-
,
CENSOl.SHI1") n'T
Tm'~
:3ECQlI;J)ARY SCHOOL:
A THREAT TO THE RIGHT TO READ
L
-
..
-
-
CENSORSHIP IN THE SECONDIL-qy SCHOOL:
A
~J.1HR'SAT
TO :J.1HE RIGHT TO READ
A THESIS
SUBNcITTED TO TIffi HONORS COUNCIL
IN FULFILLidENT OJ!' THE
REQUIRS:~rI:;NTS
for
I.D. 499
by
ROBERT J • GROVER
ADVISER - DONALD S. MAC VEAN
BALIJ STATE mnVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
AUGUST,
1965
t
j>
CENSORSHIP IN THE SECONDARY SCHOOL:
A THREAT TO
THl<~
RIGHT TO READ
Book selection is an important responsibility
of thf3 school librarian.
In most schools, the librarian
makes the final decision in ordering books for the library collection.
In attempting to develop a useful,
intellectually challenging, well-rounded collection,
the librarian may occasionally be confronted by individuals or groups who object to materiels contained in it.
This :Japer is designed to present an overview of censorshin activities resulting from objections to fiction
books in a secondary school library and to offer a course
of action to resist attempts at suppression.
Censorship differs from selection in that book
selection is made in accordance with the needs of the
individual school library and the evaluated literary
merit of the individual book.
Censorship, in contrast,
implies coercive attempts to ban materials; these attempts
are based on religious, political, or moral objections.
If, in the librarian's oninion, a book is poorly written
or ap1)arently would be useless to the collection, he is
not aeting as a censor by refusing to order the book for
4
Perhaps the
~ost
active groups engaged in book
banning are those committees which are ap-pointed by national and local organizations to examine books used in
SGhools to find eX2r.J.()les of ideas or practices these or' t '~ons con d emn. 9
gan~za
These organizations ar_d other
political extrem.ists often attack textbooks and library
materials for "softness ll on communism, lfone-worldism,1I
New Dealism, leanings toward socialism., or plain unA!:.1ericanism.
Among those prominently engaged in this
practice are the Daughters of the Americ3.n Revolution,
10
the ~nerican Legion, and ~\merica's Future, Inc.
The D.AR.is very critical of textbooks used in
the s<:!hools, particularly those on American history,
ci vic:3, economics, and social problems.
zc~tion
The orga.ni-
publishes a :leriodical, National Defender, and a
pEmphlet, 11extbook Study.
Its Textbook >:3tudy, 1958-1959
was a master list of textbooks
ap~roved
education throughout the United 3tates.
by boards of
Of the text-
books examined, about fifty books qualified as "satisfactory" and 165 as "unsatisfactory."ll
Among the books labeled by the DAR. as objectionable for use in Dublic schools are those by the following
authors:
Theodore H. 7r.."1ite, Margaret Mead, Burl Ives,
Lincoln Steffens, Louis Untermeyer, Richard':tright, Bill
Mauldj.n, Langston Hughes, Carey McWilliams, and Gordon
Allport.
The D.A.R. claims that these Deople are on
5
record in the House Committee on Un-American Activities. 12
Historians such as Henry Steele Commager, Herbert
.A.gar, Harold Laski, and Allan Nevins were included in
l\ne :Daughters' list of "liberal, racial, socialist or
le,bor agitators. ,,13
Another organization openly concerned with reading
materials in the schools is America's Future, Inc.
Fol-
lowing are some pamphlets this organization publishes:
How the Reds 'Non, What's Hap"Oened to Our .Schools, and
How ":Progressi ve II Is Your School?
.4.merica' s Future,
Inc. also produces a radio progra1TI for John F. Flynn,
one o:c its Damphleteers, and sponsors a i\extbook Evaluation Gonunittee that apiraises texts in all fields of
educa-3ion .14
The reasons America's Future offers for its textbook reviewing are similar to the re2sons given by other
organizations and interested individuals viho zealously
evaluate textbooks and library materials.
rhe follo\¥ing
is a cLuotation from an America's Future publication:
Many of our young men and women are coming
out of our high schools and colleges with a
contempt for American ideals. They have, instead, ~ notion that what they must work for
and believe in is :3ig Government which will do
all their thinking for them and guarantee them
security from the cradle to the grave. Much
of this fuzzy thinking can be traced to the
textbooks used in our schools today. 15
Perha?s the feeling os extrenists is characterized
by the Reverend Ralnh E.
~'lright
of Midland, Texas.
Mark
6
Sherw:~n
in his book The Bxtremists (New York:
St. Mar-
tin's Press, 1963) describes Wright as feeling " • • •
all
~lericats
problems will be solved if he will be
permitted to select the books that should be read.,,16
Included among the books the Reverend Mr. Wright
believes are "sending this country, its children, ond
adultG to nerdition" are Andersonville, 1984, Brave New
17
'{{orld" The Grapes of Wrath, and Of Time and the River.
Mr. iVright insists that authors claimed_ to have
been lufiliated with the cownunist organizations should
have their books banned.
Included are Theodore Dreiser
and his book An American Tragedy, Sinclair Lewis, U-9ton
Si.nclair, Oliver La:b'arge and Laughing BOY, William Saro18
yElll and The Hu..r;:tCill Comedy.
Book banning is, of course, not restricted to
ob j ection;:) based on y)oli tical motives.
Many attempts
at book banning are acco1U8anied by cries of flobscene"
ruld ":fil tho II
Perhans no other book in recent ye8.rs hels
given rise to such heated controversy as that generated
by Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer.
The book is a fictional autobiogranhy of Miller's
life and thought in Paris during the 1930's.
Banned
from this country for twenty-seven years, it was first
publi:3hed in the United States by Grove Press in 1961.
Since that time Grove estimates that $250,000 has been
spent defending the book against obscenity charges in
7
about 100 courts.
19
A glance at the divergent decisions of a few courts
will serve as an indication of the controversy surroundine
The Illinois
~ropic.
Su~')reme
Court unanimously found
the book obscene after the SUDreme Court in California
had unanimously found it not obscene.
It vras found
not obscene in ,vIas88.chusetts by a 4-3 vote. In Hew York
20
The United
it ViaS declared obscene by a 4-3 vote.
~~ates
of
Supreme Court ruled in June, 1964, that Tropic
Can~
was protected in every stute.
