Only Human

The book begins by stating the "problem". He introduces the Blacklist and immediately follows it with the image of a man beating his wife.

Merely one page into this book I could tell that it was very easy to sympathize with the writer. I liked him, he had a charming way with words and made me feel comfortable with my own flawed humanity by describing his own ( Goodness knows I have found myself undressed at a window and caught a disapproving eye from a neighbor before). He then immediately invoked my pity, by giving details, unfettered by theatricality, about how this problem of the Blacklist has affected him. By page four I can start to see how everyone else is the enemy, he describes a former coworker that will not speak to him as "angry at me for doing this to him". He has successfully categorized himself as a victim in my mind.

I start to realize the more that I read it how much it reminds me of a play called Aunt Dan and Lemon. The play begins with a character that seems genuinely likable, whose beloved aunt discusses a problem, and then relays a story that generates pity. At the end of the play, I read the final monologue and felt that I truly understood the place where the character was coming from and sympathized. That is, until I realized I had just a read a monologue explicitly affirming the actions of the Nazis and pure "human nature".

Of course we are going to read a story like this and side with the writer, we hear his voice only and he has control over how much we sympathize. The reason propaganda has proved so incredibly useful is because words and images that give a singular voice to any topic have incredible sway over the mind and opinion. The fact that we have a figure of authority ( our professor) requiring the reading is a kind of endorsement that gives even greater power to that sway.

This very principle is the principle that gives validity to the idea of censorship in the media. If what we see, read, or hear had such a large affect on our views when mass produced and made readily available, the government has the right to sway the people towards the ideals that will enable them to protect themselves against the threat of an undesired social system.

Yes when given a voice, it is only human to sympathize with one man's struggle, but pick up any book written by someone who's life has been made a living hell by an oppressive communism government and you would have the very same response.

( While I think there is some validity in these statements I really do not agree with the overall argument presented. I wanted to see if I could use the way I truly felt about the text to render a counter argument against my own opinion)

Black & White and Red All Over

Memoirs of a Blacklist is a much appreciated and fresh look at censorship and the McCarthy Paranoia that hit during the fifties. Although most readers might like to take a more in-depth look at the political bylaws that occurred during the time or the duality of Bernstein’s participation in the American military while maintaining Communist principles, I am more interested in his life as a writer (being a writer myself) and how he worked through the system to get his work published.
Bernstein starts out his memoir by introducing his love of all that is Hollywood and the movie business. But it is his constant strive to produce work that fuels his writing. The obsession with creation and producing movie scripts that are exceptional is what keeps Bernstein going, despite the fact that his Communist beliefs constantly create pitfalls and walls throughout his career. Of course we can’t forget get his need to make a living, but in retrospect, Bernstein fights his way through the “red tape, going by pseudonyms and hiring other people to sell his scripts.
As a writer myself I constantly ask myself the question “how far would I go, or how honest would I be about my beliefs” just to keep my ability to write. Censorship of oneself also plays a huge role into the dilemma that Bernstein deals with. Although his work may be in a way censored by not being accepted due to his name on the blacklist, he does not proceed to censor his own beliefs and claim that he is not a Communist just so he can continue to produce work. It is here that this personal controversy of one’s beliefs versus one’s published work begins to get complicated from a writer’s standpoint. I admire Bernstein’s ability to conquer his own fears and not censor himself in his writing or beliefs. The best writers, I believe, are those who are the most vulnerable to themselves and their readers. Bernstein rose to produce some very evocative scripts dealing with subjects other writers wouldn’t touch for fear of losing their careers. It is that courage that I as a fellow writer can admire and hope that I never have to fear and censor myself.

The Screen Knew The Secrets To My Heart

The first thing that struck me is when Bernstein said "Movies meant Hollywood, a place for selling out (11)." As I continued to read though, I learned that Bernstein was anything but a sellout. Understanding that his Communist ideals are what put him in this censored box, when he went into details about his childhood/coming of age, that's what really made me connect with him. I found Bernstein's passion to be inspiring, even in some instances it was almost absurd how far he was willing to go. Yes, he still needed to make a living so writing under a different name was a smart, beneficial option for him. However, it seemed to be more than that. He had to get his thoughts out there, he had to write and something inside of him just couldn't let it go. "The books had opened my head. The movies opened my heart (51)", as Bernstein put it.

