VIEWPOINT
By Dakota Gunnare, Editor in Chief
The human experience is rarely easy to digest. There isn’t a shield protecting us from discomfort.
Great art makes you feel something. Great art doesn’t shy away from the unpleasant. Feeling uncomfortable is what forces introspection, understanding and deeper thought.
Right now, America has seemingly regressed back to its 1950s and ‘60s book banning frenzy. Starting in late 2021, school districts across the nation have faced a massive uptick in challenges with books in their curriculum. Communities have once again taken to the streets to protest book challenges. It is an eerie reflection of the “Read Banned Books” and the “Ban Books” movements from 60 years ago. In 1960, they discussed “To Kill a Mockingbird” and “Catcher in the Rye.” Today, we’re talking about “The Hate U Give,” “The Kite Runner,” “The Glass Castle,” and “The 57 Bus.”
West Bend is not immune to this growing change in our nation. In the past six months, “The Kite Runner” and “The 57 Bus” were formally challenged by residents of the West Bend School District, resulting in a new policy for the evaluation of curriculum books. “The Kite Runner” is no longer present in the West Bend High Schools’ curriculum, and “The 57 Bus” was removed from Badger Middle School. More books are currently under review within the West Bend School District.
A common misunderstanding of the argument that books should not be banned is that students are forced to read things that they are not ready for. Rather, the argument is that book banners force students to be unable to read things that they are ready for. The argument is choice. The decision of what content a student is ready for should lie in the hands of their parents.
“I fully respect another parent’s right to opt their child out of reading a book they feel is inappropriate for their child, but the flip side is that other parents should understand that not everyone feels the same,” said Jessica Paczesny, a parent on the committee that evaluated “The 57 Bus.” “There’s real hypocrisy in a parent saying ‘I don’t want anyone to force my child to read a book I don’t like, so I want the choice removed for your child, too.’”
There has been pressure on school districts to respond to challenges on books made by a small number of people in a community. The book banning movement across America has so much power partially because local districts feel the pressure of a nationwide movement. It is important when making these decisions to account for the fact that while it might be the choice that some want, it removes choice from everyone. There should be more pressure to preserve freedom and parent choice than there is to satisfy a small minority.
“While banning some of these books would make some families in the community happy, it would restrict the choice of other families to choose what’s right for them,” said Lillian Tyvela, a West sophomore who was on the committee that evaluated “The Kite Runner.” “Books are meant to be read and related to or to be learned from. Taking away books means you are taking away these opportunities. If someone has a problem with their child reading a book, that is an individual choice, not one they can make for the whole community.”
Challenging content is critical for intellectual growth. There’s a reason these books are a part of high school curriculums. The books challenged are commonly read in honors and upperclassman English classes; this is no coincidence. These books push students out of their comfort zones to make them grow as people. It is important to read challenging texts because it teaches students about the real world and pushes them as readers and as people. It is possible a student might pick up one of these challenged books and read it for enjoyment, but they will miss the analysis and deeper thought that can only be acquired in the classroom.
“Part of maturing and becoming an adult has always been slowly rejecting innocent childhood notions and rebuilding your worldview into a responsible and realistic depiction of the world,” said Noah Minte, a West junior who has spoken at school board meetings defending challenged books.
Some students aren’t ready for this kind of responsible understanding in high school and middle school, but many are. “The Kite Runner,” which has been frequently challenged recently, is an example of an uncomfortable topic that pushes growth and understanding. “The Kite Runner” is uncomfortable for some readers but it is important to understand other places and experiences. It is important for students to understand stories that aren’t their own so they can grow.
“We need to be empowering our kids to learn to think for themselves and the books we make available to them are a huge part of that growth,” Jessica Paczesny said. “Limiting what’s offered to them in class and in the library certainly doesn’t do them any favors.”
Banning books has historically been, and still is today, a mechanism for pushing a political agenda. In the past, the book “1984,” now a widely accepted classic, was challenged in schools for “promoting communism.” “1984” was critical of America, and it made some feel as though their political agenda was coming under fire. Today, the Black Lives Matter movement makes some feel threatened in their beliefs, so they try to erase it. They ban “The Hate U Give” and “Dear Martin” so they can make sure their kids and other people’s kids turn out exactly like them.
“Multiple small, hateful groups have so far succeeded in removing titles that don’t align with their religious or political beliefs,” said Anna Paczesny, an East junior on the committee that evaluated “The 57 Bus.” “They will continually remove these titles until only ones that they agree with are available on the shelves.”
The takeaway is that it is important to curtail this movement now.
A vocal minority of people in the US want to ban books to fit English curriculums within their politics and agenda. We should resist this at every opportunity.
The logic of banning books because they “indoctrinate students” into a specific worldview is hypocritical if not outright manipulative. Banning books because you disagree with the worldview they present with the goal of ensuring your personal beliefs are never questioned by the public is the real indoctrination. It is intentionally harmful to education to prevent students from learning about topics with which you have personal contention.
“We cannot sanitize our ELA curriculum to fit into a very narrow worldview just to avoid topics and language that might feel uncomfortable to some people,” Jessica Paczesny said. “It’s unrealistic and honestly unfair to our students.”
Banning books can also have the consequence, whether intentional or unintentional, of spreading a message of intolerance. Viewing the subject matter of books that have been banned, we see over and over that these books are about anti-racism and anti-homophobia. This is at best a horrible but unintentional consequence. The intention is not justified when the effect is so drastic. These books may be banned for things like language and sexual content, but in the end they deny students belonging and representation.
“Minority students will be erased and stripped of their identity in an educational setting, which often tries to market itself as a ‘safe space for everyone,’” Anna Paczensy said. “The message being sent to these students or people is, ‘You don’t belong here. We don’t accept you.’”
(Top image: Book banning protest at the Georgia Capitol, Atlanta in 2022. Photo courtesy of John Ramspott via Wikimedia Commons.)
The Current welcomes submissions from all students, faculty, administrators and community members, but reserves the right to edit for length or content. Any column, editorial or letter to the editor expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the entire staff.
The West Bend Current 