Critical C01llL.1ent on
divided in opinion.
l.To~ic
is likewise extremely
At the Los Angeles obscenity trial,
the criticism was indeed caustic.
Frank Baxter, a tele-
visio::1 personality, had the following to say about the
ill-fal.>;.ed book:
II
If thiE book depicts theQri vate life
of the average citizen of Los A.ngeles, I vi/Glcome with
great joy the hydrogen bomb.,,21
This criticism was
leveled in reaction to the claim that Miller was making
an attempt to capture realism.
At the same trial, Dr. Hovrard McDonald, president
of
LOD
A.nc;eles
~)t2te
College of Applied Arts and SCiences,
cOIIHnented as follows:
Juter I got tnrough reading the book I \vanted
~o take a bath . . • . 1 felt that I'd get venereal
disease just froD reading the book, it was so
filthy, rather conQoninc that kind of life in the
world.22
Dr. Marcus Creighan, a psychiatrist, said "I
8
believe this book is for cannibals ane_ animals aBct not
for humC:ln distribution. 1123
Leon Uris, the v.rriter, had this to say at the
Los _c,-ngeles trial:
II
I believe we have a right to defend
ourselves against this tyne of garbage the same way we
would any other ordinary criminal or anyoervert walking
24
the streets of Los .Angeles. 1I
George P. Elliott, vITiting in HarDer's Magazine,25
said that Tropic should be censored, not because of the
IIpornography" but because of its nihilistic force.
He
claim:3 it attacks the farnily throut!;h many eXam'lles of
lovel!~ss
sex.
The chaos in Miller's work was the subject of
criticism by Alberto Moravia, writing in Sewanee Review.
Mcrav~~a
conceded that chaos has always existed in great
Ii terary vrorks, but he criticizes Miller for never €;etting
beyond chaos - as if held back by retarded grOlV'th.
26
In contrast to this harsh criticism, Ezra Pound,
T. ;;). Bliot, George Orwell, and Edmund 1,'iilson have saluted
Tronic~
as
If
as a modern classic.
Huck Finn in Paris.,,27
Horace Gregory thinks of it
(The authors mentioned above
have themselves been the object of much controversy.)
Miller has been praised by many :for being responsible for an evolution in literary style.
Eric Moon, re-
viewing £9J?ic in Library. Journal credits Miller, along
\',ri th
Jamec Joyce
2-1ld
D. IT. Lav/rence, of setting the style
9
for modern novels, 2nd
SclYS
that lvliller " •• • has gone
further into enemy territory than either of the other
two."
:28
Similarly, reviewing Tropic for the New York Times,
Harry f. Illoore credits IHller with being a "liberating
influence" u-oon other writers.
Moore suggests th2.t many
of Miller's values, especially IIhis attacks u::Jon standEtrdi!::ation and his reverence for life have been vvidely
circuJ_ated and adopted, if only unconsciously. 1129
Praise h[,_s also -C)een prof:fered for Miller's account
of Parisian life during the 1920's and 1930's.
His ac-
count of a neWST-"i 21)er proofreader's life has been described
2.S
a "masterpiece of insiEht and expression. 1,30
Singing a song of limited
~raise
for the book is
Stanley Kauffmann in his review' ap1)earing in }lev! Republic. 31
He eV2.lue.tes
~liller
as being a good writer 'out says that
Miller carmot be considered as great as Hemingway, Faulkner, or DosPassos.
Kauffmann does clc.im, however, that
Miller has his place as one providing a "breather II :from
conventional literature.
'£he objectionable words which were the basis of
comnlaints by some critics were ,raised by others as
contributing to the comuletion of a work of art.
George
Elliott says that ". • • as a 'vork of art, it (Trouic)
haB considerable merit, and it could not achieve its ends
Ivi thout the use of intrinsically pornogranhic episodes
10
and images. ,,32
His use of taboo Yvords, and his dwelling on sex
and perversion is all part of the iconoclastic r:liller
style.
He was attemnting to loose the fetters from the
standardized Ii teruture of the d.ay.
Miller says:
In !J:ropic of Caner,
IIThere is only one thing
whic~l
interests
me vitally now, and thc:.t is the recording of all that
which is omitted in books.,,33
In reaching this end, Miller has received strong
criticism to the effect that his 'Nork is "obscene,1I and
"filthy," and not fit for adult reading.
It is indeed
strange that the book has been kent from the hands for
those it was intended - young people.
Miller remarked
in his essay, "Obscenity and the Law of Reflection" that
it was written to apyeal to the young. 34
Similar is the fate which has befallen J. IJ.
Salinger t s ':Jatcher in
the~.
The narrative of a si}..-teen-
year-old with his lucid commentary (often utilizing fourletter words) on his experiences, Catcher has been a controversial to-;Jic for teacheru and libre.rians.
A few
examples will serve as illustrations.
As recently as December 1964, Catcher was removed
from the shelves of schools in Chatham County, Georgia
by SU]J3rintendent Thord D,1e.rshall.
The local chanter of
Ci tize:1§. for Decent Literature complained that the novel
"conta:ined too many vulgar words."
35
11
A petition ','ii th 216 sign2.tures protesting Catcher's
presence on the reading list for }mglish classes at
Placer Union High 3chool in Auburn, Colii'ornia, waS Dresented early in April 1964
hearing of the
~ook
attended by 150 persons, some of
,
d e f en.e
ddt'no '0 00 k Ior
wnom
n
~Che
to the school board at a
•
~
t s l'~ t erary qua1 ~. t'~es. 36
head of the board of education in Vestal,
New York, recently declared that high school students
in that tovm shouldn't be allowed to read Gome of the
books by J. D. ,3aline;er, i;rnest Hemingvray or James Baldwin.
Catcher, he said, "is dirty and shouldn't be allowed
in the doors of any secondary school in this country.,,37
Officials of the Tamalpais Union High School
District in Marin County, Cali±'ornia, received a complaint in November 1961 fro.c1 a Bcc:ptist minister, Rev.
Michaf31 3arkowsl::a, concerning Catcher and Steinbeck's
Of Mice and Men being used in schools.
"They bring re-
proach upon the name of God,1I he said, and contain liprofani t~r, lewd words, and poor Snglish. II
The minister
read only exerpts from the book because he said he found
the lanGuage too rtsickening" to continue. 38
In A,ril of 1964 the
1~.
