Banned

Banned by Trinity Williams

Banned 

Does Banning Happen? 

When I was in a Chicago elementary school, I was allowed to read “The Giver” by Lois Lowry as an alternate assignment. I sat in my rainbowed, highly lit, lively 4th-grade classroom horrified at the idea of a world where children didn’t have bright blocks or a Barbie that looked like them. It wasn’t the takeaway Mr.Muller expected but it did start a discussion about foster children and their lack of toys. He watched with his round-framed glasses as his students did what we did best; show off. 

The boys went back and forth about whose hot wheel’s truck was the fastest, and we girls one-upped each other with how many floors our dollhouses had. (My Barbie Double Decker Glamper was second to my best friend who had the dollhouse model with an elevator. I still don’t understand why even 6 years later.) Then he laughed,( probably because our biggest care in the world was toy politics) and offered an idea: 

“Seems like you have a lot of extra. Why don’t you give some away? ” 

That sparked our impromptu toy drive to our local foster care branch. In hindsight, it wasn’t much, we only donated about 100 toys. But god did we feel satisfied. I was thrilled to be rid of some Christmas presents I didn’t particularly care for and my mom could say nothing. Later, we decided to teach the sequel “Giving Blue” in our class next year since Mr.Muller taught 5th grade as well then decide what we would do next. Unfortunately, I moved to Georgia the following year so I never got to be a part of the next service project. 

But the project never happened in the first place. That year, the book series was finally banned in my district and Mr.Muller got in a bit of trouble for teaching it to us. To the district, it didn’t matter what good came about from reading the book, the book itself was morally condemnable. So the lesson that

we took away from the book is now forever lost to the 3rd graders that would’ve come after us. 

What is Banning? 

The Mission 

Book banning is used to filter material that’s shown to children in their curriculums based on the content within them. This is how highly inappropriate books like “50 Shades of Grey” by E.L. James and “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler are kept off library shelves. According to the Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF), a book can be banned based on any of these three criteria: 

➢ The material is considered to be "sexually explicit" 

➢ The material contains "offensive language" 

➢ The material is "unsuited to any age group" 

This sounds great in theory. Children are protected from certain material and what is placed in front of them is rich in lessons and morals. But an issue arises when books that could potentially have these lessons are shot down when these criteria become muddy, specifically the last one. Which has some ground, children don’t need to be exposed to certain themes. 

But who determines what children should be exposed to? The children or the adults? 

And how do we make sure it's an unbiased view? In theory, banning books can keep children from developing diverse points of view by limiting what they know. Think of it this way, if you’re only fed apples and apple variants, would you know that oranges exist? And more importantly, would you want to

try them? 

Why To Ban? 

Keeping the Kiddos Kool 

The main argument for book banning is keeping minors safe from damaging media. It’s been scientifically proven that exposure to graphic violence, language, and imagery at an early age can halt development. “Children are particularly fragile and vulnerable to the impact of traumatic events …because they lack the skills and experience in the management of difficult information,” (European Paediatric Association Pages 2023, 285). This is why schools are very selective about what media they allow on their shelves and school-issued computers. This keeps children focused on their education and prevents teachers from having difficult conversations with their students. By keeping classrooms (for lack of a better word) clean, keeps schools from getting sued and parents happy. 

However, at a certain age, children develop the mental maturity to protect themselves from trauma. At what age and how much protection they’ve developed has largely been up for debate. Many believe that children above the 

age of 15 are largely able to vet what they do and do not consume. Their brains are starting to transition to full development and are able to handle stressors that would’ve otherwise traumatized them. As teens begin to drive a 

Parenting for Parents 

Parents can decide what their children are exposed to and when for the above reasons. That is an inalienable right. Children are supposed to look for their caregivers when they are faced with stressful situations or are unsure on how to handle new experiences. This is especially true regarding exposure to graphic or inappropriate media. Quote again from the European Paediatric

Association Pages: “Children usually count on caregivers to deal with stressors…Thus, it is important for caregivers to be trained in anticipating the proper response,” (Pg 285). But as children venture out into the world via their classrooms, a parent’s reach is only so far. PTO, newsletters, and volunteering only show what their children are being exposed to. And with the world constantly changing its standards for the newer generation, it's understandable that parents want more guarantee on what their kids are seeing. 