Another thing that amazed me was the fact this his was such a chaotic time with Germany and Hitler, the Soviet Union, war and the military, and yet the way Bernstein wrote about it did not place my attention around those events. I laughed when I read the part about Bernstein producing a movie rather than war prep, simply because he stated that he was more concerned with who would be playing the women roles rather than the actual war. He then even took it farther as to say that the Army was like a show to them, they were just players on a stage wearing Army costumes. Everything felt like a movie to him, which I think weighed heavily on what he saw as real and unreal. It felt like Bernstein could never connect with anything and make it real until it actually happened to him. War was like a movie scene in his head or a place to get another amazing story, until he realized that "Hey, maybe I could really die here". Even his newborn baby was a detachment to him, visuals somewhat helped but she would never be real until he actually held her.

I really admire Bernstein's passion and his burning desire to follow his heart without abandoning his beliefs. However, is there such a thing as taking it too far? Bernstein risked it all, his family, his life, his career in order to stand behind his beliefs. Maybe the fact that he had a hard time between distinguishing what was real and unreal made him more fierce and adventurous, or maybe he was completely insane. Either way, you have to admire someone that is so connected to the thing they love the most that they do anything for it. I guess the way I relate is that I'd be lost if I wasn't a writer. I'm sure my mother and society and strangers would respect me more if I was becoming a doctor or a lawyer or some corporate figure. I could never do that to myself though, it would be like betraying the one thing in the world that feels right to me. In that retrospect, I can understand why Bernstein was so attached and enthralled in his work. I can understand why he would never betray any part of himself, it would be like betraying the part of the world that was real to him.

Fear of the Improbable

Reading the first 100 pages of Inside Out, I noted a repeated theme that we've seen with the censorship discussed in the Grease documentary and also in the Harry Potter article - fear of exaggerated, and often unlikely, consequences.

Those who called for censorship of the Harry Potter series within public schools cited two major reasons that led them to their decision. The first pointed to Harry Potter as promoting the occult as a religion, while the second stated that the characters and plots of the series promote disobedient and delinquent behavior. Yet neither of these explanations provide a supported and legitimate concern that shows these books as a danger. Children have read series that include magical and fantasy-related content for years (A Wrinkle in Time, Half-Magic, The Hobbit, etc.) without forsaking their religion or attempting to invoke the spirit of Hecate. Similarly, the board could provide no evidence to show that the series had led to any unusually disruptive behavior among the students.

In the case of Grease, concerns seemed equally inane. Citizens in the community against the musical made explicit concerns that it may be harmful for an inappropriate act like teenage drinking to be depicted for the students to see. This reasoning neglected to acknowledge that teenagers are past the age where they imitate everything that they seen, and are exposed to teenage drinking and other questionable content through television and other media regardless.

In Bernstein's memoir, the threat of communism is not established with any more legitimacy that the threat of Harry Potter. Communists are pointed to as possible overthrowers of the government power, plotting to assassinate U.S. leaders and take control of the nation by force. Yet, the individuals foretelling this fate don't have any true evidence that this is the aim of the communists, and as Bernstein says, the communist group meetings would have been a lot more interesting had these actually been the topics of discussion.

What appears to be the case is that censorship of communist ideals, of fantasy fiction, and of campy musicals does not come from a place of legitimate concern for what will happen if action is not taken towards censorship. This censorship occurs in the grander scheme of sending a message. Harry Potter is banned to set a boundary that prevents more damaging texts from leaking into schools, just as communists and non-communist liberals are censored to send a message to anyone who may actually have scheme and plots on their mind. It is a scare tactic, rather than a solution.

