8/14/2019 Bradshaw, L - The 3 Rs of Censorship_4page

1/4

The 3 R's of Censorshipvs. the 3 R's of Freedom To ReadLillianMoore BradshawDirectorDallas PublicLibraryDallas,Texas

A FEW years ago, there was a popularsong which encouraged one to "ac-centuate the positive and eliminate thenegative." These lines are keys to myfeelings about censorship.I, as a librarian, consider censorship asa negative approach to education andfreedom to read as a positive approachto education. Therefore, I believe thatcensorship should be eliminated and free-dom to read be accentuated.

I have been asked to comment hereon the reasons which I might have fordevoting myself, as a librarian and as awoman, to the cause of freedom to read.Since I'm a woman only by chance buta librarian by choice, let's take thelibrarian'spoint of view.First, I'm not going to tell you howto select books nor what books to select.Since you are all professionals, I knowthat your classrooms, like my libraries,do not contain pornography, obscene

literature, or "dirty" books . . . but weget into trouble just the same. Nor, am Igoing to suggest what steps you shouldtake if you become involved in a cen-sorship matter. You already have one ofthe best guides available, in the NCTEpamphlet,The Students'Right To Read.This brochure is well-written, fair, ob-jective, and certainly provides the criticwith a full opportunity to present hisstory-incidentally, it is required readingfor all of our Dallas public librarians.Instead, I would like to share withyou some experiences and some reasonsas to why I do believe that freedom toread represents, not just a positive ap-proach to education, but a mandatoryone that all of us must support.For me, it all goes back to an experi-ence I had many years ago. It was duringWorld War II, and I was a public li-brarian working with young adults onthe staff of the Enoch Pratt Library inBaltimore.Late one afternoon, a teen-ager cameinto our department. He came in awk-wardly and hesitantly, looking aroundhim in puzzlement at the rather awesome

Note: This paper was presented in a sym-posium on "Censorshipand the Teaching ofEnglish" at the Houston convention of NCTE,November 1966.

1007

8/14/2019 Bradshaw, L - The 3 Rs of Censorship_4page

2/4

1008 ENGLISH JOURNALspectacle of the big library. He had ona pair of soiled jeans and a rumpledshirt. He was obviously not comfortableat being where he was. I let him lookaround for awhile because, like so manyteen-agers, he didn't want anyone, cer-tainly not an adult, to think there wasanything-just anything-he couldn'thandle by himself. Finally, I wanderedover and said something like "Hi!How're you doin'?" Well, he wasn'tabout to tell me how he was doin! So Isaid, "Finding what you want?" At thispoint he hadn't found a thing but hewasn't going to admit it. Pretty soon hewandered around again and this time hesaid "Where are the bographies?" I tookhim over to the shelf and asked him ifhe wanted to read about anyone special.He told me it didn't matter to him. Hejust had to have a book from the library,or he couldn't go back to class the nextday. So I showed him several biographiesof sports stars, popular musicians, warheroes. He looked at them and said "Gee,but these guys ain't even dead!" Wetalked a bit about how you get a bookwritten about you before you're dead,and he took two with him. He didn'tsay "Thanks." I doubt if he ever did. Butas he left, he turned around and lookedat the library and said "Geez-all thembooks about all them people." Now Iwish I could tell you that he became atop reader of all the English classics-buthe didn't. However, he did come backand, together, we read a lot of thembooks and books which he chose becausehe wanted to read.

OW, it's because of such a youngsterwho wants to read and the thou-sands more I've encountered in almostthirty years of being a public librarian,that I believe the privilege of reading andthe freedom to read are worth fightingfor; and I do mean "fighting for" whennecessary.Basically, it involves two questions ofprinciple:

1. Do you have faith in man'sability todevelophimself asan individual?2. Do you have faith that the Americanway of life provides this freedom forpersonaldevelopment?