Banning was created as a concrete plan to assure parents of what their kids weren’t being shown. It was the education system's alibi if a child learned something they weren’t supposed to. “If they learned it, it wasn’t at school” basically. It also served as another way to encourage parents to…parent. If they wanted their children to understand the themes in “The Communist Manifesto” and why they were bad, they’d have to sit down and show it themselves. And for the most part, banning has worked. It’s kept young minds from being exposed to erotica, hate speech, and triggering themes found in many adult/young adult books. But now parents can directly dictate what the entire class can and cannot learn. Suddenly the issue is now when a certain type of people can push their agenda or shove another agenda to the side, and the children are none the wiser. 

How to Ban? 

The process 

As with most things, there’s a process for book banning. School district members every year come together to review the next year’s material. Occasionally, a book will meet the banning criteria, and it is put to a vote after a thorough analysis and evaluation of the material. These books can be flagged for any OIF guidelines, or they simply fall irrelevant to the English teachers. Of course, every situation is different but the process is typically the same. Until it isn’t. One book ban that warranted the most resistance wasn’t necessarily the content itself but the actions taken to ban it.

A Guide to Banning: “Dear Martin” by Nic Stone 

Nic Stone’s “Dear Martin” is a teen epistolary novel that outlines the struggles of black male teen Justyce as he attempts to graduate after his life is turned upside down by police brutality and racial profiling. I’ve personally read the book and one thing I love about the novel is how realistic it is. It doesn’t sugarcoat the reality of big-city police and black teenagers. It’s honest and straight to the point. It was originally part of Haywood County School District’s Black History unit in 2022. But after a phone call from 10th-grade parent; Tim Reeves to Superintendent Bill Nolte, the book was pulled from the 10th-grade reading list within 24 hours. But there’s one giant difference between Reeves and Nolte: 

“ Nolte said he did not read the book — or even obtain a copy — before making the decision.” (Legum) 

On the other hand, Reeves did. Nor did Nolte consult with the English teacher herself like Reeves had. The decision to remove the book was completely and utterly Nolte’s alone. Yes, Reeves was offered an alternative assignment for his student before the banning yet insisted the banning take place. But again, this is the actions of one individual. It doesn’t make sense that they can decide for the whole. Reeves and Nolte say that their issue with the book was its graphic language and how it took away from the “meaning” of the book. And put into context with Nolte’s iffy opinions on race, one can guess how the banning was taken by the black community. However, this isn’t the only reason the banning was controversial. That wasn’t even the first banning with a similar context.

“ The information that was provided was just 

unacceptable,” - Sandra Carraway (2019). 

“…the content was extreme” - Sandra Carraway (2019). 

The first banning was by Colombia County’s Superintendent 

Sandra Carraway on October 8,2019’s board of directors meeting. When asked what part of the county’s book-banning criteria “Dear Martin” flagged, the following quotes above were all that she offered. However, Colombia County did release later that the official reason was the explicit language. Ms.Carraway did state that the language took away from the lesson the book was trying to teach, but Colombia County also teaches Shakespeare which many argue is just as bad. Many of Shakespeare’s texts are required books with assignments and book reports. Hell, I’ve read Romeo and Juliet twice in high school and had mandatory assignments attached to them each time. In fact, I sat down with my English teacher and consulted her about her opinion. 

Something many book banners don’t do. 

How to Talk to Teachers 

Asking Hill Nicely 

As a returning student of Rainey McCullers, I’ve had the privilege of keeping the same rotation of teachers throughout my school years. Many of my English teachers currently have taught me throughout my middle school years as well. And each time, they’ve introduced me to a new world of books and taught me to love literature as much as they do. Needless to say, I consider them to be well-read (pun intended) when it comes to books in general. 

