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.
No comments:
Post a Comment