Personal Revelations

There were two passages that I thought were particularly interesting as I read Inside Out. The first passage occurred on page 53, when Bernstein talks about his belief in the Soviet Union. He talks about the deaths and terror happening in there, and how he paid little attention to it. Bernstein says, "The Soviet Union had been under constant attack since being formed; it was natural that there would be spies and saboteurs, agents of a vengeful capitalism. It was my first example of what horror can be perpetrated in the name of security and how easy then to apologize for it. The example was lost on me.” I really liked this section because it shows Bernstein’s high hopes for the Soviet Union, and despite what was happening he was able to overlook it because of his beliefs and hopes. He says that he did not question it or even try to read further into what was happening. I also liked how he says the example was lost on him, acknowledging that he was overlooking some crucial information because of his faith.

The other passage that I found very telling was page 82-83 when he had his first real war experience. Bernstein talks about how it was exhilarating to finally be in the war. Despite what he knew was going on, and that at any moment men around him or he himself could die, he was exhilarated to be a part of it. It was not until he was personally made a part of that same war that he had a change of heart. Bernstein says, “My feelings about war had suddenly and abruptly changed. They had stopped being political or social or idealistic. They had become personal. “ Bernstein seems to have had a revelation, although he even admits that some of those feelings would return because they were such a part of him. Bernstein seems to take things for granted until he experiences them for himself.

Bernstein only seems to learn through personal experience. He is writing about war, but still he is somehow able to romanticize it until he becomes personally involved. The same seems to be true of his political and social beliefs. As seen with the passage above, he overlooks so many important facts because of his beliefs and romantic ideals. Towards the beginning of the book on page 12, he even says, “what was happening to them (jail, blacklist, exile) was not going to happen to me.” Again, until he personally experiences it, he is unable to truly see the issues at hand.

An Uneasy Alliance

What is most striking to me in the first 100 pages Walter Bernstein’s A Memoir of the Blacklist is the striking contradiction of Bernstein’s Communist sentiment while serving within the American military. Quite honestly, I have not studied history in quite some time, and completely forgot of the uneasy alliance that the United States and the Soviet Union shared during World War II.

When the novel moves from Bernstein’s initial experience with being blacklisted to his experiences after being drafted, it seems rather odd to me that his Communist sentiments did not present more of a problem in the military for him than they have thus far. Although Hitler’s Germany was the eminent concern at the time, it seems strange to me that a member of the United States Army, with known Communist sentiments would be allowed to move so freely, even as a reporter. I suppose, however, that my views of the time are rather skewed by my upbringing.

Throughout my childhood, I was raised in large part by my grandfather, a hardened and patriotic (except in his desire that I not follow in his footsteps by enlisting in any armed service) World War II veteran with a bitter disdain for Communism in any form. Gaining most of my knowledge of World War II from his stories, the presence of Communist Party members in the United States military is something new and extremely interesting to me.

Given the era in which my classmates and myself have grown up in, it is hard to believe that one with Communist viewpoints could not feel completely torn by being drafted into the United States military. Bernstein’s reasoning, however, seems to make sense, as at least he was able rationalize that he was on Stalin’s side.

Another less obvious observation I find intriguing is Bernstein’s literary treatment of his wife throughout this memoir. His treatment of her is minimalist, and I was quite surprised that the “woman from New York” whose home he slept in to avoid the barracks became his wife several pages later, and pregnant not long thereafter. I can’t help but wonder if we will find that this marriage ended quite negatively later in the memoir, or possibly Bernstein simply feels delving too deeply into his love life would detract from the primary message of this work.

Breaking Through Censorship

One thing that struck me in reading the beginning of Inside Out was how Bernstein seemed able to evade official forms of censorship. As he writes at the beginning of the book, he was able to work through the blacklist by using fake names and enlisting his friends in the industry to cover up his true identity. Even during World War II, Bernstein discusses how he consciously wrote some essays for the New Yorker rather than Yank, because he knew they could not be published in an official military magazine. Later on, his ability to enter Yugoslavia outside of official Allied routes shows the porousness of closed borders, as well as his ability to maneuver through restrictions.