I met with my current English teacher; Tonya Hill during one of her classes. And if you’ve ever met her, her love for books radiates off of her in

waves. In her 24 years of teaching, she’s managed to infect most of her students with this endearment as well. I’m one of those lucky students. So once you get through with all eighty thousand of her assignments and odd love for Halloween, you’ll find a sweet southern lady who just wants to talk about her books. And don’t get her started on Shakespeare. When I asked her about her favorite of his works, she offered this: 

“Romeo and Juliet was the first Shakespeare play I read. And so it opened my eyes and opened me to a whole wonderful world” (Hill). 

The woman can quote that play backward, forwards, standing on her head, you name it. It’s no surprise that we’re doing that blasted play again thanks to her. I find it overrated, however, Hill has always believed that every book has some sort of value. 

“You can travel everywhere in the world…You can 

experience things that you are not capable of experiencing in 

today's world or in your own lives. [Maybe] You don't have money to travel to Greece [this] weekend…”(Hill). 

“But you can with books” (Hill). 

This is a sentiment I agree with wholeheartedly. No matter what we were reading, Hill always made sure that we took something away from it or related to it in our everyday lives as teenagers. That’s why we’re doing “Romeo and Juliet”. Quote again: 

“ It really opens their eyes they’re [9th graders] like ‘ she's 

our age. She's 13.’ You know you are 14 and 15 and he’s 16 or 

17, so that's why I like that play for 9th graders” (Hill)

She’s teaching it because even though we may laugh at the over-dramatic Juliet and her lover, there might be a time when we might feel like her. Like our world is ending because we don’t have that person. And there, at the end of the play, we learn where that rabbit hole may lead us if we dive into heart first. “Every moment is the most important moment of their[9th graders] entire lives. And so it helps them to see the big picture” (Hill). When it comes to the banning of said text, she’s conflicted. 

According to the New York Post’s Jack Hobbs, “Romeo and Juliet” by William Shakespeare is banned in Hillsborough County, Florida alongside “Macbeth” and “Hamlet” due to their sexual content and swearing. Specifically in the case of “Romeo and Juliet”, it was also challenged for “romanticizing” teen suicide and disobeying one’s parents. And while Hill agrees with the concerns, especially after being a teacher for 20-something years, she believes that banning isn’t the way to go about it. Instead, it all comes down to how you teach. If you teach the play correctly, then you aren’t promoting suicide; you’re condemning it. 

I brought her my findings of the 2022 banning of “Dear Martin” where it hit closer to home. Not only had she taught the book before but also taught with Sandra Carraway’s sister. Again, she understood the concern of police brutality and racial hate being something many parents shield their children from. But her perspective is it's all about developmental stages and talking it out. Would parents rather their children read and talk about the topic with their peers and a trusted adult by their side rather than the alternative which is letting them witness it firsthand, or even worse of all: 

Experience it for themselves? 

This brought on the topic of comfort. Hill and many others believe that we cannot push forward as a society if we’re comfortable. There can be no learning, inventing, or teaching if people are always comfortable. I always thought that babies were a good example of that. Everyone dreads teething time with their newborns, but if babies didn’t go through that period of discomfort, they’d never speak correctly, they’d never eat solid food, and they’d never have

the fun of discovering the tooth fairy’s existence. But Hill offered a more practical anecdote: 

“ Advances are made when you're uncomfortable. If it had not been hot outside and people were hot. There would be no air conditioning because they were comfortable. Discomfort is good.” (Hill). 

Having lived in Georgia for so long AC is a necessity, so imagining a life without it is impossible. This proves in most cases, discomfort is good in moderation. It makes you get up and do something about it. When you’re hot, you get up and turn on the AC. If you’re hurting, you take Tylenol. And here’s the kicker; if you’re horrified by the actions of police, you get up and complain about it. 

