Censorship, as defined by Webster's dictionary, is, "the act or practice of censoring" (220).  So what is censoring?  Consulting Webster's once again; censoring is performed by a censor, who is, "an 'official' that examines literature, television programs, etc., for the purpose of 'suppressing' or 'deleting' parts 'deemed' 'objectionable' on moral, political, military, or 'other grounds'" (220).  Who is considered an "official"?  What "other grounds" are acceptable premises for the self appointed censors to "deem" someone's writing "objectionable"?  Finally, after a work is "deemed objectionable," who is it that does the actual "suppressing or deleting"?  Who is by definition the censor?  Most of all, what effects does censorship have on the education of American children?
        Ira Glasser states, "Today, artistic freedom is threatened across the country by escalating (if more refined) pressure from private groups, new censorship laws, and politically inspired funding cuts" (539).  Glasser's concerns with the growth of censorship in recent years and the negative effects it is having on our free and democratic society are valid ones.  An examination of the damaging effects of censorship, on literature used for educating the children of the United States, will provide specific examples of the powerful, harmful, and highly effective influence that unknowledgeable private groups have in the education of America's children.  Moreover; it will prove that censorship must be challenged.
        The rise of numerous incidences of censorship and attempts to censor "objectionable" works date back several decades.  Steven Pico said, "I could not believe the hypocrisy of the censorship of books in the United States.  In school, year after year, I had been told how books were banned in communist countries and burned in Nazi Germany.  I could not believe that it was happening in the United States . . ." (Foerstel 14).  "The first public burning of a book in America took place in 1650 when Thomas Pynchon's The Meritorious Price of Our Redemption was set aflame in the Boston marketplace by the common executioner" (Oboler 78).  A much more recent occurrence of book burning was in 1977; when a group of senior citizens in Warsaw, Indiana scorched 40 copies of a textbook, Values Clarification (Oboler 78).  On February 28, 1981, a group of school board members from Bloomfield, New Mexico burned every copy of Bless Me, Ultima that they could find (Karolidg 29).  Book burning seems so archaic in today's advanced society, and yet it happens.  It seems when a group cannot protest a book intelligently they protest it violently.
        A short listing of some pieces of literature that have been subjected to censorship at one time or another is enough to raise questions in most people's minds as to the wisdom of these protesters.  Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days  was said to be "very unfavorable to Mormons."    William Shakespeare's Macbeth is supposedly "Too violent for children."  Moby Dick has been restricted in places because it is said to have "homosexual content."  Children have been protected from the so called "Morbid picture of death" the story Charlotte's Web paints (Sadker 184).  "According to People for the American Way, during the 1990-1991 school year there were 264 incidents of attempted censorship in 44 states" (Sadker 185).
        Pressure coming from a number of sources is directed toward the American school system resulting in a variety of types and ways of censoring.  The following examples of censorship in education are the "compilation of targets gleaned from several thousand pages of protest material and reports of censorship incidents throughout the nation" (Oboler 62).  One or more groups of "would be censors" oppose the following educational subjects and materials: sex education, drug education, the study of psychology, literature written by homosexuals, black literature, novels that deal with conflicts between parents and children, non-patriotic books, mythology, works of "questionable" writers, books not written in English, assignments that lead to self-awareness and self-understanding, assignments that help students make value judgments, stories about the supernatural, magic, or witchcraft, etc., and "trash" such as The Catcher in the Rye and others (Oboler 62-63).  One of the most successful groups, whose family owned business's only purpose is censorship, is Mel and Norma Gabler.  In 1976, they "were successful in influencing the removal of several dictionaries from schools throughout the state of Texas" (Oboler 52).  They felt the dictionaries had too many "bad words" defined in them.  All children do not sit in the library reading the dictionary page by page, just looking for "bad words" to use.  They learn the words through daily interactions and wish to find a formal definition to complete their knowledge of the word.
        Two more specific examples of censorship attempts in education provide a closer, more personal view.  In 1977, two Prince Georges county councilmen protested a book titled Our Bodies, Ourselves, as a result of the pressures of the controversy over "objectionable" content.  William Gordon, the director of the county library system stated "Our Bodies, Ourselves is not sensational; it does not appeal to one's prurient interest. It is a straightforward presentation which deals with the physical and sexual realities of the female body" (Foerstel 18-19).  Another act of censorship occurred on September 1986, When a spur of the moment, snap decision was made to ban William Faulkner's As I Lay Dying from the Graves County High School, because of the pressures of one student's mother's protest (Foerstel 34-35).  Unfortunately this type protest to educational material is not just a passing fad.