Bernstein's experiences illustrate the ultimate penetrability of official censorship, and the ways that free expression manages to move outside official channels. Of course, Bernstein was a particularly lucky and well connected victim of censorship. However, this just shows a breakdown of the system, whereby there are ways that certain individuals and works manage to remain protected from censorship. Even when he attracts negative attention from his military commanders for an article he published in the New Yorker, Bernstein's editor was able to protect him from being court marshalled.

Bernstein also writes about the “constant support of friends” that sustained him through the blacklist, and about the tight knit community formed as a result of official censorship. This community consolidation seems to have been fairly effective in protecting some members from the full force of the red scare. Of course, there are just as many instances of harsh persecution and the inability of some groups to resist the McCarthy era crack down on perceived leftists, communists and homosexuals. As the memoir develops, it will be interesting to see how different groups responded to McCarthyism, and how they dealt with betrayal from the inside and outside.

As the book enters the post-WWII Cold War era, I hope to see Bernstein show us the ways people resisted the blacklist, and who became complicit in its effectiveness.

Killing "The Boy Who Lived"

I feel as though I've grown up with Harry Potter. I was only a year or two older than Harry when he first entered Hogwarts as a first year and began a coming-of-age seven year journey to which any reader could relate. As an avid Harry Potter reader I rooted for him on the Quiddich field, swooned when he had his first kiss, tagged along on his many adventures, and feared for his safety in recurring battles with both Voldemort and adulthood. I was "that" kid who had to get the latest book the day it arrived in bookstores and finished it in a matter of hours. Thus, I cringe when I think of adolescence without my Harry Potter books.

Two parts of DeMitchell's article have made me mull over the issue. In the Dakota case, DeMitchell reveals the breakdown of the justifications to remove the book from libraries. According to the court, "The books might promote disobedience and disrespect for authority." Frankly, I can't think of very many books - including children's books - that don't consist of any disobedience or some disrespect for authority. Any children's book by Louis Sachar or Role Dahl contain these same elements of disrespect or fighting the "man" and yet those authors' are children's classics. I think that it is important for children to understand how to resolve conflict and it's crucial that this occurs with a relatable character like Harry Potter.

DeMitchell also suggests that "If the Harry Potter books do constitute religious writings, and if it is asserted that religious tracts cannot be placed in public school libraries, does it mean that the Bible must also be removed?" While considering the Bible is extreme, DeMitchell raises a good point. If religious books were to be banned from libraries that would knock out any book that references serious events like the Holocaust or even any book about Christmas. Rowling's books lack in any particular religious sway and do not compel readers to start practicing Wiccan activity.

It seems that with this outlook libraries shelves will be completely empty besides the occasional coloring book or comic.

Children's Right to Read

One of the most aspects of the type of censorship addressed in the article about Harry Potter that frustrated me the most is the fact that the adults who attempt to have so-called "sensitive" materials from the library seem to think that children who are reading those books are unable to make any sort of judgments or form any opinions on their own. Both parts of their argument--that "reading the Harry Potter books could lead students into juvenile delinquency" and "a belief that the books promoted a particular religion of witchcraft"--are founded on an assumption that young readers are not qualified to determine for themselves which ideas have merit and which they choose not to believe.

As an avid Harry Potter fan, I was especially disappointed in the narrow-mindedness of the adults who were trying to restrict access to the books. They took the books at their surface value only (likely due to the fact that many of them had never even read the series), seeing only the supposedly occult themes and completely overlooking the strong themes of friendship, acceptance, and love that the series revolves around. This suggests to me that these adults are more interested in using the Harry Potter series to set an example: they are taking advantage of the popularity of the series to advertise their beliefs by trying to ban it. Presumably, there are many other books in the relevant school libraries in the fantasy genre that could be subjected to similar accusations of occult themes, but Harry Potter’s popularity causes it to draw more than its fair share of challenges.

I found it encouraging that the court ruled that the removal of the books from the library was unconstitutional. Many aspects of the Constitution are specifically intended to protect the rights of minorities and other groups that don’t have as much of a say in government proceedings, and that includes children. The fact that the court in this case interpreted the Constitution in such a way to protect the right of school children to access information says to me that the Constitution is doing its job.

