Sunday, November 10, 2013

Letter to Ms.Berner- Book Banning

“What is perhaps not right for one child is absolutely necessary to another.”
-Ellen Hopkins

Dear Ms Berner,
            An independent reading selection is a sacred and unique choice, one that we students of MS.51 are given daily. This ability to select is in keeping with old-fashioned American ethics like freedom of speech and free pursuit of knowledge. I believe that censorship, or “book banning” as we know it, does very little good for society.  It creates a controversy between kids and adults, and it prevents kids from exploring their world in a safe way.
Many adults are unaware of the books their children are reading. My research has allowed me to form my opinion: it is up to a child and his or her family to select books intriguing and helpful to the child. And it is a school’s job to be open to all types of reading personalities, and supply kids with their guided selections.
Many parents are able to understand how a book could harm their child, but often may not be able to envision a situation in which that book might help another child. This is the type of parental blindness that leads to book banning. In my opinion, books speak to young readers who can relate to the dark issues explored in those titles. In his article, “Why the Best Kids’ Books are Written in Blood,” Sherman Alexie states, “Teens read because they live in an often terrible world. They read because they believe, despite the callow protestations of adults, that books—especially the dark and dangerous ones will save them”. Controversial topics in books often provide models for children in need of help. The article, “Students ask District 41 to reconsider ‘Perks of Being a Wallflower Removal’ ” states, “The book has played its role in helping its readers realize they’re not alone in feeling different.” Challenged books are often the ones most nurturing to teens who need help. By taking away these books, we are invading teen’s lives, and making their conflicts seem insignificant.

Banning books drives a wedge between kids and adults, because it involves the conflict of adults making decisions for their children.  In his article, “Teen Fiction Plots are Darker and Starker,” William Porter earnestly writes, “I think adults shortchange teens and their ability to grasp complex material and make deeper connections.”  When protective adults make decisions about banning books, doesn’t it leave younger readers feeling intellectually violated and disrespected?
I believe overreaction to dark topics in books comes from a place of fear inside caregivers: their children are growing up, and handling more challenging material. “We are willing enough to praise freedom when she is safely tucked away in the past and cannot be a nuisance,” states E.M Forster. “In the present, amidst dangers whose outcome we cannot foresee, we get nervous about her, and admit censorship.”  Adults are comfortable with graphic conflicts in books when their children are not exposed to them.  But once these subjects are easily accessible to teens, the adults jump to extremes, limiting access to books rightfully ours.  Book banning further divides teens and their elders.  In order to come to a solution, we need to find a way to bridge the two groups.
The solution is communication. The issue of censorship cannot be fairly addressed, because of one major flaw: many adults are unaware of the books their kids are reading. In order to make an educated and balanced decision about what our nation’s children should be reading, honest discussion between teachers, parents, and their children is essential. The article “District 41 Slated to Reconsider Ban on ‘Perks of Being a Wallflower’ ” describes the reassessment of the book banning process in District 41. In this reassessment, a new policy was created: at the beginning of the school year, parents would receive a letter asking parents if there were any subjects or books they wanted kept out of their child’s hands. I strongly support this solution to the problem. I think an approach like this would perform wonders at a school like MS 51. “My job is to help children find the books they want to read.  The parent’s job is to help their children decide what books they should read,” claims Jenna Obee, Young Adult specialist at the Stanley Lake Library. This idea, along with District 41’s plan, would allow parents, who know their children the best, to pass judgment on what books their kids should be reading, without affecting the other kids in the classroom.
Some censors disagree strongly with my opinion.  In her article, “Darkness too Visible,” Megan Cox Gurdon states, “No family is obliged to acquiesce when publishers use the vehicle of fundamental-free expression to try to bulldoze misery or coarseness into our children’s lives.”  However, the majority of my research has led me to believe that dark books actually help readers solve their own life issues. Young adult books generally show choices the main character makes, and the negative effects of those choices, causing readers to make better decisions than the main character did. As Sherman Alexie states, “I read books about monsters and monstrous things, often written with monstrous language, because they helped me battle the monsters in my own life.” The censors of America are supposedly “protecting” kids from books, while really all they’re doing is taking away one of the only ways kids across the nation learn how to manage the valleys of their lives.
In conclusion, censorship or book banning does little service to society.  The sixth graders at MS.51 are on the verge of adulthood.  Don’t take away their access to young adult books, just because of more graphic material.  Rather, institute regulations regarding parent-child communication.  This improved solution will nurture all reading personalities, protect kids who need a little less exposure, and let already-exposed kids feel less lonely and left out. As Judy Blume, says, “If parents and kids can talk together, we won't have as much censorship because we won't have as much fear.Some principals may choose to follow censorship, to choose fear.  But I propose that there is a choice.  And today, I choose bravery.

                                                                                    Sincerely,
                                                                                                Julia Frankel




           

            

No comments:

Post a Comment