Here again, the censors won't quarrelwith these principles so where does theproblem lie? It lies in an attitude of thosewho would censor books: an attitudethat only they can tell what is best fortheir fellowman and a desire to keepeveryone, family, friends and enemies,untouched by the realistic happenings oftoday's world. This is not and can notbe synonymous with quality educationwhich most of us want for our children.Quality education has always de-manded the old-fashioned and highlyrespected 3 R's, the 3 R's with which weare so familiar.But whether good readingremains as one of the 3 R's depends onsome other R's. Very simply, it dependson whether you accept the 3 R's of

Censorship or fight for the 3 R's ofFreedom To Read. Each of us as teachersand librarians must decide for himselfwhich we will support.To me, the 3 R's of Censorship arerepresented by Rigidity of purpose,Regimentationof action, and Resistanceto change. Let's look briefly at each one.First, Rigidity of purpose. Often, theperson who wants to control reading ischaracterized by an adamant belief inhis own views. He is intolerant of allother views and oblivious to the fact thatthis desire to control the thought and,therefore, the education of others is initself a deterrent to the development ofhis child. A friend of mine who enjoys agood discussion says that "absolute cer-tainty is the only privilege of the unedu-cated mind"; and absolute certainty isoften one of the characteristics of thosewho would censor reading. No amountof documentation, no amount of evi-dence can convince them that their causeis not totally pure and wholly just. Forexample, many will continue to argue

8/14/2019 Bradshaw, L - The 3 Rs of Censorship_4page

3/4

THE 3 R'S OF CENSORSHIP 1009that books areoften the cause of juveniledelinquency.You answer that if this isso, then why do public librarybrancheslocated in the highest crime areashavethe lowest amountof reading.But thesequestioners eek no answer and want noanswer.Rigidity of purposepreventsanopenmind.Second, Regimentation of action.Much censorship s the work of groups.These groups produce canned letters tothe editor and pre-determinedquestionsat meetingsand agitatecensorshipcam-paignswhich breakout in variouspartsof the country at the same time. Now,when you know that Book X is underattack on the West coast and the sametitle is under attack on the East coastand suddenly it hits your hometown,this isn't all chance.This is planning,andthe planningis not often done in yourhometown. One of the first indicationsyou may have of such an affaircan be aletter to your school or to your news-paper. The chances are that the letterwas suggested for distribution by agroup outside of your community. InDallasa few years ago, this method ofletter-writing provided us with one ofour first clues that such an attack on asingle book was coming. Since we sub-scribe to a variety of newsletters,weknew wherethe original etterwasgiven,where instructions were printed, andhow it was to be used. Because t hadn'toriginated ocally and we could proveit,this incident was easierto fight. But itwas Regimentationof methodinsteadoforiginal thinking which pointed up thefallacy of the local censorshipobjection.I would heartily recommend that yoube aware of the AmericanLibraryAs-sociation'spublication,Newsletteron In-tellectualFreedom, n which many suchcasesarereported.You can, in this way,be awareaheadof time of problemareasin which Regimentationof thinkinghasbeen formalized.

Third, Resistance to change. Recently,I heard a minister say that much of the

cry for censorshipcomes from parentswho are scared o deathby their respon-sibility to their children. Often parentalhorizonsare the sameaswhen they wentto school. The father hasn't expandedhis own vision and doesn'twant to copewith a changedand changingworld. Amother would like her children to feelthat life is all sweetnessandlight. One ofthe saddestwomen I've ever served as alibrarianwas a middle-agedwomanwhowould read nothing but the Grace Liv-ingstonHill stories.She lived in her owndream world. Her marriagehad failed;her childrenwere failures.All this whileshe searched for this never-never landin which there was no uglinessnor un-happiness.Books should be catalystsfordevelopment,not narcotics to producea dreamworld. But so often our thirdRof Censorship,Resistance to change, isthe reason or fearof the present.