Letter from a Concerned Parent

Allison Moore, post #1: Censored Texts
Letter from a concerned parent

Dear School Board People,
Well I don’t write letters much now that Mitch is outta jail, ya know, but I just gotta say I'm really just fit to be tied and just sick of hearing all about this. I'm proud to say the whole Harry Potter craze passed my kids right by, they're good kids. Don’t care none about books, and if they did you can be darn sure I'd have none of that trash in my house.
Just ain't healthy for a kid to be spending that much time reading. Watch some freakin TV and eat a bag o chips like a normal person fer chrissakes. And what huge books they are! Enormous books! Would you give yer kid a freaking gun? Yeah, well, we did too, it’s a free country, part of being American, but before he turns 12? Books that big, and heavy, and those hard covers and all, well, you're just asking for some broken bones, or a concussion, like the time Ashlee's pompoms got caught in her cheer briefs and she fell offa that cheerleadin human pyramid.. right on her head, WHAM! Y'ad never think that much blood could come outta someone's ears. So nice of those boys from the football team to take her home, what with her parents gone and all. Another thing- it's that big, and for the kids and there aren’t even any pictures!? Just seems a little uppity for that what's her name, JFK Rowling, yeah, to go and write books bigger than the bible. Yeah, and one just wasn’t enough either. What, is she trying to outdo God or something? She's not even American. And you tell me what that kinda weird foreign thing is doing in our schools. What the hell could take that many freakin words to say--but, well, but ill tell ya why there's no pictures! They just can't show that kind of thing…if they did it never woulda gotten published. Well I wish they had tried to put some pictures in that mess, ha! I mean, I know. I tell ya, I've seen a few virgins sacrificed in the woods in my time, I know what a mess it is what with all the dead goats, and the orgies, singed pubic hair and those flammable long black robes with the pentagrams and all… I know enough to know I don’t want my kid to see none of it. Timmy don’t need to know nothing bout it, now that we've found Jesus... Lord knows what happened when his sister walked in on all 13 of us…
But I tell ya, ya know I did some reading, yeah how do ya like that, and ya know what the whole stinking problem is, it ain't the books- no, this is bigger than the books. And it's bigger than this town. It’s the source of all this nonsense, and ya know it's just like a bad septic tank. I'll tell ya what it is- it's that damn constitution. What with the microwaves and AOL and technologies and all, its just not right that were supposed to be following something so freakin ancient that ya can barely read the damn thing, And you know, I tried reading it, and there's not too much I understood but I understood enough… and they talk about all kindsa powers! I've got half a mind to call Fox news! Judicial powers, powers that the congress supposedly has- well if they're so freakin magical what do I waste my time voting fer? That’s what I'd like to know. That constitution's crazy stuff- hardly makes sense- they talk about ya know a house right, but then they talk about all these branches too, so are they inside or outside in the trees fer chrisssakes? The other half of that crap sounds like the names of Susie's freaking meds. Well it's no wonder so many of the kids are all screwed up. That’s what the country's coming to. Terrorists and illegals everywhere, all that monkey evolution stuff in their science class, men runnin around dressed like women, wizards in the government!! And all my tax dollars paying for all of it. And I thought this was a God-fearin Christian country.

(Professor Newman posted this on Allison's behalf)

Banning "The Boy Who Lived"

“The boy who lived” as Harry Potter is commonly referred to in the Harry Potter series should be allowed to live and circulate in school libraries, and to me, the fact that a children’s book series causes so much controversy is utterly ridiculous. One of the greatest outcomes of the Harry Potter series was what seemed to be a revival of children loving books. Kids of all ages became excited to read about the famous boy wizard and in a world where tv and video games are what usually excites kids, Harry Potter seemed like a very big win for the literary world.