         The educational institution has been under sustained attack.  A recent board of education meeting demanded that two award-winning books be removed from the Highland Middle School because of offensive language" (Foerstel 53).  Examples alone may not be enough to reveal the hypocrisy of censorship.  Most protests that eventually lead to censorship, of one form or another, begin with pressures from private groups.  What names might come to mind when someone thinks of a person or a small group deciding the fate of the majority: Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Ferdinand Marco, Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussain, Julius Caesar, etc..  Yet the majority of people sit idly by, allowing individuals and private groups to censor based on their own biased, unknowledgeable views.  The senior citizens that burned Values Clarification claimed "it taught situation ethics, moral relativism, and secular humanism.  They feared it would destroy home-taught values" (Oboler 78).  If they felt the values they taught at home could not stand the experience of a new perspective, maybe they should never have let their children out into the real world.  Another crowd of book burners thought that by burning Bless Me, Ultima, they were protecting their county from "the so-called bad words in Spanish" (Karolidg 29).  Never having read the novel, they could not possibly have known the true goal was the author's reflection of childhood views of values, folkways, and heroic portrayals of poor farmers (Karolidg 29).
        Focusing in on one small detail without experiencing the entire meaning is the method the majority of protesters use to ban literature.  Consider the novels mentioned earlier.  Each was banned at one time or another for some outrageous interpretation of the meaning.  Charlotte's Web depicts a morbid picture of death; of who the spider or the pig?  Now, a parent, having heard only a censor's viewpoint, might think, "That story is about a spider and a pig?  Well I wasn't gonna allow my kid to read it 'cause I read that it was about death."  This person's interpretation of the meaning of Charlotte's Web was unknowledgeable, biased, and incorrect.  Moreover, her opinion was based on information presented by a censor, who most likely did not understand the true meaning of the work.  The book does use the concept of death, however, but only to develop the valuable relationships between living things, which is the true meaning.
        In the education field, it is probably obvious that the great majority of protests come from parents.  A variety of books and subjects have been banned, then reintroduced.  In education, as in everything, censorship is sometimes effective and other times struck down.  The citizens of Prince Georges county attempted to censor Our Bodies, Ourselves.  William Gordon concluded after reviewing the book that, "Any information about human sexuality is going to offend someone" (Foerstel 19).  A perfect example of censorship occurring as a direct result of an individual is the 1986 banning of As I Lay Dying.  A student's mother drew the conclusion that the book was supporting "secular humanism" and complained to Jonny Shelton, a school board member.  Shelton brought the complaint to the board and had the principal read some highlighted passages out-loud to the board.  The board voted unanimously that the book be thrown out.  Foerstel writes "none of the board members had read the book, though a few said they had thumbed through it.  Dan Sharp, the school board attorney, estimates that the school board's discussion of Faulkner's book lasted about five minutes" (34-35).  Five minutes is quite a pitiful amount of time to spend determining the fate of anything, let alone the education of children.
        How effective are the continual protests in the education field?  They vary.  The leading parent of the November 7, 1991, incident in Cheshire, Connecticut claimed, "The books were filled with profanity, blasphemy, and obscenities."  Board Vice-Chairman George Bowman proclaimed, "I'll take them out myself, and you can arrest me, . . . it's trash" (Foerstel 53).  The protest of Our Bodies, Ourselves was ineffective as a result of reviewing the true intentions of the material (Foerstel 18-19).  The objections to As I Lay Dying  were heard by Graves County School Board, Principal Ellington had the books removed, and censorship was immediately effective (Foerstel 34-35).  The violent protesting in Kanawha County had short-term effectiveness.  As a result of the rioting, law enforcement officials were forced to intervene, and some demonstrators received prison sentences; but a compromise was eventually reached (Foerstel 3-4).  People for the American Way state, "In one-third of the cases, the attempts at censorship were successful" (Sadker 185).  Fred Thompson and Max Marshall reported, "Successful cases of censorship by such organizations as NOW, FACE, and CARE were predominantly local achievements, not nationally coordinated efforts" (Oboler 140).  So, it seems, success depends on the opinions of local citizens, and that interest in protesting diminishes as distance from the center of the controversy increases.  Even-though most censorship efforts lack substance and are personally biased, one should not discount their effectiveness.
        The possibility of harm as a result of wide spread, broad based, biased, unknowledgeable censorship is vast.  In education, the harmful effects have possibly the greatest negative impact on our society.  The St. Petersburg Times warns, "Depriving students of knowledge by the widespread banning of books is not . . . reasonable . . . .  Unless the book banners are stopped . . ., there's no telling how far they'll go" (Foerstel 52).  The best way to stimulate the growth of humanity, especially our youth, is the exposure to real issues, not hiding from them.  The fear is if one school district gets away with censorship, it may have a ripple effect, then more thoughtless people will be influenced to suppress anything "deemed objectionable" (Foerstel 2&37).  The task of maintaining academic freedom while protecting children is becoming increasingly complicated.  If the freedom to experience the "controversial works" censorship attempts to eliminate is infringed upon, the students of America will be the losers because they will not be able to become acquainted with a variety of views, values, and ideas.  "The value of any banned book or story is that each provides some information as to how we live and what we are, as opposed to what we say we are" (Karolidg 17).  There is no telling what doors would never be opened if someone lacked exposure to the variety of views and ideas censorship attempts to eliminate.  The harm of past suppression was indicated by William Gordon, who after reviewing Our Bodies, Ourselves, said, "For too long, the tendency has been to withdraw from making sexual information available, particularly to young people who, during their developmental years, are most desperately in need of such information" (Foerstel 19).
