Recently, a Newberry Award-winning book has been the spark igniting the powder keg that is censorship in libraries and schools across the country. Librarians and teachers alike are banning together to protect our children from such vile, disgusting filth, the likes of which some people would rather see burned than placed in a library of any sort, because if one child were to part the pages of this nationally reviewed and widely accepted book, then they would be irreversibly scarred with such teachings as could only lead to a life of crime and depravity. You might now be wondering what could be so horrible that public outrage would be stirred and the hornets nest that is the public school and library system would grow enraged enough to propose a full-out censorship program. The answer is an anecdote in “The Higher Power of Lucky” about a dog being bitten on the scrotum by a snake. I emphasize the word scrotum because this is the springboard that the campaign is being launched from, dubbing the word “too vulgar” for youth aged 10 to 14 years.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that, if we continue to treat our youth, each other and the world as one large group of idiots that has nothing better to do than snicker whenever a reference to genitalia is made, then we will all grow into one large group of idiots that has nothing better to do than snicker whenever a reference to genitalia is made.
Instead of avoiding a topic because it might cause a child to ask, “What’s scrotum?” maybe, just maybe, we should answer them in a coherent fashion. I would think that as the level of education in America, and especially in the South, quickly declines, and drop-out rates and teenage pregnancy escalate, we would take on the challenge of educating the next generation to the best possible extent, no matter how uncomfortable it might make us.
The people pushing such an ignorant idea as banning a book because of “vulgar” language are no more protecting the children than they are protecting themselves from having to answer some uncomfortable questions. The only thing that censorship of this type can lead to is a generation lost among a world that isn’t a perfectly sheltered place, and never will be. Instead of avoiding these subjects, we should embrace them as an opportunity to steer education in the proper direction. After all, a word in itself means nothing without the meaning that we ourselves have applied to it.
On this note, I shall digress for just a moment to tie this mindset into that of the now infamous “no child left behind” strategy proposed and put into action by a president who has the keen intellect and sharp wit of a struggling eighth grader affected by this ill-conceived education plan. For those of you not familiar with this plan, it states that in only a few short years, all children, including those in all special education classes, should be able to pass a nationally standardized test with a minimum score of 80 percent.
If you can’t see the flaw in this, then allow me to word it as plainly as possible. For all children to pass a standardized test, the curriculum in schools must be watered down to the point of being barely passable as any form of actual education. With such ludicrously low standards already placed on education in the United States, why would anyone want to further deny our youth the opportunity to acquire knowledge? There is already a growing problem with our culture encouraging children to shun learning as something “uncool.”
Back on topic, such a blatant act of censorship raises a question of the flaw so obviously inherent in all acts of censorship. Who decides what should be censored, and what do they base these decisions on? If I were to say that the works of Dr. Seuss encouraged drug usage, and should therefore be banned for all eternity, to stunt the ever-growing drug consumption of America, would anyone agree?
Personally, I believe that this is nothing more than part of the ever-growing fad of blame shifting. Maybe we should teach the truth in an impartial manner. Education is important, and there is no way around it. So why does anyone want to corrupt the principle of educating in as broad and impartial a manner as possible? The only thing that censorship can lead to is the coercion of minds, and this is the opposite of what education in America should be, a free intellectual exchange.
Every day, acts of censorship go unnoticed and unopposed, and by no means am I saying George Carlin’s list of dirty words should be played on the radio constantly. But when intellectual works are censored for a single word, which isn’t even vulgar, it ceases to be protection, and grows into a derisive action, driving us deeper into a state of general dismay.