Pleasant (Pa.) Joint
School System banned Catcher, 1984, and Brave New World.
The decision to remove Catcher waS made on the strength
of one phone call objecting to the book. 39
It is interesting to note, as Edward Corbett points
12
out, 4'J that most reports about the banning of Catcher
have told th2,t a school principal, librarian, or parent
hastily paged through the book and spotted several fourletter words.
This waS enough evidence to conclude that
the book must go.
The best defense for Catcher's language is based
on the art of the novel:
IlGiven the Doint of view from
which the novel is told, and given the kine of character
that figures as the hero, no other language was possible. 1I41
David Costello, writing in
~~erican
Speech, defends
the language in Catcher by stating his belief that Catcher
will be value.ble in coming decades, not only as a great
literary art, but also as an example of teenage vernacular
in the 1950' s, just as ''Ie now study '1:he Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn for its 1884 dialect. 42
Costello states that reviewers in the Chicago
Gunda:~
the
1ribune, the London Times Literary Supplement,
NE~W
_ _
Republic, the ?Tew York Herald Tribune :Book Ret
_
_
_ _ __
view', the :New York l 1imes, the New Yorker, and the Saturday
R~vie~y
of Literature all mentioned specifically the authen-
tici ty of the boolrs language.
Only the v'Jri ters for Cath-
olic }orld and the Christian .Science Monitor, both religious publications, refused to believe th2.t the 1I0bscenityll
was realistic. 43
Thus far, several examples of book-banning have
been given vvi th specific exanmles of attacks on Tropic
13
of Cancer and Cc,tcher in the
- ~, both of which have
been criticized for their "obscenities." Examples of
----
banning and attacks on books declared to be "subversive ll
were also given.
Let us now briefly summarize some of
the arguments given for book banning and the methods
utilized by organizations engaged in the banning of books.
The National Organization for Decent Literature
is an active and much-publicized sDokesman in the organized effort to fight obscenity.
It was founded in De-
cember, 1938 by the Catholic Bishops of the United States.
Its purpose was lito set in :elotion the moral forces of
the entire country • • • against the lascivious type of
li terature . .vhich threatens moral, social, and national
life.,,44
According to the Rev. Harold C. Garc.iner, S. J.,
in his book Catholic Viewnoint Qg CensorshiR, NODL was
not considered by the founding bishops to be an exclusively Catholic movement.
It was designed to coordinate
activities and SUD]ly ini'ormation to all interested grou1)s.
The literature with which NODL is concerned is the
comic book, the paperback, and the magazines that are
available to youth at a low price.
Although NODL is not
concerned directly with school libraries, its list of
banned books may influence :n.embers in a community to attack books purchased for a library, for NODL states its
funct.ion as that of guiding public opinion.
vrnatever
14
suppr3ssion of books follows as a result of formed o:pinion
i~3 se'Jondary; NODL
o
f unc t l.on.
does not consider censorshi D its chief
45
NODL does reflect the Catholic viewpoint on censorship.
That vievrpoint, as expressed by Rev. Gardiner,
suggests that freedom of the Dress can be subject to
legitimate restriction just as any other freedom.
Oppo-
sition to censorship rests on the concept of freedom
whereby one may do as he
~leases.
If any freedom, in-
cluding the freedom to read, is taken as an absolute
right " •• • then the great and imperative human desires
1I46
and needs will be lost in the shuffle.
The Catholic viewpoint, as found in the Code of
Canon Lav.' and in authoritative commentaries on the Code,
is very critical of literature considered to be "obscene. 1I
"Obscene,1I according to Canon Law, :r.J.ay be apulied to a
work of art intrinsically designed to arouse sexual
.
s~on.
~as­
47
The effect of obscene literature on the mind of
youth has been described by New York's Cardinal Spellman.
In a 1964 speech, the Cardinal said that obscene porno-
graphic literature " . • • scoffs at integrity, ridicules
perso:rlal purity and decency, encourages brutality, injustilJe, irreverence, disrespect for authority and distorts a -proper respect and correct understanding of the
God-given gift of sex.
,,48
15
An
organi?;ation vii th ob jecti ves ;.:.;imilar to NODL
is CI)L - Citizens for Decent Literature.
Throu2'h a pro-
gram designed to inform and influence the Dublic, it
seekE: a
declin,~
siders obscene.
and
sup~orts
publications.
in the "!Jublication of Ii terature it conThrough an aroused public, it encourages
the enforcement of law against undesirable
does not consider itself a censorship
group; it does not boycott stores or Dublish booklists. 49
C~L
11he national Decency Reporter is the monthly newsletter of the Citizens for Decent Literature.
Published
in this news organ are arguments against obscene literature which are often repeated by persons and organizations devoted to the sup"0ression of Itsmut" or obscene
literature.
An argument often heard against such literature
is given by Terry D. ;Schrunk, mayor of Portland, Oregon,
in his "Statement on Obscene Literature" in the Marchi
April issue of The National Decenc;y Renorter.
Mr. Schrunk
says:
The drastic increases in crime, venereal disease,
,juvenile delinquency, illegitimacy, the rash
disregard for the rights of others is, in my
mind, directly related to the increase in the
quanti ty and quality of Y{ri tten and filmed obBcenity to which we are subjected.
Schrunk poes on to say that he believes this
obscenity is destroying the morals of the country.
Itl
think that it is a fiendish and calculated program to rot
the foundations of our house of freedom and destroy the
16
Judeo·-Christian strength UDon '\vhich our forefathers built
this great nation."
Schrunk also condemns the "fuzzy-thinking, socalled intellectuals who will defend this filth on the
basis of freedom of expression."
A similar argument is given by J. F. Saunders. 50
Saunders quotes statistics for teenage illegitimacy and
venereal disease in Cleveland and concludes that obscene
li terc,ture is a threat to the physical and moral welfare
01'
YO(;.ng citizens - obscene literature contributes to a
declire in morals.
This idea has been sup!Jorted by experienced people
in the field of
hUm.Cill
behavior.
A psychiatrist, Dr.
Josenh Zigarelli, has expressed his opinion that a normal
person who reads Fanny Hill might go out and commit "ab51
normal ll sexual acts.
In a more restrained version of' this same argument,
it has been suggested that adolescents have enough difficulty relating themselves to the love experience without
being further confused by literature expounding sexual
promiseuity and perversity.
