Book Censorship
Despite the fact that the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution provides legal protection for the freedom of religion, speech and press, modern American history as well as its democratic façade have been compromised greatly by numerous cases of book censorship and bans, particularly in educational institutions. Thereby, the case of Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five is only a drop in the ocean of shameful censorship policies.
As Vonnegut’s seminal work was banned in schools across the United States and as the Drake School Board set several books on fire, the prominent American writer whose books are believed to shape American identity wrote a letter of discontent and disapproval to the Chairman of the Drake School Board. The position described in this letter is rather daring and fair: the writer insists that such treatment of his work shows profound disrespect and insults him as a writer and as an American. Thereby, Vonnegut’s position is perfectly justified, for the author advocates for children’s freedom to read and broaden their worldview through reading freely.
Indeed, the freedom of speech and press as two of the primary rights guaranteed to every American should be respected and observed with care rather than modified upon discretion of those who have no authority to challenge the Constitution. Slaughterhouse Five – together with many other remarkable literary works - was banned from American schools because of its ‘obscene language’ and alleged ‘anti-Americanism’. The same challenges have been haunting many other books nowadays as well. However, such position of the educational boards not only violates the fundamental tenets of the U.S. Constitution but also throws American society back to the Dark ages.
Here, I would ardently support Vonnegut’s assertion about the need to allow children to read and learn themselves. In the modern world, the language Vonnegut uses in his book could be heard virtually everywhere – from ordinary people, and exclusion of the challenged book from the curriculum would be of no use. Openness of our society plunges children in the ‘coarse’ real-life environments even more often than school books do. In other words, the book containing obscene language or some elements of sexuality-related issues is by no means the first and most immediate source of these phenomena for the child, unless s/he is brought up in a completely isolated family ‘ecosystem’. Otherwise, any type of socialization at any developmental stage involves facing these real-life phenomena, and the primary task of schools and parents is to teach what is acceptable and what is inappropriate rather than exclude all ‘inappropriate’ factors from the child’s exploration of the world.
Moreover, the books which have been censored during the recent decades possess the greater value than that of obscene words or hints of ‘promiscuity’: the books of such talented and admired authors as Kurt Vonnegut and, for the present day, Neil Gaiman, can potentially give more to the young than mere ‘spicy’ inappropriateness of a few obscene words (which are nothing more than authentic and honest presentation of reality). Reading the books which – due to their plot, symbolism or prototypical characters – might teach valuable lessons of morality, real-life relationships with people or beliefs about good and evil, children would win more than they are believed to lose facing ‘inappropriate contents’. Given these considerations, the immediate conclusion that follows is that book censorship is not just a shameful and retrograde practice but also a highly impractical decision that might bring up a generation with somewhat romanticized and nonrealistic perceptions of the world.
