that our libraries are still a bastion of censorship in the freest society in the history of Western Civilization" (Manely 1990:123). In our school systems and public libraries censorship exists, if not flourishes. No level of the educational system is exempt from its influence or effects. "But who gave the curriculum dictators the authority to select books" (Schlafly 1993:183)? With as many things as are being censored, we would have a hard time finding anyone who will openly admit being in favor of censorship.

When we do censor, we do so for the "protection" of our children, the "best interests" of the community, or for the upholding of "community standards" (This includes the latest trend of "political correctness".). Pleasant, agreeable sounding euphemisms abound, and no one calls censorship what it really is. "Since there is such a stigma involved with being a censor, no one has the courage to overcome peer pressure and admit that yes, we practice censorship systematically and regularly in our libraries. One would rather be called a rapist than a censor" (Manely 1990:123).

All types of books are on the banned books lists across the country-- everything from Oliver Twist to Of Mice and Men. Interestingly enough one book never on the banned book list is the Christian Bible, and yet there is no other book more chalk full of violence, sex and adult situations. So why is that the case? Questions like these are not supposed to be asked.

The American Library Association is a leader in the countermovement against rampant censorship. "It is in the public interest for publishers and librarians to make available the widest diversity of views and expressions, including those which are unothodox or unpopular with the majority" (137). This includes controversial topics such as pornographic materials, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Salman Rashdie's The Satanic Verses. This last title is particularly notorious after its author was sentenced to death by the government of Iran in 1990. Several major bookstores stopped carrying this book on the advice of the authorities who took threats form Islamic fundamentalist groups seriously (Marsh 1990:41). Violence, or the threat of it, is the ultimate act of censorship.

Censorship in any form, whether it be for the "protection or advancement of correct moral values," or for any other reason, is plain wrong. Children will eventually get their hands on banned books, as has been seen time and time again. The mere fact of banning books, or the "lure of the forbidden," will cause kids to gravitate toward them. Censorship is no substitute for parental guidance through a confusing and chaotic world for young children. However, older children must not be shielded, as this only delays the inevitable. Rather, they must be taught to think and judge for themselves through exposure to the "forbidden." "I'm convinced that my children get a better grip on their values and a deeper appreciation of others through exercising their freedoms of the mind" (Scales 1990:132). In other words we should trust our teenage children to make up their minds about what is acceptable to them. Oscar Wilde said in his book The Picture of Dorian Gray, "There is no such thing as a moral or immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all" (Green 1990:vii).

The boy visiting his friend in Cheyenne wandered through the county library. Spotting the book he couldn't find in his own town, he gleefully grabbed it from the shelf and began to read. Much to his dismay, he found the book too dull for his liking. "Why did they ban this?" he wondered, "It's not bad, at least in anyway I can tell." Wondering how many libraries banned books from their shelves for no real reason, he placed the book back on the red return shelf. He also wondered how long it would be until this library banned the book.