To Kill a Mockingbird should still be taught in school systems, and should not be a banned book because the novel focuses on a part of history that should not be ignored. Just because history is harsh and not always the most pleasant thing to learn about, does not mean that we can ignore it. Kenya Down with PBS said, “Being uncomfortable with history is not means to change it; people need to figure out how to confront issues.” Down also mentioned how Lee’s book is one of the most banned books
Books are an essential way to gain knowledge whether they are controversial or not. Thousands of books have been banned from public libraries and schools due to being deemed ‘inappropriate’ by parents, administrators, or religious leaders. Whether Americans should ban books in public libraries and schools is an often debated topic. This censorship of books is dangerous, as it restricts the American people's’ ability to access information, leaving Americans ignorant. Historically, banning books is not a new practice.
Books are just that, books, that everyone has the choice to read or not to. Concern is understandable, as parents are still the guardian which is why permission slips to read said banned books will be put into place. Though banned books will not be entirely removed. Removal of one banned book would lead to the removal of all banned books. As almost every book has an opinion that somebody will not agree with.
The restriction on prayer also means forbidding controversial topics involving religion, which limits opportunities for debates and other educational experiences. “If free religious expression in the form of prayer is prohibited, school officials are, at the very least, teaching children that public acknowledgment of God is not as important as the things the schools can discuss” (MacLeod). Eliminating religion from schools not only hampers students’ freedom, but also the richness of their
If someone thinks that they might get triggered by an event that takes place in a book, then maybe they shouldn’t be in an environment like this. I’m not saying that there aren’t tragic events that occur in the books we read such as Things Fall Apart, I’m saying that I don’t believe in censoring or warning people about a book because the world we live in is much crueler than any book. I don’t want my learning experience to be altered. If a person went through a traumatic event in the past it should be on them to notify the professor before the semester starts so that way things can be handled on a more individual and personal level. College is supposed to be challenging, so I believe that it is necessary to read books that will challenge us as a reader, not only by the literary difficulty but by the content being explained.
Life does not have a “trigger warning.” Including warnings about course content that may evoke feelings of distress does not guard students from their emotions; rather, it guards students from reality. The addition of these aforementioned precautions at DePauw University would not adequately prepare students for their lives beyond college. Therefore, a policy that requires faculty to provide trigger warnings alongside potentially sensitive material should not be enforced. A liberal arts institution is designed to open the minds of students to new ideologies and philosophies, regardless of how uncomfortable those outlooks are. However, by notifying students in advance about potentially sensitive topics, it makes it extremely feasible for students to reject opposing viewpoints or information that may conflict with their current beliefs.
However, there are people that argue against the idea of censoring books in schools. One counterpoint of the argument of the topic is that banning books hinders students from discovering new things and obtaining knowledge. According to the article, “Banning Books: An Overview”, Michael Aliprandini and Carolyn Sprague state, “The core arguments against the banning of books have been based on protecting the rights of individuals to free speech as well as to promote intellectual freedom – the rights protected by the First Amendment.” They are basically explaining how arguments of book banning connect to the idea of intellectual freedom and protecting individual rights, which are implied in the First Amendment. Censorship of books can be expressed as violating the rights and freedom of the individuals. Boyd and Bailey support this idea of intellectual freedom by presenting how banning books in schools with the quote from their journal, “Censors evoke barriers to free thought and speech when they block knowledge acquisition, intellectual development, as well as creative and critical thinking…” (Boyd and Bailey,
In the United States Constitution the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” ("First Amendment.”) How is it in a country where freedom of speech is held so sacred, we are unable to read about it in books? Another question might be, why are we unable to protect our children from such harmful materials? These are questions asked by many as we experience censorship on a regular basis. Censorship is mainly focused on books that children and schools are reading in America. The idea of Censorship and book banning is to protect the youth from potentially harmful ideas or thoughts, but some would argue that in doing so it goes against the First Amendment rights.
In Shafter, California, the police officers say that this policy is already been helpful. However, if they do this, it could be an invasion of privacy.According to Maria Shepard, “If the device is not school-owned and is not being used on school campus, schools should not monitor a student’s online activity.” They should also have a search warrant to be able to go through your
Is cutting off that creativity with uniforms really a good idea? Even the Constitution encourages us to have freedom of choice as 1st Amendment guarantees no restrictions of freedom of speech of press. By enforcing uniforms, students are restricted from the freedom of choice in clothing therefore contradicting the 1st Amendment. Relating to the thesis, uniforms should not be in schools since it cuts off the imaginative spirit from students. Some may argue that school uniforms do not suppress creativity, but merely encourages children to express their personalities in methods other than clothing.