Banning books protects no one

There are several phrases that are sure to get me started, and "banned books" is at the top of that list.

Reading is one of the best, inexpensive ways to experience new places, understand historic events and cultivate empathy for the plights of others.

Reading also helps children sharpen myriad skills.

Still, the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Association of Christian Educators and other groups believe teens should be protected from certain writings.

"The Diary of Anne Frank" has been fodder for censors for decades; one group claims it is "too depressing."

Most recently, an unedited version is under fire for being too real.

A school in Virginia removed the updated version from its library after a parent complained of "sexual references" made by the then-13-year-old girl.

What makes this tome so classic and necessary to today's curriculum is its first-person account of a horrific moment in history as seen through the eyes of a Jewish teenager who was writing in a diary, and not for the purpose of publication.

So what if she makes sexual references? Her perspective on sexuality can only add to the reality of this very unique coming-of-age story read, by the way, by students who are the same age as she was when she wrote the diary.

Still, a parent thought it was inappropriate for little Suzie and Johnny to read such intimacies at such a tender age. I make a confident promise to that parent: "The Diary of Anne Frank" is not the first time your child encountered a sexual reference.

Kids are already exposed to sexuality, as well as racism, violence and civil disobedience (the main reasons books are banned), on a daily basis through television, Internet and popular music. Why, then, take away tried-and-true classic literature - from which they could gleen strong reading, writing and critical-thinking skills - just because they'll read the "N-word"? Hasn't it dawned on censors that with every use of that word in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," Mark Twain was taking pot shots at his self-righteous contemporaries?

Trust me, teenagers will quickly pick up on Twain's sarcastic wit, and they'll be better off for it.

I'm pleased Line Mountain paid little attention to banned book lists when I attended. Most of the books I read in school were banned somewhere: "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn," "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings," "1984," "Animal Farm" and "To Kill a Mockingbird." I'm surprised the banned lists don't contain others we read - "Crime and Punishment" (a dark novel about a man who brutally kills his landlady and justifies it as a service to humanity), "The Autobiography of Malcom X" (who spends half the book calling white people devils) or "Their Eyes Were Watching God" (topics include rape, adultery and murder).

But there we were, reading literature full of sexuality, racism, violence and civil disobedience. As far as I know, none of my classmates who actually read those books are violent criminals today.

Still, censors think they're doing teens a favor.

One of the oddest books on bannedbooks.com is the American Heritage Dictionary, banned by a Missouri library in 1978 because it contained 39 "objectionable" words, including slang definitions for bed, knockers and balls.

Even more intriguing is "Fahrenheit 451," a book about censorship. I wonder if any of the censors got the joke.

I have to wonder if any of them actually read these books. If they did, they'd learn these books are considered great classics of literature because the authors took taboo topics and put them in the center of the table so people can deduce their own opinions. That's a good thing.

I have a sneaking suspicion that book banners aren't so much afraid of what kids will read as much as they're afraid of what they'll ask. I think some adults are worried what responses they'll have to formulate when the kids start asking frank questions.

But banning books doesn't protect teens (or parents) from tough topics; it sets them up for academic failure. While advanced placement English curriculum doesn't have a required reading list, it includes a list of suggested authors, many of whom wrote books that have been banned. When these students get to college, they'll also be presented with required reading that often includes banned books. Would censors rather these students encounter uncomfortable topics in high school, where parents and teachers can help them understand, or when they are on their own in college?

I'm not suggesting we let 8-year-olds read "As I Lay Dying." Instead, let's stop acting like teenagers are too young and immature to properly assess certain topics in well-written literature. If the banned books lists have shown us anything, they've proven that adults, as well as teens, could benefit from a mature appreciation for literature.

(Nicolov, an assistant editor at The News-Item, writes Don't Get Me Started for each Friday edition. Contact her at julie_n@newsitem.com)

Sign up for Text Alerts

Sign up for e-mail newsletters