In June 2015, the Mayor of Venice, Italy, decided to withdraw from schools 49 picture books that the considered that should not be read by children because they treated subjects that should only be dealt at home. Among the censored books had some predictable titles, like And Tango Makes Three or What's dad's secret?. However, the ban of others picture books, like Little Blue and Little Yellow or We're Going on a Bear Hunt, borders on the grotesque. What do you think about this kind of censorship? The controversial subjects relating to family and gender should be only dealt in the private sphere?
It seems to me that there are several variables - the quality and accuracy of the books, the ages and sensitivities of the children, the presence or absence of input from parents, the quality and sensitivity and training of teachers. Schools should never be places of indoctrination, no matter what the agenda. Facts need to be distinguished from opinions. Banning never accomplishes anything but pros and cons may need careful discussion, depending on children's maturity and perhaps also on the composition of the class.
The issues of children's books should be the real-life issues: war, love, peace, adventure, etc. No subject should be censored. Adult themes are the most loved by children, much more than children's issues (animals and so on). The best readings we can offer to the children are the universal classic and them address all the important issues and the more relevant values.
Dear Juan
considering how important the school year for the evolution of a child, the fact that some texts are censored is incomprehensible and seems drawn from another time ... and say that we evolved ...
Regards!
It is interesting that still in some school authorities, some times, carry the same values of the their own past-era inside, rather than adjusting to the big cultural change of children in global level, today; censoring school books would be little bit in a less effective side than the effect of internet and computer in shaping children minds from very early period of their life, unfortunately.
Faranack - lots of school authorities & teachers (at all educational levels) carry this attitude. There are various debates on how we should expect our students to behave, how we should instill them with certain values etc, but it is tempting to co-opt this power & use it to instill our own ideas and perspectives (it makes us an 'authority'). Maybe not so much in early learning (& sorry if I digress), but I definately don't want students to be like me .... I want them to be much better. So how we impose or instruct societal or cultural values needs a lot of thought. Personally, I think that societies have to either let children learn these things in the society itself, or if they are going to 'instruct' social ideals in school, they should either adopt appropriat books, or write their own material to support their norms & curriculum (whatever outsiders think of it). Censoring other people's books or restricting the freedom people have to access alternative thought or opinion is however clearly wrong.
These books should not be censored. Books serve as mirrors to some children - where they can see characters like themselves. There are children living in families that look a lot like the families portrayed in the books you mentioned. All children deserve to see characters like themselves. In addition, being exposed to characters in books that are unlike ourselves makes us more well-rounded as humans.
For me, the crucial question is whether we should protect o deny the right of schools to treat, through literature, controversial issues. For example: death, homosexuality, abuse, family diversity, divorce... That is, if we consider the classrooms as public spaces for ethical discussion. My answer is clear: yes.
I agree with Juan: classroom is a public space and must be a public space for discussion on ethical discussion, including complexe and controversial one. Is obvious then every situation must be considered attentively: not every book treating these themes (like homosexuality, abuse, family diversity, ...) may enter to open the discussion; this is a responsibility taken case by case, by teachers. The case of the of Venice for me is clear: there is no reason to censor those books; they are not at all "bad" or "dangerous" ones. The mayor of Venice was in search of a political visible case to gain more consent shortly after his election: he is a very conservative and populist man, so this appeared to him a good situation to give a strong political signal of his position.
It seems to me that there are several variables - the quality and accuracy of the books, the ages and sensitivities of the children, the presence or absence of input from parents, the quality and sensitivity and training of teachers. Schools should never be places of indoctrination, no matter what the agenda. Facts need to be distinguished from opinions. Banning never accomplishes anything but pros and cons may need careful discussion, depending on children's maturity and perhaps also on the composition of the class.
Totally agree with Ms. Seeman, human brain is so amazing, it allows you to comprehend diferent topics, depending on it own level of development, so things that may be seen like deep or dark for an adult, may be not so relevant for a child, but also may ignite a spark of curiosity and that is the wonder of the book.
i agree we can believe that every child is genus child with many multiple intelligence's it depend only on how you can over this knowledge to them
All great literature is controversial. This does not exclude picture books. Let's trust our teachers to be judicious in choices made in literature for classroom use rather than create bans as a tool. Many schools carefully review books in a committee model for use that complements the curriculum, a best practice approach that works. Why not keep such issues in the hands of professionals and trust them to do the right thing?
All the arguments exposed here seem magnificent. I agree with them. Indoctrination, indeed, is the antithesis of the ethical discussion. Indoctrinate means imposing and accepting; discuss, on the contrary, helps to think and choose. I trust in the intelligence and sensitivity of the teachers, in their commitment and responsibility, in their literary training and teaching methods. For this reason, seems to me unacceptable that the politicians can impose their moral beliefs in the classroom and decide what to read and what not.