This concept has led to the
belief that schools and libraries should keep the obscene
or even the "wholesomely racytl works out of the hands of
52
the imIlature reader.
Thus we see that
boo~:s
thought to be dangerous
politically and morally have evoked a similar reaction
17
from certain quarters of a sensitive nublic:
These books
are too dangerous to circulate!
Before discussing theories surrounding the freedom
to read and intellectual freedom, a discussion of the
definition of obscenity is in order.
The definition and
discussion given below is extracted from a 9aper53 by
Stanley Fleishman, a Los Angeles attorney vlho has served
as attorney for the defense in many prominent censorship
case:::: •
Fleishi11an 'ooints out that the Supreme Court of the
United States, in defense of sex literature, stresses
that sex is a vital nroblem of human interest about which
iY'..iormation is necessary to enable members of society to
cope with problems today.
The Sunreme Court has announced the test of obsceni ty as follows:
average 0erson,
" . . . a vvork is obscene if to the
ap~lyinf,
contemnorary community standards,
the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole,
ap1)eals to prurient interest. ,,54
The court has defined
"prurient interest" as "m8.terial having a tendency to
excite lustful thoughts."
It means Ilitchin§:; longing;
Ul'leasy with desire or longing; of gersons having itching,
morbid, or lascivious longings; of desire, curiosity,
or propensity, lewd. 1I55
Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that a literary work must be measured by its im':)act upon the "average
18
adult," not by its im-oact upon youth or upon IIsusceptible ff
persons.
Fleis~llan
maintains, however, that neither the
police, city attorney, juries, nor judges are qualified
to censor alone.
Only the individual is qualified to
determine for himself what he can see or read. 56 In
relating this concept, Fleishman is echoing the beliefs
of those onnosed to censorshi1J of any kind, and he is
espousing the doctrine of intellectual freedom as outlined. by John Milton in Areopagitica.
In Areopagi tica, l.'Iil ton attempted to der.J.onstrate
that the reading of books is dangerous, but the suppression or censorship of books is catastrophic, more devastating in a way than the taking of a human life.
He
argued that censorshi"8 will not succeed in suppressing
scandalous, seditious, and libellous thoughts.
The pri-
mary effect of censorship is the suppression of all
learning - of truth itself.
Milton says that goodness is personal and must
be derived from right choices.
To choose rightly, a
person must be free to choose.
How, asks Milton, are
men to know good, truth, virtue unless they also know
what :Ls evil and false?
Aristotle, Dewey, Holmes and
others also maintain that a man is free only so long as
he ma~r make his own choices. 57
The right to read is basic to a democratic SOCiety,
19
based on the assumption that an educated free man may
be entrusted with the power to discriminate wisely.
By
eliminating choice and imposing standards and tastes
upon a community at large, the
stroyed.
freedo~ll
to read is de-
And it is through books that new ideas are
able to be communicated to large audiences.
one of our greatest instruments of freedom.
Books are
58
Librarians
have the resnonsibility of maintaining this freedom by
makiLg it possible for the reader to choose from a variety of books and points of view.
However, freedom, in the minds of some men, implies not freedom of thought, but freedom of certain
thoughts.
IlIt is the freedom to entertain 'right' ideas
rather than the freedom to assert or to examine loathsome and erroneous ideas. ,,59
'rhese people may ob j ect
to many literary works because they contain isolated
elements considered distasteful.
However, the vrriter
- if a true artist - records life as he perceives it
ru1d must at times challenge the common values of his
The value of any piece of literature must be
60
consid.ered as a whole - not in part.
One cannot expect
culture.
literature to be completely free of unwholesome asnects
of life if it is to reflect life accurately.
Cardinal
Newma::1 once said that we cannot have a sinless literature
. ~ 1 peop 1 e. 61
a b ou t a sJ.m'u
In answer to those persons who debase certain
20
work~;
because they are politically subversive, it should
be TIClinted out that a Derson who denounces the right of
an American to read a book dealing \'1i th Communism, the
critic himself has adoDted and acted UTIon a COY2munist
principle.
.
. 1e
prlnClp
He is violating the fundamental iI..meric3.Il
0f
f reeaom.
'
62
Even the Bible is open to objection to one or
more of the following areas often cited as reasons for
book banning:
treatment of ideologies, of minorities,
of love and sex; use of language not ap[Jroved by certain
segments of society; the type of illustration; private
life or -political affiliations of" the author. 63
Both Tropic of Cqncer and Catcher in the Rye were
attacked because the language was considered objectionable..
Nards are taboo only because of convention in64
defensible by reason.
"Ordure" and "copulate" hRve
tho meaning of more common four-letter \vords and evoke
the flame meaning.
Furthermore, it is doubtful that the
four--letter words '.'v'Oul(l
s~lOck
them daily on the streets.
many young people v!ho hear
Jesse Shera arzues the lJoint
'_._
J.
as follows:
Any child whose wor};:ing vocabulary of vulgarisms does not exceed by a SUbstantial margin
those set down by Mr. I1~iller in the pages of
his book was either born deaf or was reared
like Romulus and Remus - and, who Imows, the
wolves may have a word for it.65
Peonle who fear the effect of literature considered
obscene are probably overestimating the influence of
21
literature on a young perEon.
Dr. Wardell Pomeroy, one
of the co-authors of the Kinsey report, has testified
that there is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the belief that reading pornographic literature
may Eltimulate people to commit !lovert sexual acts, much
-l.ess crlmes.
"
1,65
:Jr. James l\[. J:,;.icClure Jr., a member of the Department of Psychiatry faculty of 'Nashington Uni versi ty,
has said that most students of human behavior are skeptical of a link betvreen obscene Ii terature and delinquency in
s~ite
-,'
"t"leSe 67
aULnorl
of the widely nublicized views of police
Dr. McClure said that narents' attitudes
and c ::mtacts with people around him condi tiona a youth's
moral outlook.
3tudies also show that de1inquents read less than
other youths. 68 Not reading is Drobably more dangerous
than 'oad reading.
i\
recent study by two iacul ty members
fro::n the Univer2ity of Minnesota supports the arguments
of Pomeroy and McClure and also indicated that delinquents
read less than other youths.
