Our first two readings have changed my understanding of censorship and the factors that influence access to ideas. In “Censorship Is,” Nicole Moore references implicit censorship in which ideas that disrupt important ideas to the individual or society at large are repressed. The idea that censorship goes beyond produced material was new to me, and alarming when considering the implications that the silence of implicit censorship has on individuals or groups whose story is disruptive to the norm. As discussed in class, the issue is complicated when considering the role of money. News and entertainment have the best chance at high profits when the ideas displayed are ones that a majority finds to be suitable.
This idea is explored in Belinda Louie’s more focused examination of the factors that influence access and response to children’s literature. Beyond the typical model of censorship of known works we know occurs, many works are never produced as publishers of children’s literature often choose to “cater to the dominant market,” reflecting the implicit censorship first introduced to me by Moore. Perhaps even more implicit, is the idea that teachers, despite their attempts at neutrality, bring their “perspectives, worldviews, cultural norms, and biases” into the classroom and this impacts the stories they are willing to share with their students. Additionally, the experiences of every author is different and so the issues, truths, and identities they attempt to share in their writing inevitably silence many types of stories. With this in mind, allowing children to read from a diverse group of authors appears to be a wise choice, but Louie makes clear a variety of issues (parent preferences, district policies) restrict the open flow of diverse ideas. As infuriating as it is for me to consider children being unable to access books that I find morally strong, parents that hold vastly different beliefs than my own understandably wish to create a world for their children in real life and literature where their beliefs are clear and unchallenged. In an interesting point on the topic of parent concerns, Louie pointed out that even when parents challenge a book for a specific instance of language or action that they find unacceptable, it is more often that “they are asking an overall worldview not be brought into the lives of their children.” This idea is critical in understanding many of the challenges to books we see where other stories may contain similar “bad” language or conduct but avoid the scrutiny of parents or board members.
Particularly in the case of Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez, which Liz and I plan to explore in our research, Webster, NY (the school district which I attended) removed the novel from their summer reading list due to explicit content. However, as Louie argues, it is likely that the offended party did not care about individual instances of questionable content as much as the overall worldview where gay teens behave like normal adolescents besides romantic interest and experiences with their own sex. More so than a look at particular content, understanding why a book is challenged requires an analysis of the political factors that the story creates, and why some people would rather those issues not be shared.