I have read and reread every Harry Potter novel. I have never seen the series as one about witchcraft or the occult. Harry Potter has always been about the coming of age adventures of a young boy and his friends trying to triumph over evil. The lessons in Harry Potter are about being compassionate, loyal, and loving, not about the promotion of disobedience and disrespect for authority. That is a scared, skewed, and disillusioned view of these novels. With the popularity of the Harry Potter novels obviously comes this controversy. There is the likelihood that many books dealing with religion and possibly witchcraft are at the school libraries, yet because they are not necessarily popular they are not being targeted. There are most likely books about Halloween at most of the school libraries, yet these are not being banned. Even book on religious holidays or books on history, such as the Salem witch trials do not seem to be targets either. Instead of helping children to develop better reading skills and allowing them to learn lessons from the plots and circumstances of the Harry Potter novels the schools and parents calling for these actions are hindering their children. Interpreting a series of books and deeming it to represent something it does not, then not even allowing young adults to form their own opinions on said books will only stifle and stunt them as individuals.

Unfounded Arguments

The most startling and disturbing fact I found through this article was

"Another board member, the only one who reported actually reading one of the books

from the series all the way through, testified that the books would create problems in the

school and could potentially lead to anarchy."

This bothered me for several reasons. Having read the Harry Potter books, and survived

my adolescence without aspiring to anarchy, it seems a ridiculous assumption to say the

books could directly influence children to act out. If her reasoning were to be applied to

all literature, most grade school required readings would need to be recalled. Call of the

Wild might encourage children to run away and live in the forest, and the effects of

Tom Sawyer are probably too appalling to consider.

What bothered me more though, was that throughout the entire ordeal, only 1 board

member had even finished a Harry Potter book. This level of small minded assumptions is

what leads to prejudices we deal with everyday, and yet, when it is explicitly occurring in an

official event, it is still not recognized as improper conduct. Without reading the books,

there is absolutely no way to understand the content being argued over. This same mindset

is what can lead to genocide, terrorism, and other unjust and immoral systems.

Harry Potter Article

In the article we read, I noticed that the primary groups who wanted the Harry Potter books censored were religious groups ‘as a result of their high visibility’ and ‘futuristic supernaturalism, telepathy, and the occult.’ Albeit their claims were ruled in different manners, I question trying to prevent a religious connotation, while at the same time implementing one (however unintentional). In other words how can someone say that these texts are ‘occult’ if they are not themselves holding them up to (in this case) Christian standards themselves? This type of reasoning was echoed in the later part of the article in which the motivations for a vote to restrict Harry Potter were overturned as ‘If the Harry Potter books promoted Christianity he would not object to them.’

Along these lines, I particularly took issue with the wording in some of the cases on both sides. In one case free speech can be restricted if that speech resulted in ‘a material and substantial disruption or that such disruption could be reasonably forecast.’ The issue here are the words ‘reasonably forecast.’ First and foremost the word ‘forecast’ insinuates that a prediction of the future is in order. This in itself can be taken as a ‘religious’ connotation - on some level a suggestion that religion can’t be fully exempt from the courts. Furthermore this is reflection at the heart of censorship in which ‘you read what you want’ into subjects - especially text.

In this same court ruling an issue that was brought up that pertains to wording is that the Harry Potter books “might”promote disobedience and disrespect for authority. To restrict in general begs the question of whether or not awareness makes these speculative turnouts more or less probable. For instance if we don’t discuss firearms at schools does that make these items more alluring - simply because it is ‘forbidden?’ Or does our experiences with these items teach us to respect them? I think this is one of the most unavoidable questions about censorship. A lot of this (an issue somewhat touched on in the article) has to deal with guardian responsibility - and what type of guardian trumps what. Do parents ultimately have the last say, school boards or the individual. At what age do we allow students to make their own decisions? Is their an age limit? Furthermore, with all of these decisions, with what type of mind are we looking at these issues? More a less it turns out to be an adult - because that’s what we read into it. However, do the concepts/issues some adults see with Harry Potter necessarily reflective with the ideas and concepts a juvenile or child might come away from reading this same material?

The last thing I want to quickly mention is that in the very end of the article it seemed as though Harry Potter - a fictional character - was being treated as a real person. What are the consequences of this action?