Respecting Brock’s Turn to Talk 

It just so happens that I was able to read “The Giver” again when I dropped into middle school so who better to ask than my sixth-grade teacher herself; Mrs. April Brock? She’s taught English for a total of 16 years (my school is full of English Nerds I know) as well as some social sciences here and there. Brock is a textbook laid-back English teacher who cannot go a day without coffee. Ironically for an English teacher, she’s not a big fan of fiction. Much preferring non-fiction reports or essays instead. She’s very no-nonsense so her opinion on book banning was very obvious: 

“...it's absolutely silly,” (Brock). 

To Brock, book banning is rather pointless seeing as the “banned” book is still available in public libraries, online, and in bookstores. “If they[students] want to find [something], They're gonna find it… You know the Internet. It's been free for a while,”(Brock). Book banning isn’t doing much other than annoying teachers and students alike. And in many cases, what a book is banned for is typically something that students might encounter daily.

In the case of “Dear Martin” ‘s challenge by Tim Reeves, Reeves admitted that his child is exposed to swearing and mature content by just hanging out with his peers or in his books. However, it’s different when it's a textbook. (Legum). But is it? Is vulgarity allowed when it isn’t meant for educational purposes? In a way wouldn’t it be better to grin and bear a few swears if it helped teach a point? Of course, the answer is no, schools are protected places where everything has to be kept PG, but these are questions that have to be asked. 

So the topic of “The Giver” and its banning came up and Brock dropped a bombshell. “...one of the scenes that bothers people is where the subject of masturbation comes up,” (Brock). And it was a bombshell for two main reasons. One, Lowry was as slick as butter with the euphemism. And two, I read it twice and didn’t notice it twice. So we had a laugh but it sparked a new discussion. 

“But see as a 6th grader you don't even remember that part. And I think if you know about it, you already know about it and you would catch on. But it's so subtle it's not even on the Realm for kids that don't know it, it doesn't,” (Brock). 

And she’s right. That mention was so subtle and immersed in the plot that I glazed over it as another concept in the dystopia. It didn’t stand out, it wasn’t a big deal, and for years I didn’t (and I now know, my previous classmates as well) pay any mind to it. What bugged me most about the scene in question (Jonah takes a pill to “suppress his urges”) was that there were pills and tablets for just about anything. Pain wasn’t a concept anymore, depression only existed in the senile, and struggle was a thing of the past. The main point of the scene wasn’t the “urges”, it was the fact the pill itself existed. 

So it got me thinking of a possible alternative to banning: restricting books to certain grades rather than banning them altogether. That would solve the problem of age-appropriateness while still allowing books to teach their respective lessons.

Working Through Opinions with Ms.Willy 

My interviews primarily focused on the opinions of English teachers directly affected by book banning. But there is still a legal aspect to it. A muddy and gray one yes, but still a legal aspect. It has to be approved by school boards according to a standard set by the district. So again, I looked internally and found my previous civics and government teacher; Ms. Tamiko Williams (personally referred to as Ms.Willy). Ms. Williams is probably one of the greatest history teachers I’ve ever had. She’s been teaching specifically civics and government for two decades while also teaching other social sciences here and there. One thing I’ve always appreciated about Ms. Willy is her bluntness. She’s never hesitated to correct the idea in our teenage minds that there’s always a clear “good and evil” in politics. The real world has no hero and villain, correct or incorrect, there’s only right or left. Her class didn’t immediately clear the smoke, but at least we were made aware that our views were heavily clouded. That’s why the main reason I realized I needed an opposing viewpoint for book banning. And who better than dear ole Willy to drop the book (pun intended) on the government’s role in book banning? Her stance: 

“Well, if you want to pay for education…I kind of need the government to get involved to cut those checks,” (Williams). 

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Do you want the government to fund education? They get to have a say in it as well. Think about it as a big business, the school districts are various employees and the schools are large projects. The boss at any time can drop in a new set of regulations or instructions to the projects because it's their money keeping everything going. They have the biggest say on what books and content are taught in classrooms because, at the end of the day, any lawsuits will end up on their desks and being paid out of their pockets. 