A strong
arglli~ent
has been Dade in favor of porno-
graphic literature by a federal court justice:
There are those \vho, because of lack of education, the meanness of their social exi~tence
or mental insufficiency, CruUlot cope with anything better. 31ick paper confessions, ~ulp
advertising, and comic books nrovide them with
an escaDe from reality.70
Another strong argument in defense of the freedom
22
to rl3ad states that attempts to supnress materials appear
to have an adverse ef'fect on a teacher's nerfor:rr.ance in
the classroom.
A study of 5200 school systems by the
National j::;ducation Association disclosed that ;;teachers
in mcmy comr.auni ties avoid discussing anything controversial with their students for fear of reprisals. 1I71
This same fear, coupled with the YJressure of
parents, civic .groups, clergy, and the conflicting arguments by the National Council of Teachers of Enelish,
the American Libre.ry Association, NODL, and CDL, may
seek refuge behind codes, booklists, and reviews.
How-
ever, none is a safety zone; codes are generally inadequate for the selection or rejection of individual books,
reviews are often conflicting in judgment, and many
titlen on recom,'11ended booklists are often on the banned
lists of NODL, the DAR, or other organizations.
For instance, the
0tand~
Catalog for High £9hool
Libraries is ac1mowledged to be a re')utable selection
guide f'or junior and senior hieh school libraries.
Books
recommended for school libraries in the 1962 edition include the following books which were mentioned earlier
in this paper as those having been attacked as unfit
for
sC:~lOol
use:
~
and Me, The Odyssey, 1,984, .American
!raged;[, Laughing £3_oy, and The Human Comedy.
Also re-
cOllnnen<led are certain works by the following controversial authors attacked for various reasons:
Anton Checkhov,
23
Mark TWain, 3inclair Lewis, Langston Hughes and Upton
8inclair.
In addition, the following authors condemned
by tt.e DAR have ';lOrks recommended in Standard Catalog:
Theodore H. \'f..'1ite, IJsTgaret Mead, Burl Ive.s, Lincoln
Steffens, Louis Untermeyer, Langston Hughes, Carey McWilli2J1ls, Henry Steele Commager, and Allan Nevins.
Use
of trle Standard Catalog will not, therefore, protect
a librarian against attempts to suppress materials.
Certainly, a librarian should use selection aids,
but
-~hese
should not be ex-oected to serve as a deterrent
against censorship attemnts.
~)ared
fA.
librarian should be -ore-
for possible criticism and action against certain
book:3 selected.
He should have a knowledge of the cri-
teria by vlhich books are evaluated.
He should be aware
of pressure groups and their techniques, some of which
have been discussed in this paper.
The librarian should
by ,ill means be aware of ani be rei:..dy to activate methods
to deel with Objectors.
Means for counteracting the attacks
01·
pressure
groups have been proposed and accepted by many national
orf,anizations, incluc.ing the National Education
tiOD, National Council for the Social Studies,
j~ssociaP~erican
Library Association, Association of .:rnerican Colleges,
National Congress of Parents and Teachers, the American
Legi.on, and the National Council of Teachers of English. 72
24
'The
II
School Library Bill of Rights 1173 is an ex-
cellent policy statement on book selection.
This docu-
ment, affirming the "library :aill of Rightsll adopted by
the
J~erican
Library Association, was adopted by the
A.-rneri.can Association of School Librarians in 1955.
It
take[ a firm stand in support of stimulating -,vide reading,
providing guidance in the practice of critical reading
and thinking, examininf' various sides of controversial
issues, and selecting materiels of the highest quality
for library users.
"The Students' Rtght to Read" is an excellent
pamphlet suggesting a program to counteract literature
sup'Jression.
In this pamphlet, NCT?; suggest a two-part
program to protect the students' right to read:
1. T'fle establishment of a committee of teachers
to consider book selection and to screen outside complaints.
2. A vigorous ca-rnpaign to establish a community
climate in which inforned local citizens may
be enlisted to support the freedom to read.
In addition to considering complaints against
books, NCTE recommends that the COfficlli ttee of teachers
infor:m. the community on book choices and enlist suyport
from citizens, ?Jossibly by explainin,;: policies at such
meetings of parent groups as those called by the PTA.
NCTE suggests a standard procedure for answering
25
complaints.
If the complainant teleJ)hones, his arguments
should be heard courteously, and he shoulc] be invited to
file his comolaint in writing on the recommended form,
lI~i tizens Request for Reconsio.eration of a Book" 74 (See
Appendix).
ledge
mente"
th<~
If he writes a letter of complaint, acknowletter lJromptly and
~Joli tely.
Make no commi t-
admissions of guilt, or threats.
The teachers' committee to review complaints should
re-ev-aluate the book before the complainant appears before the committee, and the committee should. be nrepared
to explain their findings.
If the com:1ittee finds the
book sui table for student use, they me.y take their case
to the newspaper or other local news channel.
In cases
in w!licn a teacher is inadequatelY9repared to teach
literature or lacks judgment and receives complaints
against his selection, the committee should not blindly
defend materials they find subst:mdard or nonliterary.
Complaints to schools
unpre~ared
to meet the chal-
lenge of censorship may frighten the faculty and adninistrat:Lon into an um-vise course of action.
A standardized
"procedure v.rill prevent this a...'ld will tend to discourage
the troublemaker fror!l taking further action.
The re-
sponsible objector will be satisfied that he will be
heard properly.
'1;he above recommend.ations of NCTE provide for a
systematic reply to any individual or group who are dis-
26
satisfied with materials selection.
or a similar 9lan
shoul~
Parts or all of this
be adopted by every school.
Criteri2 for book selection should be evaluated, stated
in writing, and ado'?ted by the librarian(s) and school
board
t,
A. coromi ttee shouid be activated to revievl com-
Dlaints concerning selection, and these com,?laints should
be wr:i.. tten on stanc1ard.ized forms.
1be resnl ts of deci-
s:Lons made by such a cmmni ttee should be -publicized.
Such
:9lannin~'
lor possible attacks on book selec-
tion :is necessitated by the activities of individuals
and
organiz:::~ tions
seeking to ::)ressure libr&rians and
administrators to remove printed material from the library and classroom shelves.
,jelection aids and book-
lists compiled by professional education organizations
do not assure freedom from the attack of pressUJ.'e groups.
A l:nowledge of literature and the mo ti ves , organization,
and tactics of' Dressure groups is needed to afford prot2ction against those who,
:::~ometimes
unvli ttingl,Y, by
attacking books are threatening one ot" our basic freedoms:
the freedom of eXDression.
ing the students'
freedo~
They are also restrict-
of choice - the freedom to read
difi ering points of view and to make a choice betvleen
these points of view.