Parental Censorship

I’ve always thought that censorship concerning children is not always so cut and dry. Gratuitous sex and violence has routinely been the benchmark term for child censorship. In conversations with friends this seems to be the recurring theme and honestly, I don’t disagree. Concerning sex and violence, two of the more primal actions of the human condition, it takes a mature, and more socialized mind to be able to put these things into context. However, above all, I believe it is the parent’s discretion to choose what he or she shows their child and this goes beyond the standard just stated. This leads me to the essay we read concerning the Harry Potter books in public school libraries. What I found troubling the most about the events depicted in this essay were the sweeping changes that occurred because of the opinions of a few parents. A whole series of books being pulled from the shelf is drastic measure to take because of a few fears on Paganism. Many of these parents also seem to have very little faith in their own abilities as parents. I would assume, judging from their complaints about the book series, that many of these parents are regular church going individuals who have tried to teach their children many of the basics of their faith. Yet it seems their great fear is that a fantasy novel will break these teachings and turn them towards less notable ones.
What also surprised me was how these school boards whole heartedly decided to take the reins from the parents they serve. I find it very troubling when public officials make sweeping changes based on the complaints of a few. In this case it seemed almost as if the school officials were given an opportunity to green light a decision based not on the welfare of their schools but on their own personal values. The troubling statement from one of the board members ["if the…books promoted Christianity' he would not object to diem." (DeMitchell, Carney)] painfully exhibits this point.
In general I wish parents would trust their own judgment and not attempt preemptive strikes on wide reaching social institutions like a school system.

Uninformed Censors and Harry Potter

One of the things that bothered me the most while reading this article was when it mentioned the school board member who was “the only one who reported actually reading one of the books from the series all the way through.” (DeMitchell). Although the article did not address this particular issue in how it relates to censorship, I always have been surprised at how many authority figures attempt to censor or restrict books without ever actually reading them. I think that this is highly irresponsible, and also might be part of the reason why censorship cases or issues seem to lead right from one to another – how much of the issue is word of mouth and how much is the text itself? If there is this distance from the text, censorship becomes not about the text itself and what it is teaching or the impressions it is making on students, but on the personal beliefs of the readers, which obviously will not always be in alignment. Perhaps at some level controversy over texts and content is inevitable, but it always amazes me how many censors do not make informed decisions or arguments. Censors are worried about the effect that Harry will have on the children who read the books, but I think they should also worry about children seeing them making unfounded arguments.
I also wondered while reading this article how much the censorship surrounding Harry Potter was heightened by “the series’ high visibility.” A lot of the issues that the censors cited, for example, when one board member claimed that Harry breaks rules and is disobedient, and therefore sets a bad example for children, are incredibly common in young adult literature. The argument that “the books might promote disobedience and disrespect for authority” seems weak, especially when one considers so many classic stories in which characters act against the norm or do what is not expected of them. If we prohibited this particular aspect of a story in schools, there would be no coming-of-age novels left. In reading this article I thought of many books I read when I was younger, for example Edward Eager’s “Half Magic” series, that seem to have a lot of the same content and emphasis on fantasy and magic, but because they never reached the same heights of popularity as Harry were never challenged. In some cases, and in the case of the Harry Potter series, I get the sense that the challenges tend to snowball and together cause the controversy.

Trolls in the Bathroom and other Foreseeable Disruptions

What's most interesting to me about the Harry Potter ban is the justification of avoiding a "substantial disruption," based on the ruling in Tinker v. Des Moines, the landmark Vietnam War era case in which students were suspended from school for wearing black arm bands in protest of the Vietnam War and draft. In the original case, the Des Moines area school district defended the Tinker children's suspension based on the contention that their fashion/political choices were disrupting the school environment by making the school a forum for political debate. The majority opinion stated that the school district's regulation was based on an attempt to avoid controversy, and that a school district cannot limit free speech for the sole reason of quashing dissent or protest. Later restrictions in other cases justified bans, suspensions, and other forms of censorship when speech was "indecent" or promoting illegal activity.

The religious justification for banning Harry Potter is weak at best, especially within the current legal system, but the question of the books causing a "disruption" is clouded to say the least. The political implications of the Harry Potter books are pretty scant, but the school board's fears were behavioral. The article we read said that one board member voted for the ban based on the fact that the series depicts students disobeying school rules out of necessity. (Never mind that when this occurs it is usually for the greater good and involves defeating trolls and evil dark wizards.) S/he feared that students would begin to mimic the behavior they read about in the popular fantasy series.