According to Ms. Williams, the government is attempting to make every classroom experience universal nationwide. They did this through what many may remember as “Common Core” which set the standards for what content kids learn in school throughout the core classes. However, they only outline

what must be taught by graduation at the 12th-grade level. This gives state education systems a bit of wiggle room when it comes to how they teach certain material. “ For example, I teach civics and that's ninth grade… [in] some places it's 10th grade, some places it's 11th grade.” (Williams). Again, this rolls back to the idea of emotional maturity. Ms. Williams has always been very big on the idea that high schoolers are adults on a free trial of life. They should be making their own decisions about how they handle information. 

“...by the time you're in high school, I don't really think it's about maturity. It's just about where it fits in the schedule,” (Williams). 

This supports the idea that the average teenager has a strong enough mental shield and is emotionally mature enough to handle certain stressors. But even then, she’s not necessarily against book banning. Ms. Willy believes that drama with book banning is largely stupid. To summarize her point, sometimes it's not about banning a book, it's about being decisive about what needs to be on library shelves (Williams). “...what does the school need to spend its resources and its limited space on…space is at a premium now,” (Williams) It's not about pushing an agenda, it's about keeping everything educationally rich. Does a book actually need to be on the shelves or is it there for diversity’s sake? 

And again, no book is truly banned so is it that big of a deal if it isn’t on school shelves? Many people want to compare book banning to the Nazi Book Burnings, but there is a world of difference between them. The Nazis wanted to rid the world completely of Jewish/pro-Jewish books and teachings, book banners want to keep certain material off shelves. In one case, the books are forever lost to time, in the other, there’s more personal responsibility involved. Someone can pick up a book banned in their school at their local library, its more of a matter of if they want to or not. 

This ties back to individual responsibility. If the lessons can’t be found in schools, its up to parents or students themselves to go out and find them. Not all information can have the easy route of being available on school grounds, yes, but at the same time, schools are where morals are supposed to be introduced.

We read Little Red Riding Hood to learn not to trust strangers, we read Pinocchio to discourage lying, and we read The Three Little Pigs to learn the value of hard work and dedication. Those are irrefutable lessons. Now when we start to cross into the territory of banned material, the lessons are valuable but the content? Not so much. In “To Kill a Mocking Bird” by Harper Lee, the novel is dripping in moral teachings that are more relevant than ever. But is the price of excessive violence and harmful language worth what it could teach? Or in other words, is it worth possibly traumatizing young minds in the name of education? 

Sometimes, the answer is yes. 

Will Banning End? 

Everyone remembers the ironic cold war between violent video games and parents. According to the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC); in 1997 the first argument was brought up in a court case against the manufacturer's classic 90’s games like Doom, Resident Evil, and Castle Wolfenstein by the parents of victims of the Heath High School shooting. They claimed that the shooter’s consumption of violence in the games desensitized him to real-life violence. They called for the games to either be removed from shelves or at least restricted to those 18 and older. 

The case was dismissed and the games were found not at fault but that still didn’t stop parents from trying. For years, propaganda was plastered all over mommy blogs and social media advocating for banning or heavy censorship of video games. And their fears weren’t unfounded. It would make sense that constant exposure to violent media would numb one's view of the world. However in 2001, four years after this concept was brought up, Surgeon General David Satcher did a study that proves violent video games have little effect on aggressive behavior. In fact, he proved that there was more correlation between home life, upbringing and aggressive behavior than between video games.

The point being, that censoring video games wouldn’t do anything to curve the rates of aggression in teenagers. In some cases, violent video games tend to teach a lesson. In RPGs (Role Playing Games) such as Skyrim, there are in game consequences to being needlessly violent such as NPCs (Non Player Characters) no longer wanting to trade with you causing isolation in game. In Bloodborne, a game about nothing about the horrors of unnecessary violence and the effects it has on even monstrous creatures, the player is rewarded for showing mercy or kindness. In the end, the main objective of these video games is showing the effects of good versus evil in a more straightforward way. 

