Author: welch

Kenan Metzger and Wendy Kelleher’s call for “more young adult literature by and for indigenous peoples” in their article in the ALAN Review on the current absence of those voices for young readers. I was able to interpret this article from a few different perspectives; namely from the ideas of censorship in this course, and also from my knowledge of young adult literature from my adolescent education classes. After exploring the damage that stereotyped portrayals of Native Americans exhibits on both Native and non-Native students, the authors argue that publishers continue to limit the amount of culturally accurate voices in YA literature as they “are looking for what they are familiar with – which is stereotyped, romantic, non- Indian view of Indians. ” Belinda Louie’s writing advances this concern as she characterizes publishers as “deeply committed to profit making” and thus less likely to publish new authors’ work along with work that fails to cater to the dominant market. Authors writing honestly about Native American life unfortunately fit both of those categories; they are new voices from an unexpected source, and the stories they tell do not fit the dominant market’s expectation of what Indian life is like. Indeed, this is censorship. Stories that have the opportunity to benefit children, building confidence in their own image through fiction that replicates and expands upon their world, are swapped for appropriated, identity-conflicting works that fit the worldview of parents and by extension fill the wallets of publishers. “Relatability” is certainly an overused favorite aspect of a work that students identify, and one we hope they can come to look beyond or recognize in less obvious sources, but as Cynthia Smith contends, “It is crucial for young people to have a choice of books… with characters that reflect them… This is not only the case with regard to race ethnicity of tribal affiliation, but also of religion, sexual orientation, region, and so forth.”

Looking beyond the dearth of representation of Native issues, Liz and I continue to research the challenge to Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez which offers an honest portrayal of life as a gay teenager. In this instance, many parents (and publishers) do not want modern portrayals that challenge the traditional dominant view of homosexuality as an outcast behavior. What they fail to see, or intentionally neglect, is the world created in Rainbow Boys or other novels of similar background can encourage identity building for LGBT teenagers while fostering understanding and empathy towards gay people among straight teens. And while the opportunity to read stories that fairly portray marginalized groups outside of the curriculum is a great start, placing those stories in the English (or History) curriculum gives students access to educators that can bring about more fulfilling and contextualized comprehension of these works. This collection of authors on the topics of YA literature and censorship continue to provide background for and shape my interest in our case study and the issue of accurate representation in general.

 

Week 2 of investigation into censorship and our own specific case proved to be fascinating and open up many paths for research. Liz and I finalized that we would like to look into the challenge to Alex Sanchez’s Rainbow Boys, having a strong start with the book being challenged in my hometown of Webster, NY. A Google search reveals some of the basics of the case: following a parent complaint, Webster removed Rainbow Boys from their summer reading list, before electing to return the book to the list the next summer. For additional information, I started with my high school librarian, Patricia Warren. I asked Ms. Warren if she had any recollection of the case and she responded with a useful email that shared more about the questionable administrative pathways by which the book was removed. Most interestingly, Warren recalled a meeting during the 06-07 school year where she, members of administration, and three parent representatives discussed the case and decided Rainbow Boys could return, but all books on the list would need to be reviewed by the librarian for future content issues. Liz and I think interviewing Ms. Warren for more details on that meeting would be useful. On a less productive note, the district representative I asked for records of complaint and discussion on the novel informed me no such records could be found. Liz is preparing to dig deeper under the Freedom of Information Act, asking the district for records from that year that the two of us may have to look through ourselves.

 

Our project continued to expand in possible scope after meeting with the archivist at SUNY Geneseo, Liz Argentieri. Liz A. started by showing us some useful databases on the library website that could be used to find beginning information on a variety of vases of Rainbow Boys being challenged. One of those databases, the Literature Resource Center, revealed a case of the novel being challenged in Texas in 2015, reflecting the novel’s consistent state of debate since being published in 2001. Liz A. helped us consider further sources that could have been interested in the case of Rainbow Boys being challenged, especially in Webster. The LGBT-oriented publication, Empty Closet, has an extensive database that includes challenges to material with gay themes that could be worth investigating. Additionally, Liz A. pointed out that the town newspaper, Webster Herald, supposedly has all of its issues archived in the Webster public library and that could be a useful source. Also the public library may have district meeting minutes; with this in mind, I intend to contact the library and see what helpful material they have. Lastly, Liz A. noted that some of the articles Liz V. and I have seen online from the larger Rochester, NY paper, Democrat and Chronicle, are available in microfilm in the SUNY Geneseo library which could make a nice addition to our project. With all of the interesting resources discovered in the past week, I’m very excited about this project going forward.

 

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.

Welcome to Burning Idea Sites. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!