        The possibilities of harmful side-effects are surely present when decisions to eliminate "objectionable" works are made hastily, as in the Graves County incident.  Dan Sharp said, "It happened so fast I'm not sure everyone realized the significance" (Foerstel 35).  One very subtle form of censorship appears in the writing of textbooks.  Specifically, some textbook companies voluntarily rewrite material to pass readability formulas.  The following story is a version of "The Tortoise and the Hare" distorted to pass a readability formula.  "Rabbit said, 'I can run, I can run fast.' 'You can't run fast,' Turtle said, 'Look, rabbit.  See the park.  You and I will run.  We'll run to the park.'  Rabbit said, 'I want to stop.  I'll stop here. I can run, but Turtle can't.  I can get to the park fast.'  Turtle said, 'I can't run fast.  But I will not stop.  Rabbit can't see me.  I'll get to the park.'"  This meaningless mutilation of a story that once had a moral is to be the educational material of the future if censors have their way (Sadker 192).
        Harm directly resulting from violent protest is evident.  In Kanawha County, the protesting of a series of text books was inflamed to the point of rioting by "fliers containing purported excerpts from the books . . ., some containing blatantly sexual material that had no connection with the textbooks . . ." (Foerstel 3).  During the rioting in Kanawha County, one student pointed out, "They're shooting people because they don't want people to see violence in books" (Foerstel 3).  Reverend Charles Quigley asked the citizens of Kanawha to "pray that God would kill the three board members who voted to keep the books" (Foerstel 3).  They thought the textbooks promoted poor values?  Thus, censorship's most probable result is harm of one kind or another.  The damage "would be" censors and censorship cause is unacceptable and can be avoided by challenging them.
        The results and methods of challenging censorship differ with each instance of protest.  The attempted censorship of Our Bodies, Ourselves was challenged by William Gordon, who said that the information in the book was valuable and vital to young people; therefore, it remained available to everyone (Foerstel 19).  Many of the successful cases of censorship are a result of inadequate, ineffective methods of defense.  The basis for most arguments against censorship stem from the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states that government cannot interfere with the free exchange of ideas without that exchange showing a serious threat to national security; also, that people have the right to free speech and expression that should not be trodden on by another.
        Some of the more effective methods of challenging or avoiding protest include clear, thorough communication of intentions (Oboler 56&113).  Also, people should expect unique, unusual works might be found "objectionable" and be prepared to offer intelligent, non-biased, knowledgeable, supportive arguments for their work (Oboler 62-63).  Eli Oboler writes, "Ultimately all the questions in this case really boil down to one; whether we as a people will try fearfully and futilely to preserve democracy by adopting totalitarian methods, or whether in accordance with our tradition and our Constitution we will have the confidence and courage to be free" (58)?
        So who is the real censor, anyway?  Is it the protesters?  In many instances, the protesters only offer the pressure to censor; therefore, they are not by definition the censors.   In the school system, most censorship is a result of pressure from "offended" groups; however, on several occasions, the act of censoring is direct.  In the cases of book burning, the protesters are the self appointed judge, jury, and executioner.
        Censorship attempts are not only a thing of the past; they will always be around.  Perhaps in a democratic society that is truly free, protesting and defending is as it should be.  People have the right to pursue ideas and truths wherever they may lead.  To insulate someone from those ideas and truths is to restrict their right to knowledge, and that is censoring.  Censorship is a growing assault on literature, and it is an increasingly harmful practice.  Arthur Miller says, "[A] censor does not merely take something out, he puts something in" (Karolidg 18).  The effects of ignorant, biased censoring are extremely destructive to our society.  Do people really want their children growing up intellectually stagnate?  Left unchallenged, censorship leads in only one direction: inadequately educated and under-educated citizens.  All censorship must be challenged in all its forms.
 

WORKS CITED
 

Foerstel, Herbert N.   Banned in the U.S.A..
  West Point:  Greenwood Press, 1994.

Karolidg, Nicholas J., ed. et. al.  Censored Books Critical Viewpoints.
 N.J.:  The Scarecrow Press Inc., 1993.

Oboler, Eli M.   Censorship and Education.
 New York:  The H.W. Wilson Co., 1981.

Glasser, Ira.  "Artistic Freedom: A Gathering Storm."  The Conscious Reader sixth ed..
 Ed.  Caroline Shrodes, et. al.  Toronto:  Allyn and Bacon,  1995.  539-43.

Sadker, Myra P., and David M.  Teachers, Schools, and Society third edition.
 St. Louis:  McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994.

Costello, Robert B., ed. et. al.  Webster's College Dictionary.
 New York:  Random House, 1991.