To the li"brarian and school ad-
ministration falls the resnonsibility of defending the
students' right to read.
This freedom is attacked by
groups and individuals who wish to reutrict the freedom
27
to read to the
freedo~
to read the books they consider
"right" and "good"; however, restricted freedom is not
freedom at all.
28
APPENDIX A
SCHOOL
LIB~\RY
BILL OF RIGHTS
School libraries are concerned with generating unc1erstanding of
Americ1:Ul f:::-eedoms and with the
preserv~.tion
of these freedoms
through thE3 developmf:nt of informed and resDonsible citizens.
To this end the ./l1nerican Association of School Librarians reaffirms th::: Library J3il,l of Rights of the American Library Associ8.tion ani asserts that the res 1?onsibili ty of the school library
is:
To provide materials that "will enrich and sup:Jort the
curricullliil, taking into consideration the varied interests,
abilities, and maturity level:::> of the pupils served
To provide materials that will stimulate growth in factual
knowledge, literary appreCiation, aesthetic values, and
ethical standards
T:) provide a background of inf'orm2,tion which will enable
punils to make intelligent judv~ents in their daily life
To ,rovide materials on opposing sides of controversial
iSSUES so that young citizens may develop under guicance
the -Dractice of critical reading and thinking
To Drovide materials r0'lJresentati ve of the many religious,
ethnJc, and cultural groups and their contributions to our
iunerican heritage
To place principle above personal oplnlon and reason
above )rejudice in the selection of materials of the
highE!st quality in order to assure a comprehensive collection a]pro~riate for users of the library
(Endorsed by the Council of the American Library Association,
July, 19:)5)
29
.APPENDIX B
CITIZ8N'S RCQUBST FOR RECORSIDEl1ATIOlf OF A BOOK
Hardcover
Author
Panerback
Title
Publisher (if known)
Request in:Ltiated by _______________________
Address
--------------------------------------
City
Zone
Complainant re:presents
himself
-------(name organization)
---{identify the other group)
1. To what in the book do you ob ject~)
(Please be s"';)ecific ; cite
pages.)
2. ',mat do you feel :might be the result of reading this book?
3. For what 2.ge grou'') vrould you recommend this book?
4. Is ther(; anything good about this book?
5. Did you read the entire book?
~Vhat
narts?
6. .are you a'.7are of the judgment of this book by literary critics?
7. What do you believe is the theme of this book?
8.
';~lhat
"'lould you like your school to do about this book r"
do not assign it to my child
wi thdraw it from all stU(1ents as well as from my
child
send it back to the English department office for
reevaluation
9. In its place, \rlhat book of equal literary qus.li ty v;ould you
recom..mend that vvould convey as valuable a picturesnd :perspective of our civilization~
SiDlature of Complainant
Source: The National Council of Teachers of English. "The Students'
Right to Read. 1I 1964, p. 17.
30
FOOTNOTES
l~rack Nelson and Gsne 3.oberts, Jr., The Censors and
the Schools, p. 52.
2}i'rances Cl2.rke )::)(o.yers, II If the Trumpet Be l~ot Sounded,
Library Bulletin, 39: 661, A:9ri1, 1965.
Wi130r~
3~)ister :Mary Hester, liThe High School Librarian and
the Controversic~l Novel, II C~\tho1ic Librar;Y,.. vYorld, 36:
163, lJovember, 1964.
4 Ibid •
5Helson and Roberts,2..£.. cit., :0. 183.
6 11The :Month at Rand.om; Books,
36: 50;~, March, 1962.
II
Wilson Library Bulletin,
7~~verett T. Moore, Issues of Freedom in American
Libra:~, p. 67.
-
8:~elson and Roberts, .2J?. • cit.,
D.
170.
9 The National Council of Teachers of 'English, liThe
Students' Right to Read," p. 10.
lOMoore, 92. cit., p. 8.
11;Ibid., p. 64.
12,.Ne
J 1 son
2.rl d
R0 b er t s, .£:2..
.
t
~.,
p. 6 •
13 Ibid.
14).1
,~oore,
op. cit., p. 65.
15 Ibid •
l6,Ib id ., p. 8.
17 Ibid •
18 Ibid •
19E1liott Carlson, "Sex 2..nd Censorship,
De~~ Reporter, 2:1, March/April, 1965.
II
The National
---
20Stanley Fleishman, lI'Nitchcraft and Obscenity: Twin
Superstitions,1l Wilson Library Bulletin, 39:641, April,
1965.
If
31
21].Oid.
22Jbid ., p. 642.
23 Tbid •
24 J-, "d
-~.
2511Against Pornogra-:)hy,
!I
Harner's, v. 230, March, 1965.
26Alberto Moravia, "Two American Writers,1I Sewanee
68:476-477, Swnmer, 1960.
Revie'J~,
27}3en Ray Redman, ".4n .<ITtist's Education," Saturday
Revie\y, 44:12, June 24, 1961.
28l1Miller, Henry.
Tropic of Cancer,!! 86:2338, June
15, 1j61.
29 11 From Undel' the COlUlter to Front Shelf," New York
Times Book Review, June 18, 1961, p. 5.
30-::)
"t
__\.e 0.man, 212. • £1.....,
p. 12 •
31ltAn Old Shocker Comes Home,1I
1961.
145:18-19, July 10,
32:S11iott, 2£.. cit., p. 59.
33::-renry Miller, Tropic
.Q.f.. Cancer,
p. 10.
34:Y.[oore, .212.-._ cit., p. 46.
35l1Salinger, Baldwin and Lee, II NeV';sletter on Intellectual .Freedom, 14:5, Janu-s.ry, 1965.
36 l1Bye and Sky in School," Newsletter on Intellectual
Freedom, 13:51, July, 1964.
-- 37"The Vestal Virgin;::) of New York ;State,
on Intellectual J!'reedom, 14:38, May, 1965.
II
Newsletter
38 MlV~O 0 re, 2.l2. • £1.....,
"t
p. 67 •
39l1Censorshi'J in Ivlt. Pleasa."Ylt, II Nevvs1etter on Inte11ectRal Freedom, 13:50, July, 1964.
40 Edward P. J. Corbett, "Raise High the 3arriers,
Censors,!! America, 104:441, January 7, 1961.
41 Ibid ., p. 442.
32
42"The Language of the C2tcher in the Rye," 34:172,
October, 1959.
43,Ibid.
44G ar d·lner, QQ. 2J_.,
.t
pp. 109-110.
45 Ibicl., p. 83.
46 .....2L.,
I, .d
p. 45 •
47 Ibid ., pp. 64-65.
48"Cardinal 3nellman Calls for Censorship Group,
Publishers WeeklY, 185:68-69, June 22, 1964-~
II
49"Procedures HanD_book for 3stablishing a Citizens
for Decent Literature Group in Your Tovm,1I The !~ationa1
D~~ Reporter, 2:1, Pebruary 28, 1965.
50 J. :b'. Saunders, "Dt;o2.uchrnent of Youth, II The National
Reporter, 2:5, March/April, 1965.
Decen~
5lllCardine,1 Spellman Calls for Censorship Group,
22 • .£it., p. 68.
II
52Gladys SdDnitt, "Censorship ,:md the LTl11llature,1I
Libra~ Journal, 75:653, April 15, 1950.
53 u 'ili tcll-craft and Obscenity: Twin Superstitions. 11
p. 640.
Quotation
r.J.ar~;;:s
are Fleishman's.
56?8.Y loll. Blake, "California Organizes O:Jposi tion, II
Hewsletter .2ll .Intellectual Freedom, 14: 26, May, 1965.
57'llal ter Gellhorn, "Restraints on Book Reading,
Robert B. Dovms, The First Freedom, D. 21.
60,
II
in
58" The Freedom to Read," 'ililson Library Bulletin, 28:
Jepte~ber, 1953.
59David Spitz, "ralton's Testament,'! in Robert E. Downs,
The ]iirst ]lree dom T). 8.
----6C The
l~ational
,~
Council oi
Teacher:~
pp. 8-9.
6180rbett, QQ. cit., p. 442.
of English, .QJ2.. ci.1.,
33
62:'1illiam L. Chenery, Freedom of the Press, pp. 172173.
63~~he
National Council of 'reachers of lmglish,
~o.
15.
64'J
'
::\.eaI!lan,
QQ. cit., p. 12.
65,Jesse ,~hera, "Officer, ."-rrest ~[1hat Book! II 'Nilson
Libra:Q:. Bul1etig, 36:488, Pebru[:ry, 1962.
66 ;'Carclinal ~3pellman C2.11s for Censorship Group, II
.Q].. £.;i t ., p. 68.
67 liD .
- ,
". -.
t 01~ 'p ornograpny,~evu3
.
\1
11 e tt er.2£
J..scusses
_,,'TLec
Intellectual Fre edOl:1 , 14:10, January, 1965.
68l)flVid FellLlan, '1'he Censorshi-o of Books, '9. 28.
69David K. 3erninghaussen and Richard N. Faunce, "/m
Explanatory Study of' Juvenile Delillo-,-uency and the Reading of "':>en::.'ational Booim, II lJ~he Journal of Experimental
_L:;clUCE~ tion, 33: 161-168, :{inter~ 1964.
70FleishlB.8.n, .QJ2.. cit., p. 646.
7lvirgil IiI. Rogers, "Toward Intellectu8,l Freedom,
ALA Bulletin, 51:243-7, Anril, 1957.
11
72Charles Crosthwait, "Censorship and the School IJibrc'cry,rt 'lilson Library Bulletin, 39:671-672, Anril, 1965.
73 See Ap'gendix A.
743ee A~pendix B.
34
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berninghaw.3en, J;avid K. an:' Richard ';7. JPaunce. II )J1':'X:plorator;)T Study of Juvenile Delinquency and the Reading o£ JenGation::"l 30o~:s. II The Journal of _t~x-ceri­
£ll:~!ltal 2ducation.
33 :161-168; \'I'inter, 1%4.
't3ias .iJiscove:red inL':1other Goose, II Newsletter on Intell,::wtual Freedom, 13:44; July, 1964.
. -- - - Blake, Fay M.
ItGalif ornia Organizes OTFl08i tion," NevfS13tter on Intellectual ]'reedon, 14:26-27; I'ilay,'"'l9b5.
IiBook Censo:ring Condemned,'1 Kevlsletter on J!ltellectual
Freedom, 13:5; January, 1964~
tlCardinal Spell:man C~lls for Censorship Group, II Publishers
\leek1y. 185:68-69; June 22, 1964.
CarLocm, Elliott. "Sex and Censorshin." 'rhe National
Decency ReRorter. 2:1; March/April, 1965.
'" Cat8her' Agaill, and Again, II liJev{sletter on Intellectual
Freedom, 14:23; March, 1965.
"r~ens:)rshiD
?reedo~.
in lilt. Pleasant." Nevrsl"-Jtter on Intellectual
1"3:50; July, 1964.
Chenery, Willie,In L. Freedom of the l">ress. New York:
Harcourt, J3race and 'JompF.UlY, 1955. 256 -cages.
"Gi ty Hall's Heading Circle." Ne\v~}letter Sill Intellectual_
Freedom. 14:7; January, 1965.
Corbett, £dward P. J. "Raise l-ligh the Barriers, Censors. It
America. 104:441-443; January 7, 1961.
lI'rl'le Language of 11he ~;8tcher in the
Costello, .iJavid P.
~~. II
Americcill Speech. 34:172-181; October,-r959.
C:rosthwai t, 'Jharles. "Censorship 2nc. the School Library.
-ailson Librar1l Bulletin. 39: 670-672; Anril, 1965.
"Discus.3es .iffect of Pornography." Newsletter on Intellectual' Freedom. 14:10; January, 1965.
DO\'n:1s, Robert B., ed. The :First Freedom. Chicago:
American Library As"S'OCiation, 1960. 469 Deges.
II
35
::~lliott,
George P.
IIl,_gainst Pornogra'Clhy."
IvIE£§...&ig. 230: 51-60; March, 1965.
HarDer's
-------
Ernst, l!Iorris Leo-pold and Alan U. Schwartz. Censorship:
The Search for the Obscene. l\evv York: The I'/Iacmillan
Ccopany-;-I9b4. 28-8 nages.
11 I
]'anny Hill' Prosecuted in new Jersey.
ileekl,y. 185:68-69; June 22,1964.
Fellum, David.