This is similar to banning books. It is fair to restrict material because it serves no purpose other than mindless entertainment as in erotica or violent books. And if the medium is feeding hateful rhetoric then keeping it away from children is the goal. But banning books because of swearing, and slight mentions of violence, defeats the purpose of education and personal growth in students. To understand why something should be the way it is, you have to show all the sides of the wrong. In some cases, the violence is the medium for getting the message across like in the video games. Making students uncomfortable isn’t ideal but sometimes its a necessary evil to encourage the good in the world. Without being uncomfortable, there’d be no change in the world. Everyone would only keep to their comfort zones, never venturing out, never caring about one’s neighbor, never speaking up when something isn’t right. So while discomfort is the root of all problems, it’s also the mother of all solutions.

References 

American Library Association. (2016, October 15). Banned Book FAQ | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues. American Library Association. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/banned-books-qa 

Brock, A., & Williams, T. L. (2024, March 21). Talking with Teachers: Mrs.Brock [Interview Transcript]. Rainey McCullers School of the Arts, Columbus, Georgia. Davis, R., (2023). Banned book presentation “Of Mice and Men”. [Unpublished Presentation] 10th World Lit, Rainey McCullers School of the Arts. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ho602Iy9N_xD8ohYYPWnM7PpNg3fkH--/view? usp=sharing 

EUROPEAN PAEDIATRIC ASSOCIATION PAGES. (2023). Journal of Pediatricians. Impact of Distressing Media Imagery on Children, 174, 285-286.e1. 

https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(16)30019-1/pdf 

Hammonds, R. (2019, September 2). School pastor removes Harry Potter after consulting exorcists. News Channel 5. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from 

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/nashville-school-pastor-removes-harry potter-books-claiming-risk-of-conjuring-evil-spirits 

Hill, T. R., & Williams, T. L. (2024, March 21). Talking with Teachers: Ms.Hill [Interview Transcript]. Rainey McCullers School of the Arts, Columbus, Georgia.

Hobbs, J. (2023, August 9). 'Romeo and Juliet' banned from Hillsborough, Florida schools. New York Post. Retrieved March 21, 2024, from 

https://nypost.com/2023/08/09/romeo-and-juliet-banned-from-hillsborough-fl orida-schools/ 

Legum, J. (2022, January 31). North Carolina superintendent abruptly removes MLK-themed novel from 10th grade class. Popular Information. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from https://popular.info/p/north-carolina-superintendent-abruptly 

National Coalition Against Censorship. (2022, October 3). A Timeline of Video Game Controversies. National Coalition Against Censorship. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from https://ncac.org/resource/a-timeline-of-video-game-controversies 

ProCon.org. (2024, January 29). Banned Books Pros and Cons - Top 3 Arguments For and Against. ProCon.org. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from 

https://www.procon.org/headlines/banned-books-top-3-pros-and-cons/ The Week Staff. (2023, May 27). Book bans: Censoring ideas and rewriting history. The Week. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from 

https://theweek.com/education/1023820/censoring-ideas-and-rewriting-history Wekesser, C. (1995). Censoring Media Violence is Necessary To Protect Children (From Violence in the Media, P 57-58, 1995, Carol Wekesser, ed. -- See NCJ-160238). Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved April 18, 2024, from

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/censoring-media-violence necessary-protect-children-violence-media 

Williams, T., & Williams, T. L. (2024, March 21). Talking with Teachers: Ms.Williams [Interview Transcript]. Rainey McCullers School of the Arts, Columbus, Georgia. Williams, TL,(2023). Dear Martin. [Unpublished Presentation] 10th World Lit, Rainey McCullers School of the Arts. Retrieved March 18, 2024, from 

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1rV9CwisnlzoUj8niUyOWjGKGBHwD2R4 WfZM5GwrZXbA/edit?usp=sharing