OW, if you say there are 3 R's ofCensorship, here are also 3 R's ofFreedomTo Read. If we believe in thefreedom to read, then for you and forme, these 3 R's can represent threeopportunities.I call these three R's: (1) Refinementof taste, (2) Relevancyfor our time,and(3) Responsibility or action.And again,let'slookbrieflyat eachone.First,Refinementof taste.JohnCiardi,writingrecently in the SaturdayReview,said that because he could not vote toban a book, it didn'tmean he wouldn'treserve the right to damn t. I think thatherein lies one of our greatestchallenges.As professionalsn the field of teachingand reading,we have an ever-increasingresponsibilityto point out that artisticcreation involves discipline, and disci-pline requiressevere standardsof tasteandproduction.We havethe chance andthe responsibilityo developa generationmore discerning han ours,more criticalthan ours-especially where quality ofwriting is concerned. Trashy writingonly exists because there is a market for

8/14/2019 Bradshaw, L - The 3 Rs of Censorship_4page

4/4

1010 ENGLISH JOURNALit andmuchof thisisanadultmarket.

Unfortunately, you don't hear theword "Refinement"very often thesedays but I recommend t. I think it haswithin it a suggestion of this opportu-nity, which is ours, to develop in ourreaders a discriminatingtaste for thebest. But such taste can only be devel-oped in an atmosphere ree to compare.Such standardof taste, upheld by thosequalified to make it and not by self-appointed censors, must reinforce thewriter's senseof his responsibility o hiscalling and the publisher's esponsibilityto his audience.This is very much ourconcern as people who believe in thebook.The second R on the affirmative ideis Relevancy, relevancy for our times.In this age of mini-skirt, un and gameswith VirginiaWoolf, stressesand strainsof objections to many establishedpat-terns, it's rather unrealistic to expectstudents to relish only the Victoriannovel. Much of our censorshiphas beendirected to these titles which are of ourtime: Grapes of Wrath, 1984, Catcherin the Rye. These are a long way fromthedaysof St.Elmo,but so arewe.Recently the Dallas Morning News,a respectableand conservativejournal,had an editorial titled "Heading for1984?".And as I read t, I wonderedhowa student of today would read a news-paper, intelligently and with awareness,if somewherehe hadn'theardof Orwell'snovel, 1984? It's exposureto the prob-lems of modem living which causesometo put their heads in the sand and cry"obscene."Unfortunately,the times arewith us, and our studentsmust under-stand the causes and the effects if theyare to build the better world we adultsso glibly describe.Removingall readingmatterwhich displeasesn orderto curethe problem s a little like removingtheautomobile o solve our trafficproblems.

The valuesof society are relevant o ourtimes, and we must live with them be-cause we made them. We mustrecognizethat freedom to read includes bookswhich do haveRelevancyfor our times.The third R for FreedomTo Read isthe mostimportant o me-Responsibilityfor action. If we wish to preservethisfreedom, we must be willing to standup for our academic reedoms.We mustbe willing to speakout for the right toteach,and we must seekhelpfrom othersaround us. Our question should be"Don't you want your children to beable to make healthy choices betweenthe ugly and the beautiful,between thegood and the evil?" Censorship,withall of its good intentions,so often suc-ceeds only in underscoring he sick andthe abnormal.Our chief professional e-sponsibilityis to see that we can truth-fully educatein such a mannerthat wewill condition our students o cope withthe realities of living. To do so meansthat you and I must take the Responsi-bility for action, the Responsibilityforspeakingup in favor of thisfreedom.Giving into the pressuresof censor-ship resemblesthe act of dissecting anorange.One day you remove a book onreligion and one segment is gone; thenext, a book on sex and anothersegmentis gone; then one on government;nextone on health.Soon, what do you haveleft of your orange?There remainsonlya pulpy stem without any strengthof itsown and, with its supporting segmentsremoved,no reason or existence.

Only our personalconscienceand ourprofessionalresponsibilitystand in theway of this happening o schoolsand tolibraries.Only our personalconscienceand our professional esponsibility tandin the way of this happening to thefreedom to teach and the freedom toread. The choice as well as the opportu-nity isyoursandmine.