The assumption that a student would justify disobedience with "but there was a troll in the bathroom" shows how completely out of touch these board members were with their own students. Unless they have any untreated schizophrenics, I highly doubt this is going to occur. In fact, it is probably more likely that a student would justify disobedient behavior as a reaction to overly draconian rules or ignorance of the rules themselves.

I've begun to believe that most censorship comes from a place of condescension, especially when it involves young people. When we begin to give children credit for their own ideas and opinions, when we actually ask them what they see in the Harry Potter books, and when parents stop being scared that they'll lose an idealogical argument with their own kids, then we will have fulfilled the promise of John F. Kennedy, the instigator of the war that the Tinker children protested:

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

"Sometimes the rules need to be broken" is certainly an alien philosophy, if not an unpleasant fact. And though there are times to limit the First Amendment, if we rob our school children of their ability to dissent, what kind of citizens will we have created?

Religious Censorship

I found the conclusion of the article to be the most interesting. As each court ruling sets prescendent for future ones, it is impossible to ignore the huge consequences that censoring a book for "religious" reasons would have on our country. The text references previous decisions saying, "the courts have previously addressed the curricular use of fantasy literature that allegedly promotes witchcraft." But once a book is banned for promoting some type of religious ideas that is separate from the norm, it is impossible to for see where the line could be drawn. This article argues that removing the bible would have to be the next logical step which certainly would backfire on those attempting remove Harry in the first place. We've seen religious censorship all throughout the schools, arguments to against the pledge, or the supreme court case dealing with prayer before football games. It seems to me, most of the decisions allow religious or atheistic influences as long as they are not forced upon the students. In this case, as Harry Potter was not on a required reading list and merely one book among many in the library, the argument against the option of reading it carries little weight.

On a side note, it is interesting to think about the immense influence these books have had on children and reading. It seems as if JK Rowling has almost single handedly got a generation excited to put down the video game and read. And while dealing with issues of censorship, it's tough to swallow adults banning books that made a younger generation passionate to read.

Harry Potter

The debate over Harry Potter is one that I have always taken an interest in. The books came out when I was in elementary school, and my best friend recommended that I read them. My school library had the books, and I started reading. After following the series for years, I do understand that magic is a controversial topic but I never personally felt that it was a source of concern. It seems to me that the best argument for why these books need to be included in libraries is that children should be able to choose what age appropriate material they want to read. If children have to get approval from their parents to read the books, then the chance that they might miss out on learning about something new and broadening their horizons lessens. Additionally, the books are works of fiction and are clearly promoted as such. As a child, I never confused the world of Harry Potter with the real world, it was a book and I understood that it was not true. I grew up with Disney and fables that contained magic and witchcraft, and as a result I was used to knowing that these stories were not real. Although, often the intent is to protect a child from material that might be disturbing or harmful to them, it also keeps the child from finding their own path and understanding the world in their own unique way.
The main argument against Harry Potter is that, “The books might promote disobedience and disrespect for authority,” (DeMitchell, Carney). As the paper illustrates, the might included in that statement shows that there is no concrete evidence. This reminds me of the film we watched in class this past week. While all of the adults were concerned with the children of the town possibly being negatively impacted by the production of Grease, the children had a different view. One pre-teen who was interviewed made it clear she could separate fiction from reality stating something to the similar to, “It’s just a play, I know they are characters.” It does not mean that maybe at some level she thought these kids seemed cool, and maybe would want to emulate them. The problem is that maybe does not cut it. If we never allowed children to see things that contain controversial material, then they would never understand the world. Everything can be seen as controversial to someone. I think we do need to decide what is age appropriate and create boundaries that way, but I cannot agree with restricting ideas and materials that can allow a child to learn more.

Welcome to Censored Texts!

Dear Class:

Welcome to Censored Texts! For your first post, last names that start with A-M please respond to the Harry Potter article by Sunday night!

Sincerely,

Professor Newman