VIEWPOINT
By Noah Mintie, Current Staff
Over 108 books removed and we still have not learned our lesson.
Over the past year, West Bend has joined the hundreds of school districts nationwide dealing with controversy surrounding books. After activists lobbied during several school board meetings, policies were enacted to reconsider reading material. “More than 108 books were eliminated,” reported Melanie Ehrgott, the head of the board’s policy committee, at the Feb. 19 board meeting.
While those who initiated this controversy may celebrate such an outcome, in reality, it should be mourned that over 108 collections of knowledge, artistic expression and potential learning are no longer supported by the school. There is no denying that the act of removing a book from the English curriculum is an inappropriate action. If one claims that they are doing it for the good of the students, then they are kidding themselves.
Literature has waned in popularity among high schoolers. According to a study conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2020, the percent of 13-year-olds who claim to “never or hardly ever” read hit an all-time high at 29%, as did the percent who claimed to read “less frequently” at 54%. This adds up to a majority of kids surveyed who do not enjoy or partake in reading. This is not exclusive to the data, however, as the technology that provides entertainment to modern teens is easier to consume than books. Literature requires more critical thinking and imagination than other hobbies, so many teens forgo the paper in favor of the screen.
There is, however, one part of their lives that requires that they read: school. Books are used by schools (predominantly English courses) not to entertain, but to teach. Each piece that once made up the book club system was there for a reason, to be a vessel for the student to use to discover new perspectives on the world that they will soon be thrust into.
In the terminology of English education, there are different terms to describe different books: mirrors, windows, and sliding glass doors. Mirrors are books that do not challenge the student, offering only what is familiar to them. Windows often expose kids to new and challenging viewpoints, but are frequently laced with familiar and comfortable elements. Sliding glass doors do not bother with telling the student what they already know, and go deep into new territory. All three types have a purpose in the education system, and cannot function without one another. If all one has is windows and mirrors, they are trapped; they need doors too, so to speak.
Simply put, the act of book removal tends to rip away the sliding glass doors, creating an imbalance in the system. Books that are challenged and removed are often explicit in content, yes, but they have to be. If they are not unflinching reflections of real life, then they are merely windows. It is important for students to understand the full issue, as there are few other ways for them to learn these perspectives. Two of the books most heavily challenged include Dashka Slater’s “The 57 Bus” and Khaled Hosseini’s “The Kite Runner,” and both explore systems, experiences and groups that one would not easily learn about in day-to-day life in West Bend.
Still, many argue that some kids are not ready to experience such injustices, even in literary form. This concern is certainly valid, as all kids age differently. Yet even taking this stance on its highest ground, it still comes up short. A signed parent permission slip is required before kids read any of these book club books, which allows parents to research and determine if their children should read them. Removing books entirely solves nothing, because if any kids are being prematurely exposed to this media in the book club system, it is primarily the fault of the parent.
But then why can’t kids just go to the public library to read this “sliding glass door” material? Shouldn’t the school just be safe rather than potentially sorry? No. Reading a book outside of class does not ensure proper analysis and learning. The point is not that the books are merely provided. The point is that kids can discuss and learn from their book club partners.
Removing sliding glass doors also creates an issue of false representation. After they are gone, windows must take their place. These books, by nature, do not reveal as much about other viewpoints as sliding glass doors, yet in the absence of more enlightening literature, they are assumed to be deeper than they are. Several alternatives to the books in question have been proposed, yet none achieve what the challenged material does. When one pretends that windows can adequately educate a student as well as sliding glass doors, they are shortchanging the student of learning and promoting a more ignorant mindset.
If a student believes that realistic issues are only as deep as the window novels present them to be, they are treated with less severity and are not acknowledged as much. A student may get an idea of the deadliness of slavery from, say, a history book about the Civil War, but no book will allow them to comprehend its true nature quite like “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.” This is what truly separates windows and sliding glass doors, and removing books de-balances and upsets the system.
Book removal is blatant censorship of art, and despite being a long-condemned practice, still feeds off of ignorance and fear while branding itself as a function of safety. The manifestation of a solution is exclusively in the hands of those with political power. The temptation of public pressure, brought upon by several people who are more associated with their political organizations than with the school system they attempt to influence, must be resisted with an emphasis on morality. It must be remembered that school is a place for opportunity and learning, not a tool to influence the youth via demotion of exposure.
108 books are gone, and even now, many voices cry for more. This hunger is never satiated, this satisfaction never met. Censorship leads to ignorance, ignorance leads to confrontation, and confrontation leads to conflict.
(Photo by Noah Mintie, Current Staff.)
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 