\'/~l.sconsil1:
II
I1.l.blishers
The Censorshin of Books. Madison,
The-University ofNisconsin Press, 1957.
3 ~5 :)ages.
Fleishman, 0tanley.
n;;{i tch-craft ilnd Obscenity: iv'lin
S'x;;ersti tiolls. II ~:'lilson Library Bulletin. 39: 6406.4-6; April, 1965.
II
28:
The Freedom to Read. 11 Wilson Library Bulletin.
6<)-62; SeDtember, 1953.
Gardiner, Harold C. :;a tholic Vic"lfrpoint ££ Censorship.
Garden :]i ty, Hew York: Hanover House, 1958. 192
~}ages •
Hartz, Frederic R.
Clearinp;; House.
II
Obscenity, Censorshin, and Youth."
36:99-101; October, 1961.
Havighurst, Itobert J.
"Poor Reading and Delin~uency
Kay Go Hand in H::md. 11 The nation's SChools. 64:
55-58; November, 1959.
Hester, ~)ister Mary.
"The Eif;h School Librarian and the
Controversial :Novel. II Catl:;.olic Library '-'forld. 36:
161-166; l;;-ovember, 1964.
KauffmaY'..n, 0tar..ley.
"..'ti1 Old ohocker ComGs Home.
r;ew ReJ2.ublic. 145:17-18; July 10, 1961.
II
The
Kirseh, Ii.obert R.
"Custodians, Eunuchs, and Lovers.1I
Jil~ Library Bulletin.
39:647-650; April, 1965.
llliller, Henry. l'ropic of C2.ncer.
Inc., 1961. 287 D2ges.
NeVI York:
Grove Press,
LIil ton, John. Are on a..c:i tiC2 in The Norton Anthology of
.::o.2'lis11 Li ter2.ture. Vol. 1. NeVI York: '.'1. 7T. Norton,
'1962. np. 901-911.
liThe
]~onth
at J.andolTl; 300ks.
36:498-506; March, 1962.
11
Wilson Library Bulletin.
36
• "Miller, Henry. Tropic of Cancer. II
brary Journal. 86:2338; June 15,19b1.
Moon,_~'ric
Li-
Moore" Everett T. Issues of .1!'reedom in A"'llerican
..
Libraries.
Chicago: Arr.erica:n-LlorarY Association, 1964. 80 pages.
Moore!, Harry T. "FrOEl Under the Counter to Front Shelf.
NE~ York Times Boolr Review.
June 18, 1961. p. 5.
:Morav:La, Alberto. "T\7,ro American ~Nri ters. 11
vie'.'!. 68:473-481; Surr..."'ller, 1960.
§~wanee
II
Re-
The l'ifational Council of 'reachers of English. Committee
0:1. the Right to Read. tiThe Students' Right to Read."
C:1.ampaigne, Illinois, 1962. 21 -p8.ges.
Nelson, Jack and. Gene Roberts, Jr.
The Censors and the
S~hools • .soston:
Little, Brown and Co., 19'b'3:"208 pages.
"Uew :1::list in Smut Fip:ht. 11 Newsletter on Intellectual
Freedom. 14:5; January, 1965.
Orwell, George. nineteen Eighty-four. New York:
court, Brace and c;7orld, 1949. 314 pages.
Har-
"The Price of Liberty: aState?Ilent Prepared by the
Intellectual ]Teedo~ Committee, Kansas Library AssoCiation, Doris 1',1. Carson, Lilian Culbertson, Jerome
Cusbman." 'Nilson Library Bulletin. 36:392-93; Jan"t.:.ary, 1962.
II
'Probl eL'l' Fict ion. fI Li crary Journal.
February 1, 1962.
87: 484-496;
"Proc:edures 3andbook for Establishing a Citizens for
Decent Literature Group in Your Town." The National
pecency Renorter. 2:1; February 28, 1965.
"Providence Library Tekes strong Stand on 'Tropic of
Cancer' Censo2:'shin. 1I Librarx. Journal. 86:4142-3; Deeember 1, 1..961.
Fledmrm, Ben Ray.
"An Artist's Education."
J.eview. 44:12; June 24, 1961.
Rexroth, Kenneth. liThe Sill"?ty Zon8. fI
15-16; July 1, 1961.
Saturday
Th.§. !{ation.
Rogers, Virgil I':!. "Toward Intellectual Freedom."
aulletin. 51:243-7; Anril, 1957.
193:
ALA
37
"Bye and Sky in School.1I Newsletter on Intellectual
Freedom. 13:51; July, 1964.
II Salinger, Baldvrin and Lee. fI Newsletter on Intellectual
Freedom. 14:5; January, 1965.
S21inger, JeromE: David. T'.le Catcher in the Rye.
3c)ston: Little, Brown;-l951. 277 "pages.
1st eo..
Saunders, J. F. IIDebauclunent of Youth.1I The National
:D(~?ncy J?enorter.
2:5; March/April, 1965.
S2.yerB, Frances C12,rke.
:t If the
TruTnpet Be :tTot Sounded. II
~!/:Llson Libr::1ry Bulletin.
39: 659-662; A1)ril, 1965.
Schmitt, Gladys. "Cen"wrship and the Immature.
Journal. 7:):652-5; A.nril 15, 1950.
tl
Library
Schrunk, illerry D.
"Statement on Obscene Li terE.:ture."
The National Decency IL~porter. 2:7; March/April,
1~%5.
"5sve::-al ~Vl01alla High Library Books under ii..ttack as
'Unfit'." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. 14:
5; January, 1965.
--8hera, Jesse. 1I0fficer, Arrest That Book!" '[Tilson Li-'
b:cary Bulletin. 36:488; February, 1962.
Srygl(jY, Jara Kren tzman. It Schools un6 er Fire. II
Journal. 76:2049-50; December 15, 1951.
II
Storm over the 'Trol)ics.
J'.lly 1, 1961.
.
t It
The
}~conomist.
~ibrary
200: 39-42;
"The rhin Red Line. II ~:ewsletter on Intellectual i!'reedom.
1'3:43; July, 1964.
liThe Vestal Virrcins of l;ew York State. 11 Newsletter on
Intellectual Freedom. 14: 32; :t.Iay, 19b5.
',Vofford,Azile. Book Selection for 3chool Libraries.
I\!eYf York::.!.'he H-:- N. i,UlGon Co~:;p2ny, 1962. P:9. 257266.