I think the healthiest way to treat sensitive subjects is to allow the children to voice their concerns in a safe atmosphere where they feel that their ideas, their questions will be given due attention and consideration. Children ask questions about things at the level of their understanding and unless adults are sensitive to this they can easily make wrong assumptions about what they asking. The most helpful approach in the classroom, I believe, to tackle these issues has been Philosophy with Children (P4C, or SAPERE) Picture books have been used as starting points for developing relevant questions for Philosophy with Children and so this approach has proved to be possible with very young children as well as the oldest.
Check out the websites for more information. Highly recommend.
This is an important but a tough question. Here is my view. Children should be "protected" from literature that might harm them, broadly understood. By that, I mean they should not be given access to material that might, for example:
Scare them
Promote racist and other unacceptable ways of thinking
Be too adult in content with regard to the child´s cognitive, affective and sexual development
... and so forth.
To mention a particularly nasty example, I would not give children access to Mein Kampf - in original or simplified form - until they were old enough and mature enough to critique its vile content.
Best wishes Paul
But, Paul Stephens, who decides what is "unacceptable ways of thinking"? Teachers who are anti-gay will not allow the first two books mentioned, because it contrasts with their personal beliefs. But what about the child(sen) whose parents are gay? Banning these books marginalizes them further, and also prevents ALL children from understanding that some classmates or people they will meet in the future, have alternative family structures. I am often surprised at the close-mindedness of university students who say they would never allow these books in their classrooms because it will turn their students gay. Teachers seldom "advocate" the messages in ANY books - they are used to provide awareness of many topics and life situations, whether fiction or non-fiction. Warning: READ ALL books before placing them in your classroom. Happy Reading.
Hello Deb
I did not intend to convey the view that books about being gay, for example, should be considered inappropriate. What I believe is that adults do have a responsibility to decide what might be helpful and unhelpful with regard to a child´s development. Taking on that responsibility seriously and respectfully, even when it necessarily means that an adult decision must be made, is, in my view, essential. If we do not have certain common ground positions of what is acceptable or unacceptable, anything goes: and that is unacceptable. Best, Paul
Paul,
I agree with you and didn't mean to sound forceful. It just seems to me, more and more, that teachers make decisions on their personal morals, which are often exclusive, and that worries me. Nothing harmful should be allowed, but some think a book that addresses an issue, such as a kindergartener having two mommies, is harmful and should NEVER be allowed. I did as a public school teacher, and now as a university professor DO censor what I share, but I think ALL teacher candidates need to be aware of the balance in doing so. An interesting issue. Friends have written "It's Perfectly Normal" which is ALWAYS on the banned book list. Would I have it on my classroom shelf in public school? Not at a primary grade level, but it SHOUD be available in the upper grades. Phobias increase ignorance. And I think our world has more than enough intolerance and phobias than we need. I also believe everything should be within context. I tell my teacher candidates they need to know their audience (students/families/administrators/community). I agree with Mary V. Seeman (above) - "the quality and accuracy of the books, the ages and sensitivities of the children, the presence or absence of input from parents, the quality and sensitivity and training of teachers".
We need more awareness and less marginalization. Thanks for the discussion!
I am generally opposed to banning of any books. It may be that some think specific books require special, age-specific treatment. They may be kept in a "at least 13 years" area or marked "only with parental permission," I suppose. But I would not ban books on live styles and choices that while non-standard in your culture are real. To ban books on same-sex parents simply drives underground what should be generally acknowledged in a human way. So the real issue is why you feel comfortable with banning some, and not others.
Dear Tom
You write:
'I am generally opposed to banning of any books. It may be that some think specific books require special, age-specific treatment. They may be kept in a "at least 13 years" area or marked "only with parental permission," I suppose.'
I think that your use of the words, 'I suppose', intimates that you do agree with a level of age/maturity censorship.
That, at least is my interpretation.
Best wishes Paul
Statt Bücher zu verbieten, muss Erziehung auf einen selbstverantwortlichen Umgang mit deren Inhalten abziehlen
The word banning is perhaps not good in the context of reading materials. There is however need to have a dialogue with them on the books that that are available and that they read. The school can encourage and promote the reading of some books and at that the same time discourage through discussion and advise the reading of others but to ban books even of pornography is inappropriate. It may lead to excessive interest and thus shifty behaviour with an unhealthy attitude. Banning does not help but educating does. But then having the energy to engage with children on these questions is extremely important.
Dear Henk, never I have thought or said that censorship is an educational option. My position is clear: the censorship is the opposite of good pedagogy, which involves dialogue, persuasion, tact, concern, commitment... The origin of this debate was a question I asked about the censorship of certain children’s books by the Mayor of Venice on behalf of the traditional family and against the new perspectives of gender.
It is rare that a child learns to read under the age of four. To give a child access to reading material that might frighten her/him or otherwise "harm" at this age is, in my view, ethically unacceptable. I think that some of the opinions that have been expressed on Research Gate are "hung up" on the term "censorship". That word conjures up negative and oppressive connotations.
