Tierra Chatman
Professor Patel
Writing 001-54
10-17-12
Works Cited
Boyd, Fenice B., and Nancy M. Bailey. "Censorship in Three Metaphors." Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy 52.8 (2009): 653-661. Academic Search Complete. 4 Oct. 2012. Web.
This article “Censorship in Three Metaphors” by Bailey and Boyd is about censorship arising
from book challenges and banning. Challenging or banning a book is unconstructive for teachers
and students. Boyd states that censorship restricts and can control the intellectual development of
students. Censorship of books can hinder educators from their full teaching potential to teach and
expose their students to different ideas or points of view. Challenging or banning books are
described as violations of the First Amendment. They are violations of the First Amendment
since they call out the author’s book as wrong, and show inappropriate information for students.
Boyd uses three metaphors to indicate how censorship has negative effects on students and
educators. First, censoring is described as a barbwire fence. On one side of the barbwire
(censors) are the students and on the unreachable side is the book offering a different
perspective. Censorship is a patina to books in that it covers the ideas, creativity, or viewpoints
offered, so students cannot clearly view the material. Teachers walk a tightrope, constantly
between obeying required standards of teaching novels and what students and parents may ask to
be taught. Censorship is the slippery spot on their constant tightrope walk. Censorship is a
slippery spot because once a material is censored an instructor becomes more restricted and less
stable when adhering to required standards.
Boyd states that hiding facts beneath denial does not protect students, but adds to their
unpreparedness for the future and their ignorance. Not banning or challenging books allows
students to explore new perspectives and ideas and mold their own opinions. Censored literature
does challenge what is viewed as appropriate to teachers or parents, yet the challenges can
further student’s beliefs and experiences. Boyd states that censorship is about restriction and
controlling development of knowledge. Boyd focuses on the unfairness towards students that are
not given the chance to voice their opinion against or for censored literature and textbooks. The
author does not give much insight to a view of censoring being possibly beneficial. Boyd instead
offers her solution to solving the unfair situation of censoring literature or textbooks that give
new ideas or points of view. Her solution is to have teachers or school officials follow a
procedure to consider the censoring of a novel or textbook.
Fish, Stanley. “The Free Speech Follies.” Language Awareness: Readings for College Writers.
Eds. Escholz, Paul, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 496501. 2009. Print.
Through the article “The Free Speech Follies” by Stanley Fish it is explained that the freedom of
speech has been censored or violated to impose other views. Fish argues that citizens call on the
First Amendment right of free speech at moments that appear to abridge their expression. The
U.S. citizens that call on their right of free speech can misuse or overstep the purpose of the First
Amendment. For instance, a reviewer may suggest rewriting parts of a song's lyrics, and others
may state the critic is violating the musician's free speech rights. Fish uses similar examples to
show that a person’s judgment is not always an effort to successfully remove art, music, books,
or images. Fish states, using examples, that violation of the freedom of expression can be a
misunderstanding between judgment and self-censorship. Judgment is defined as removing what
is not relevant, appropriate, or omitting information based on the reader’s viewpoint. Selfcensorship is being aware of the content of a person’s statement, or published material to make
sure the content is relevant to the specified audience and purpose. Also self-censoring is a
responsibility to stick to the personal guidelines of what will be said. Fish’s makes his point that
someone’s personal opinion or suggestion is not an attempt to censor another’s work.
Fish uses an example to explain the issue of citizens using the First Amendment to avoid
discipline or causing offense. His example is of a university inviting a renowned poet then
uninviting the poet after he made an insulting statement. The university re-invited the poet after
believing they violated his freedom of speech rights. Fish argues that the poet’s rights were not
wronged. For cases like this the “victim’s” rights were maintained. Fish explains that citizens
merely assume they violated someone’s rights. Assumption leads to false violations of this
freedom. Fish states that most people whose rights have been violated do not complain, so
usually someone speaks for them claiming they have been wronged. Fish writes a statement that
can be related to Loewen's idea of heroification. Fish states that citizens that overuse the freedom
of speech for any reason think themselves heroes since they suffer through controversy or harsh
comments. Yet Fish states that these citizens are not heroes since they are overlooking the
purpose of the First Amendment ,which is to protect against government abridgment. Fish
believes that the freedom of speech violations are overused, and states that the few citizens that
exercise the right by its purpose are true heroes.
Kristol, Irving. “Obscenity, Pornography, and the Case for Censorship.” Language Awareness:
Readings for College Writers. Eds. Escholz, Paul, Alfred Rosa, and Virginia Clark.
Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s. 496-501. 2009. Print.
Irving Kristol states that he encourages censorship in his essay “Obscenity, Pornography, and the
Case for Censorship”. Kristol uses bold and exaggerated examples in his piece to maintain his
point and challenge other views. Censoring obscene or pornographic material will maintain or
renew a moral standpoint of U.S. citizens or of the U.S. government. Obscenity and its related
definitions have had a negative impact on the American public’s opinion of omitting obscene
information, images, books, or art for the particular audience that views these materials.
Censoring against obscene material will add to the quality of personal morals. It will add to the
quality of morals and personal preference by allowing citizens to consider how some images,
books, or art may be offensive, even crude, to others. A definition of obscenity Kristol discusses
is obscene material that crosses a line of content that is appropriate to view. For example, it may
cross the line to view a person’s suffering from a life-threatening illness and comment on it. This
line of appropriateness may be determined by whoever the target audience is such as students,
parents, or teachers. Exposure to subjects or topics that seem out of the norm may normally be
censored to protect and preserve the current level of experience. The U.S. government or citizens
themselves must seek to establish censors according to the material’s target audience. Established
censors may change or renew a current American moral standpoint and maintain a sense of
humanity.
Kristol encourages censorship and believes U.S. citizens can impose upon themselves measures
to maintain morals and therefore a quality of life. This quality of life is unattainable by having
material such as books, art, or forms of entertainment that is obscene. Kristol's exaggerated
examples support his point of censors being a needed presence. By providing censors, depending
on the audience, it will reverse the goal of obscene material to demean a sense of humanity.
Based on Kristol's points it is viewed that citizens that do not want to be governed by irrational
parts of themselves may follow the government's placed censors. Kristol's points are expressed in
a manner that may seem to require censorship itself. Most of his examples are blunt, vivid and
aimed toward a mature audience. He expresses his ideas and examples this way to focus on the
importance of censoring information the way obscene material pulls at a viewer’s attention.
Kristol's ideas will go against ideas from Ravitch's essay who feels that subtracting or covering
too much information will supply viewers with meager content. Ravitch believes that censoring
too many facts will take away key parts of a material such as books or art. Based from Kristol's
viewpoint details erased from a censored item will be erased according to the target audience and
not U.S. citizens as a whole. Kristol maintains his position throughout the essay and clearly states
his main idea.
Loewen W., James. “Handicapped by History.” Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your
American History Textbooks Got Wrong. New York: Touchstone, 1995. 463-478. Print.
School textbooks tend to omit facts or telling information about historical or well-known figures
so as to uphold a pure image of the person. Not all students are exposed to decent role models
nor can history provide great examples. Sometimes textbook publishers try to shape people to
make them a perfect example of a role model or hero. In the chapter “Handicapped by History”
from James Loewen's book, Loewen argues the reason heroifying people is unnecessary, and
dishonest. Loewen also states that heroifying people is a form of censorship. By hiding negative
or potentially unpopular evidence about a potential hero from their books, publishers can provide
role models for students. These role models are shown to have done good deeds yet points about
less shining times on their lives are left out. If students see that their role model was not as great
as described, they may turn against that model and what they represent. Publishers will view
what to them is bad, unfavorable, or not normal to guide students to focus on the positive aspects
and accept them as a standard of being a role model. Textbooks offer one sided views to describe
the historical figure and their experiences. The bias leans towards positives, while no facts are
given to demean the person. There is an effort from textbooks to protect students from the reality
that an admired person may have committed disappointing actions or failed during a life event.
In depth facts or other necessary information is omitted since there is pressure from committees,
parents, or even ruling classes and the fear of causing conflict.
Loewen is against the process of historical or famous figures being made into role models or
heroes. Through this process, according to Loewen, these figures are molded into perfect
examples of a human being or a hero. Any negative or potentially unpopular facts about the
historical figure is removed so as not to cause upset or controversy. This is done mainly through
textbooks, says Loewen, to provide students with models so they can connect with the person
they are learning about and strive to be like them. Loewen finds the omission of important facts
or lack of further information is blinding students to the reality that no one person is perfect or an
ideal role model. Fish believes citizens, even students, can be heroes as they use their freedom of
speech in appropriate situations. Loewen's idea counters this in that it is apparent that no one
may be called a hero unless every fact about who they are and what they stand for is known and
understood. Loewen implies that pressures or fear of conflict causes censorship from textbook
publishers that leave students with unrealistic role models and questions when that person proves
to be human as well. Loewen states that it then becomes the student's responsibility to be wary of
inspiring stories of a potential hero.