But we are not just talking about books that censor in the negative sense (e.g., banning democratic texts that are published in oppressive regimes). What about books that foster sexist, homophobic and racist ideas and which might be very harmful to a child´s moral development?
Current research from Harvard indicates that 3-4 year old children can assimilate racist views in a remarkably short period; in some cases, over a few days. Is anyone suggesting that Mein Kampf should be made available to a 5-year old reader who is brought up in a Nazi milieu? My question is not rhetorical. Best wishes Paul
Hei Jonathan. Many thanks for your illuminating answer, which has got me thinking. Your argumentation is pretty solid. That said, Mein Kampf is not a StrawMan. There are texts in the real world which purposely seek to indoctrinate children into passive submission to fascist-like regimes. North Korea comes to mind. Best wishes Paul. PS I hope we can keep the conversation going.
Yes, but surely one must be allowed to adjudicate between differing claims to truth and ethics. Otherwise, I could write a book for children claiming that I am the Man in the Moon and will punish all children who disbelieve. I am almost certain that such a text would scare at least some children.
My earliest memory was when I was four years old. A year or so later, I was convinced that a boy in my primary school lived in Africa and took a fast speedboat to London every day - and back. No adult could convince me otherwise because the boy told me so; and my cognitive development as a very young child was not mature enough to grasp distance and time beyond very meagre limits.
There are very well documented and consistent studies on cognitive and moral development, and child savants are very rare. Best wishes Paul
The censoring has to only be in terms of what can be allowed in the classroom. All libraries make a selection about books that they consider as more important and useful for children. It is for the teachers and the school to take a call therefore what books they want to deal with in conversations with children. The effort should be to allow as much liberal ideas as possible but the limits would be set by the band width of teachers and the kind of things they are comfortable talking to students about and take them through the concepts in the book. It is of course important to also recognise that the purpose of the teachers should be to help children go beyond their limitations and cross boundaries. The availability of books not normally recommended or allowed widens the scope of dialogue and teaches the teachers, children and the community as well
In an earlier post, I argued that no censorship (could we find a better word please, because Orwellian nightmares come to mind) would leave the door open to access to fascist/nazi propaganda. A colleague argued that my position was unfair on the grounds that once the terms nazi and fascist are used, argumentation ends.
Respectively, I disagree. Fascists and nazis were real and still are real (consider the Ku Klux Klan, for example, as well as the dwindling supporters of apartheid), and one must assume that they use malign texts in efforts to indoctrinate young children into racist doctrines. Ergo, I stand unapologetically by my argument that it is untenable ethically and cognitively not to "censor" this kind of material when young children are involved. Best wishes Paul
Paul, there's a lot of truth in your argumentation. Perhaps the problem of these reflections is that we don't say, but we think, that censorship worries us when trying to avoid any discussion about the new realities and the world we consider more free and progressive. And we assume tacitly that indoctrinate in fascist or reactionary ideas is intolerable.
Yes Juan. The term, censorship, has a bad image. But consider this. Would it be OK for society to allow children to ride powerful motorbikes on the grounds that to deny them this right before the age of 18, is a form of censorship.
I fear that there is an intellectually sloppy and hugely irresponsible "political correctness" behind the contention that all texts (widely understood) should be available to all children on the grounds of some spurious notion of freedom. Irresponsibility would be a better word. Best wishes Paul
The banning of one or the other materials has to be enforced by someone. A State may choose to ban texts that raise curiosity about genesis, human reproduction, gender equity and so on. If the teacher or the school is not convinced the ban would in any case not be effective. So the first question is who applies the ban. The right of applying gives the person a responsibility and authority that she can better achieve through negotiated dialogue with children and gradually advising them about the implications of nazism, crusades, jihads, hindu senas and so on. Divisiveness can not be banned it has to be dialogued and negotiated. I agree with Paul on educating children about this but that can not come from ban. We could consider sins taboo and thus considering sex as that not talk about it or other natural human needs.
I find in Hriday´s reply a good deal of sense. What he conveys is the message that context counts. For example, in the context of Norwegian preschool, teachers choose materials that promote peaceful behavior, respect for diversity, helping and comforting peers in distress and so forth.
It would be unthinkable, however, to expect pre-school teachers to introduce teaching materials (e.g., picture books) that promote racist and sexist ideals. One has to wait until children are cognitively mature enough to be able to interpret, with adult help as appropriate, texts that contain repugnant images. Best wishes Paul
Public libraries are public resources where people go for data so they can understand what seems to them complex. This is especially important in areas where parents may feel uncomfortable talking to children (for example, same-sex relationships) or feel uncomfortable asking others for advice. So withdrawing books from public service prevents the type of home discussion which the Mayor seeks to protect. Were he truly interested he might put them on a special shelf and pair them with other books on the subject, pro and con. But banning never works except, perhaps, to enforce ignorance and resulting prejudice.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics