The current edition of The Students' Right to Read is an adaptation and updating of the original Council Statement, including "Citizen's Request for Reconsideration of a Work," prepared by the Committee on the Right to Read of the National Council of Teachers of English.

Edward R. Gordon, Yale University, Chair Martin Steinmann, University of Minnesota, Associate Chair

Harold B. Alien, University of Minnesota Frank A. Doggett, D.U. Fletcher High School, Jacksonville Beach. Florida

Jack Fields, Great Neck South High School, New York

Graham S. Frear, St. Olaf College. Minnesota Robert Gard, Camelback High School, Phoenix, Arizona

Frank Boss, Detroit Public Schools, Michigan Warren Taylor, Oberlin College, Ohio

The 1972 edition, as prepared by Kenneth L Donelson, in 1982 was updated and greatly shortened for the sake of wider and complimentary distribution, and to acknowledge the issue of a new and complementary publication, The Students' Right to Know.

Permission is granted to reproduce in whole or in part the material in this publication, with proper credit to the National Council of Teachers of English. Because of specific local problems, some schools may wish to modify the statements and arrange separately for printing or duplication. In such cases, of course, it should be made clear that revised statements appear under the authorization and sponsorship of the local school or association, not NCTE.

The Students' Right to Read

The Right to Read and the Teacher of English

For many years, American schools have been pressured to restrict or deny students access to books or periodicals deemed objectionable by some individual or group on moral, political, religious, ethnic, racial, or philosophical grounds. These pressures have mounted in recent years, and English teachers have no reason to believe they will diminish. The fight against censorship is a continuing series of skirmishes, not a pitched battle leading to a final victory over censorship.

We can safely make two statements about censorship: first, any work is potentially open to attack by someone, somewhere, sometime, for some reason;

second, censorship is often arbitrary and irrational. For example, classics traditionally used in English classrooms have been accused of containing obscene, heretical, or subversive elements. What English teacher could anticipate judgments such as the following—judgments characteristic of those made by many would-be censors:

Plato's Republic: "This book is un-Christian." George Eliot's Silas Marner: "You can't prove what that dirty old man is doing with that child between chapters."

Jules Verne's Around the World in Eighty Days:

"Very unfavorable to Mormons."

Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter: "A filthy book."

Shakespeare's Macbeth: "Too violent for children today."

Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment:

'”Serves as a poor model for young people."

Herman Melville's Moby Dick: "Contains homosexuality."

Modern works, even more than the classics, are criticized as "filthy," "un-American," "overly realistic" and "anti-war." Some books have been attacked merely for being "controversial," suggesting that for some people the purpose of education is not the investigation of ideas but rather the indoctrination of certain set beliefs and standards. The following statements represent complaints typical of those made against modern works of literature:

J.D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye: "A dreadful dreary recital of sickness, sordidness, and sadism." (Without much question. Salinger's book has been for some time the most widely censored book in the United States.)

Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five: "Its repetitious obscenity and immorality merely degrade and defile, teaching nothing.

Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird: "The word rape is used several times. Children should not see this in any literature book."

Some groups and individuals have also raised objections to literature written specifically for young people. As long as novels intended for young people stayed at the intellectual and emotional level of A Date for Marcy or A Touchdown for Thunderbird High, censors could forego criticism. But many contemporary novels for adolescents focus on the real world of young people—drugs, premarital sex, alcoholism, divorce, high school gangs, school drop-outs, racism, violence, and sensuality. English teachers willing to defend the classics and modern literature must be prepared to give equally spirited defense to serious and worthwhile adolescent novels.

Literature about ethnic or racial minorities remains "controversial" or "objectionable" to many adults. As long as groups such as blacks, Indians, orientals, Chicanos, and Puerto Ricans "kept their proper place"—awarded them by an Anglo society-censors rarely raised their voices. But attacks have increased in frequency as minority groups have refused to observe their assigned "place." Though nominally the criticisms of racial or ethnic literature have usually been directed at "bad language," "suggestive situations," "questionable literary merit," or "ungrammatical English" (usually oblique complaints about the different dialect or culture of a group), the underlying motive for some attacks has unquestionably been racial. Typical of censors' criticisms of ethnic works are the following comments:

Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man: "The book is biased on the black question.”

Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl: "Obscene and blasphemous.”

Eldridge Cleaver's Soul on Ice: "Totally objectionable and without any literary value.”

Books are not alone in being subject to censorship. Magazines or newspapers used, recommended, or referred to in English classes have increasingly drawn the censor's fire. Few libraries would regard their periodical collections as worthwhile or representative without some or all of the following publications, but all of them have been the target

of censors on occasion:

National Geographic: "Nudity and sensationalism, especially in stories on barbaric foreign people." Scholastic Magazine:

"Doctrines opposing the beliefs of the majority, socialistic programs;

National Observer: "Right-wing trash with badly reported news."

New York Times: "That thing should be outlawed after printing the Pentagon papers and helping our country’s enemies.”

The immediate results of demands to censor books or periodicals vary. At times, school boards and administrators have supported and defended their teachers, their use of materials under fire, and the student's right of access to the materials. At other times, however, special committees have been formed to cull out "objectionable works" or "modern trash" or "controversial literature." Some teachers have been summarily reprimanded for assigning certain works, even to mature students. Others have been able to retain their positions only after initiating court action.

Not as sensational, but perhaps more important, are the long range results. Schools have removed from libraries and classrooms and English teachers have avoided using or recommending works which might make members of the community angry. Many students are consequently "educated" in a school atmosphere hostile to free inquiry. And many teachers learn to emphasize their own safety rather than their students' needs.

The problem of censorship does not derive solely from the small anti-intellectual, ultra-moral, or ultra-patriotic groups that will always function in a society that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The present concern is rather with the frequency and force of attacks by others, often people of good will and the best intentions, some from within the teaching profession. The National Council of Teachers of English, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Library Association, as well as the publishing industry and writers themselves, agree: pressures for censorship are great throughout our society.

The material that follows is divided into two sections. The first on "The Right to Read" is addressed to parents and the community at large. Separately printed by NCTE, it may be obtained in quantity for distribution. The other section, "A Program of Action," lists Council recommendations for establishing professional committees in every school to set up procedures for book selection, to work for community support, and to review complaints against any book or periodical.

The Right to Read

An open letter to the citizens

of our country from the National Council

of Teachers of English

Where suspicion fills the ait and holds scholars in line for fear of their jobs, there can be no exercise of the free intellect…. A problem can no longer be pursued with impunity to its edges. Fear stalks the classroom. The teacher is no longer a stimulant to adventurous thinking; she becomes instead a pipe line for safe and sound information. A deadening dogma takes the place of free inquiry. Instruction tends to become sterile; pursuit of knowledge is discouraged; discussion often leaves off where it should begin.

Justice William O. Douglas,

United States Supreme Court:

Adler v. Board of Education, 1952.

The right to read, like all rights guaranteed or implied within our constitutional tradition, can be used wisely or foolishly. In many ways, education is an effort to improve the quality of choices open to alt students, but to deny the freedom of choice in fear that it may be unwisely used is to destroy the freedom itself. For this reason, we respect the right of individuals to be selective in their own reading. But for the same reason, we oppose efforts of individuals or groups: to limit the freedom of choice of others or to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large.

The right of any individual not just to read but to read whatever he or she wants to read is basic to a democratic society. This right is based on an assumption that the educated possess judgment and understanding and can be trusted with the determination of their own actions. In effect, the reader is freed from the bonds of chance. The reader is not limited by birth, geographic location, or time, since reading allows meeting people, debating philosophies, and experiencing events far beyond the narrow confines of an individual's own existence.

In selecting books for reading by young people, English teachers consider the contribution that each work may make to the education of the reader, its aesthetic value, its honesty, its readability for a particular group of students, and its appeal to adolescents. English teachers, however, may use different works for different purposes. The criteria for choosing a work to be read by an entire class are somewhat different from the criteria for choosing works to be read by small groups. For example, a teacher might select

John Knowles’ A Separate Peace for reading by an entire class, partly because the book has received wide critical recognition, partly because it is relatively short and will keep the attention of many slow readers, and partly because it has proved popular with many students of widely differing abilities. The same teacher, faced with the responsibility of choosing or recommending books for several small groups of students, might select or recommend books as different as Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, Jack Schaefer's Shane, Alexander Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, Pierre Boulle's The Bridge over the River Kwai, Charles Dickens' Great Expectations, or Paul Zindel's The Pigman, depending upon the abilities and interests of the students in each group. And the criteria for suggesting books to individuals or for recommending something worth reading for a student who casually stops by after class are different from selecting material for a class or group. But the teacher selects, not censors, books. Selection implies that a teacher is free to choose this or that work, depending upon the purpose to be achieved and the student or class in question, but a book selected this year may be ignored next year, and the reverse. Censorship implies that certain works are not open to selection, this year or any year.

Wallace Stevens once wrote, "Literature is the better part of life. To this it seems inevitably necessary to add, provided life is the better part of literature." Students and parents have the right to demand that education today keep students in touch with the reality of the world outside the classroom. Much of classic literature asks questions as valid and significant today as when the literature first appeared, questions like "What is the nature of humanity?" "Why do people praise individuality and practice conformity?" "What do people need for a good life?" and "What is the nature of the good person?" But youth is the age of revolt. To pretend otherwise is to ignore a reality made clear to young people and adults alike on television and radio, in newspapers and magazines. English teachers must be free to employ books, classic or contemporary, which do not lie to the young about the perilous but wondrous times we live in, books which talk of the fears, hopes, joys, and frustrations people experience, books about people not only as they are but as they can be. English teachers forced through the pressures of censorship to use only safe or antiseptic works are placed in the morally and intellectually untenable position of lying to their students about the nature and condition of mankind.

The teacher must exercise care to select or recommend works for class reading and group discussion. One of the most important responsibilities

of the English teacher is developing rapport and respect among students. Respect for the uniqueness and potential of the individual, an important facet of the study of literature, should be emphasized in the English class. Literature classes should reflect the cultural contributions of many minority groups in the United States, just as they should acquaint students with contributions from the peoples of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

The Threat to Education

Censorship leaves students with an inadequate and distorted picture of the ideals, values, and problems of their culture. Writers may often represent their culture, or they may stand to the side and describe and evaluate that culture. Yet partly because of censorship or the fear of censorship, many writers are ignored or inadequately represented in the public schools, and many are represented in anthologies not by their best work but by their "safest" or "least offensive" work.

The censorship pressures receiving the greatest publicity are those of small groups who protest the use of a limited number of books with some "objectionable" realistic elements, such as Brave New World, Lord of the Flies, Catcher in the rye, Johnny Got His Gun, Catch-22, Soul on Ice, or A Day No Pigs Would Die. The most obvious and immediate victims are often found among our best and most creative English teachers, those who have ventured outside the narrow boundaries of conventional texts. Ultimately, however, the real victims are the students, denied the freedom to explore ideas and pursue truth wherever and however they wish.

Great damage may be done by book committees appointed by national or local organizations to pore over anthologies, texts, library books, and paperbacks to find passages that advocate, or seem to advocate, causes or concepts or practices these organizations condemn. As a result, some publishers, sensitive to possible objections, carefully exclude sentences or selections that might conceivably offend some group, somehow, sometime, somewhere.

The Community's Responsibility

American citizens who care about the improvement of education are urged to join students, teachers, librarians, administrators, boards of education, and professional and scholarly organizations in support of the students' right to read. Only widespread and informed

support in every community can assure that enough citizens are interested in the development and maintenance of a superior school system to guarantee its achievement; malicious gossip, ignorant rumors, and deceptive letters to the editor will not be circulated without challenge and correction; newspapers will be convinced that the public sincerely desires objective school news reporting, free from slanting or editorial comment which destroys confidence in and support for schools; the community will not permit its resources and energies to be dissipated in conflicts created by special interest groups striving to advance their ideologies or biases; and faith in democratic traditions and processes will be maintained.

A Program of Action

Censorship in schools is a widespread problem. Teachers of English, librarians, and school administrators can best serve students, literature, and the profession today if they prepare now to face pressures sensibly, demonstrating on the one hand a willingness to consider the merits of any complaint and on the other the courage to defend their literature program with intelligence and vigor. The Council therefore recommends that every school undertake the following two-step program to protect the students’ right to read:

the establishment of a representative committee to consider book selection procedures and to screen complaints; and

a vigorous campaign to establish a community atmosphere in which local citizens may be enlisted to support the freedom to read.

Procedures for Book Selection

Although one may defend the freedom to read without reservation as one of the hallmarks of a free society, there is no substitute for informed, professional, and qualified book selection. English teachers are better qualified to choose and recommend books for their classes than persons not prepared in the field. Nevertheless, administrators have certain legal and professional responsibilities. For these reasons and as a matter of professional courtesy, they should be kept informed about the criteria and the procedures used by English teachers in selecting books and the titles of the books used.

In each school the English department should develop its own statement explaining why literature is taught and how books are chosen for each class. This statement should be on file with the administration before any complaints are received. The statement should also support the teacher's right to

choose supplementary materials and to discuss controversial issues insofar as they are relevant. Operating within such a policy, the English department should take the following steps:

Establish a committee to help other English teachers find exciting and challenging books of potential value to students in a specific school. Schools without departments or small schools with a few

English teachers should organize a permanent committee charged with the responsibility of alerting other teachers to new books just published or old books now forgotten which might prove valuable in the literature program.

Devote time at each department meeting to reviews and comments by the above committee or plan special meetings for this purpose. Free and open meetings to discuss books of potential value to students would seem both reasonable and normal for any English department. Teachers should be encouraged to challenge any books recommended or to suggest titles hitherto ignored. Require that each English teacher give a rationale for any book to be read by an entire class. Written rationales for all books read by an entire class would serve the department well if censorship should strike. A file of rationales should serve as impressive evidence to the administration and the community that English teachers have not chosen their books lightly or haphazardly.

Report to the administration the books that will be used for class reading by each English teacher.

Such a procedure gives each teacher the right to expect support from fellow teachers and administrators whenever someone objects to a book.

The Legal Problem

Apart from the professional and moral issues involved in censorship, there are legal matters about which NCTE cannot give advice. The Council is not a legal authority: Across the nation, moreover, conditions vary so much that no one general principle applies. In some states, for example, textbooks are purchased from public funds and supplied free to students; in others, students must rent or buy their own texts.

The legal status of textbook adoption lists also varies. Some lists include only those books which must be taught and allow teachers freedom to select additional titles; other lists are restrictive, containing the only books that may be required for all students.

As a part of sensible preparations for handling attacks on books, each school should ascertain what laws apply to it.

Preparing the Community

To respond to complaints about books, every school should have a committee of teachers (and possibly students, parents, and other representatives from the community) organized to inform the community about book selection procedures;

enlist the support of citizens, possibly by explaining the place of literature in the educational process or by discussing at meetings of parents and other community groups the books used at that school; and consider any complaints against any work.

No community is so small that it lacks concerned people who care about their children and the educational program of the schools. No community is so small that it lacks readers who will support the English teachers in defending books when complaints are received. Unhappily, English teachers too often fail to seek out these people and to cultivate their good will and support before censorship strikes.

Defending the Books

Despite the care taken to select worthwhile books for student reading and the qualifications of teachers selecting and recommending books, occasional objections to a work will undoubtedly be made. All books are potentially open to criticism in one or more general areas: the treatment of ideologies, of minorities, of love and sex; the use of language not acceptable to some people; the type of illustrations;

the private life or political affiliations of the author or, in a few cases, the illustrator.

If some attacks are made by groups or individuals frankly hostile to free inquiry and open discussion, others are made by misinformed or misguided people who, acting on emotion or rumor, simply do not understand how the books are to be used. Others are made by well-intentioned and conscientious people who fear that harm will come to some segment of the community if a particular book is read or recommended.

What should be done upon receipt of a complaint?

If the complainant telephones, listen courteously and refer him or her to the teacher involved. That teacher should be the first person to discuss the book with the person objecting to its use.

If the complainant is not satisfied, invite him or her to file the complaint in writing, but make no commitments, admissions of guilt, or threats.

If the complainant writes, contact the teacher involved and let that teacher call the complainant.

Sometimes the problem seems less serious and more easily resolved through personal contact over the phone. If the complainant is not satisfied, invite him or her to file the complaint in writing on a form prepared for this purpose. (See sample.)

Citizen’s Request

For Reconsideration of a Work

Author ___________________________ Paperback _____

Title ___________________________________________

Publisher (If known) _______________________________

Request initiated by _______________________________

Telephone _____________ Address__________________

City________________________ Zip Code ____________

Complaint represents

__ Himself/Herself

__ (Name organization) ___________________

__ (Identify other group)___________________

1. Have you been able to discuss this work with the teacher or librarian who ordered it or who used it? 

__ Yes         __ No

2. What do you understand to be the general purpose for using this work?

1. Provide support for a unit in the curriculum?

__ Yes        __ No

2. Provide a learning experience for the reader in one kind of literature?

__ Yes        __ No

3. Other _________________________________

______________________________________

3. Did the general purpose for the use of the work, as described by the teacher or librarian, seem a suitable one to you? 

__ Yes         __ No

If not, please explain. _________________________

___________________________________________

4. What do you think is the general purpose of the author in this book? _______________________________

__________________________________________

5. In what ways do you think a work of this nature is not suitable for the use the teacher or librarian wishes to carry out? _________________________________

__________________________________________

6. Have you been able to learn what the students’ response to this work is? 

__ Yes         __ No

7. What response did the student make? _______________________________________________________________ ______________________
8. Have you been able to learn from your school library what book reviewers or other students of literature have written about this work? 

__ Yes         __ No

9. Would you like the teacher or librarian to give you a written summary of what book reviewers and other students have written about this book or film? 

__ Yes         __ No

10. Do you have negative reviews of the book? 

__ Yes         __ No

11. Where were they published? ___________________
12. Would you be willing to provide summaries of the reviews you have collected? 

__ Yes         __ No

13. What would you like your library/school to do about this work?

__ Do not assign/lend it to my child.

__ Return it to the staff selection committee/department for reevaluation

__ Other-Please explain. ______________________

__________________________________________

14. In its place, what would work would you recommend that would convey as valuable a picture and perspective of the subject treated? ______________________________

___________________________________________

Signature ______________

Date ______________

At first, except for politely acknowledging the complaint and explaining the established procedures, the English teacher should do nothing. The success of much censorship depends upon frightening an unprepared school or English department into some precipitous action. A standardized procedure will take the sting from the first outburst of criticism. When the responsible objector learns that he or she will be given a fair hearing through following the proper channels, he or she is more likely to be satisfied. The idle censor, on the other hand, may well be discouraged from taking further action. A number of advantages will be provided by the form, which will

formalize the complaint,

indicate specifically the work in question, identify the complainant.

suggest how many others support the complaint, require the complainant to think through objections in order to make an intelligent statement on work (1,2, and 3),

cause the complainant to evaluate the work for other groups than merely the one he or she first hand in mind (4),

establish his or her familiarity with the work (5), give the complainant an opportunity to consider the criticism about the work and the teacher's purpose in using the work (6. 7, and 8), and

give the complaint an opportunity to suggest alternative actions to be taken on the work (9 and 10).

The committee reviewing complaints should be available on short notice to consider the completed “Citizen's Request for Reconsideration of a Work" and to call in the complainant and the teacher involved for a conference. Members of the committee should have reevaluated the work in advance of the meeting and the group should be prepared to explain its findings. Membership of the committee should ordinarily include an administrator, the English department chair, and at least two classroom teachers of English. But the department might consider the advisability of including members from the community and the local or state NCTE affiliate. As

a matter of course, recommendations from the committee would be forwarded to the superintendent, who would in turn submit them to the board of education, the legally constituted authority in the school.

Teachers and administrators should recognize that the responsibility for selecting works for class study lies with classroom teachers and that the responsibility for reevaluating any work begins with the review committee. Both teachers and administrators should refrain from discussing the objection with the complainant, the press, or community groups. Once the complaint has been filed, the authority for handling the situation must ultimately rest with the administration and school board.

Freedom of inquiry is essential to education in a democracy. To establish conditions essential for freedom, teachers and administrators need to follow procedures similar to those recommended here. Where schools resist unreasonable pressures, the cases are seldom publicized and students continue to read works as they wish. The community that entrusts students to the care of an English teacher should also trust that teacher to exercise professional judgment in selecting or recommending books. The English teacher can be free to teach literature, and students can be free to read whatever they wish only if informed and vigilant groups, within the profession and without, unite in resisting unfair pressures.

Resources

Special materials to assist teachers and administrators are available from the National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801.

The Students' Right to Read. Additional copies of this statement are available upon request.

Censors in the Classroom: The Mind Benders. Edward 8. Jenkinson. Southern Illinois University Press, 1979

Censorship Game and How to Play It. Benjamin C. Cox. The National Council for the Social Studies Bulletin, No. 50. Washington, D.C., 1977

Dealing with Censorship. Ed. James E. Davis. National Council of Teachers of English, 1979

Lobbying for Freedom: A Citizen's Guide to Fighting Censorship at the State Level. St. Martin's Press, 1975

Students' Right to Know. Eds. Lee Burress and Edward B. Jenkinson. National Council of Teachers of English. 1982

Valuable material is also available from the American Library Association, 50 East Huron Street, Chicago. Illinois 60611, particularly the Library Bill of Rights and the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, the latter a bi-monthly publication available by subscription.

Guidelines for Dealing with Censorship of Nonprint and Multimedia Materials

by the NCTE Standing Committee Against Censorship
(revised October 2004)

Introduction

Democratic government depends on an educated citizenry, on a population capable of thinking independently and critically about complex matters of public policy.  Preparing students to become active and engaged citizens has always been the central function of public education in the United States.  Every student consequently has a right to a free, appropriate, and meaningful education, an education that provides access to the most current research, to the latest thinking, and to the newest technology available.  As an advocate for student and teacher rights, the National Council of Teachers of English has formulated the following guidelines to see that students receive the education to which they are entitled. 

Today, nonprint and multimedia sources have joined books, newspapers, journals, and magazines as primary means through which knowledge and culture are transmitted.   Music, visual images, and text -- whether conveyed in live performances or theatres or distributed electronically on television, radio, the Internet, or prerecorded disks and tapes -- shape student attitudes, values, and opinions.  The Internet, in particular, is an invaluable multimedia educational tool offering expert opinion; worldwide access to museums, libraries, schools and other cultures; and exposure to new knowledge, resources, and learning opportunities that students might not otherwise have access to.  Students have been quick to avail themselves of these materials.  When assigned tasks requiring research, many students now turn directly to Internet resources for information, some of it reliable and authoritative, some of it not.  Telling the difference, as has always been the case, even with printed materials, is the hard part.  Electronic culture clearly challenges students’ and teachers’ abilities to think critically about the wide variety of material available to them.  They need both to refine those skills traditionally associated with reading and writing and to acquire new modes of literacy and new ways of thinking, not only about words but about visual images and music and the ways information is constructed and organized in hypertext environments. 

To this end, NCTE strongly advocates that media literacy, in company with more traditional tools of information literacy, be a central element in all students' education. English language arts teachers must instruct students in the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes media literacy depends on, teaching students how to effectively and safely use tools like the Internet for learning and entertainment.  Clearly, the unregulated and unedited nature of materials available on the Internet poses real challenges for classroom instruction.  Such instruction may require teachers to introduce potentially controversial materials into classroom discussion.  Nevertheless, if students are to become informed consumers of information, they must learn to recognize propaganda, stereotyping, misinformation, and disinformation wherever they occur.  Consequently, educators must ensure that nonprint and multimedia resources are available for classroom study and discussion and that these materials are equally accessible to students of all ages and socioeconomic backgrounds.

Unfortunately, the classroom study of nonprint and multimedia materials is often jeopardized by direct and indirect censorship.  Direct censorship occurs when principals and school boards restrict the materials a teacher can and cannot use in the classroom, for instance, when teachers are told not to show films the Motion Picture Association of America has rated “R.”  In fact, the courts have ruled that such ratings are not relevant to instructional purposes.  The use of software filters on school and library computers to block student access to potentially offensive materials on the Internet, as required by the Child Internet Protection Act (CIPA), also represents an instance of direct censorship.  While the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress is within its rights to mandate the use of filters as a condition of funding, research indicates that such devices often block access to “protected” and potentially valuable sites, are largely ineffective at protecting users from objectionable materials, and can be easily circumvented.  Materials can only be judged appropriate or inappropriate on a case-by-case basis; the pattern-match mechanics of software filters and the general prohibition of R-rated films shortcut review and approval processes.

Indirect censorship, in contrast to direct censorship, may be even more insidious.  Indirect censorship occurs when teachers, in an attempt to avoid controversy, self-censor their classrooms, limiting their students’ education, for instance, by restricting the focus of instruction to print materials.  Such practices ignore the cultural influence and artistic contributions of nonprint and multimedia works.  Indirect censorship, like direct censorship, deprives students of the learning opportunities they need to become fully literate, astute consumers of print, nonprint, and multimedia materials.

Two points seem clear: (1) The English language arts classroom, in order to prepare an educated and effective citizenry, must instruct students in the responsible, intelligent, and critically-astute use of print and nonprint resources; (2) Decisions as to the aesthetic and pedagogical value and developmental appropriateness of instructional materials must be entrusted to teachers and librarians, working in concert with school administrators, school boards, and parents.  Internet research makes a wide variety of resources, both print and nonprint, available to students.  It also offers ready-made term papers, music file sharing, pornographic Web sites, and chat rooms that cater to pedophiles.  Academic integrity, legal responsibilities, especially with regard to copyright laws, and personal safety must become part of the instruction, just as students must learn to recognize propaganda, stereotyping, misinformation, and disinformation wherever they appear if they are to become informed and responsible consumers of information. Education, not censorship and denial, must always be the answer.

In order to accomplish this task, school administrators and school boards, working with classroom teachers, librarians, and parents, need to formulate curriculum standards focusing on media literacy and to design due-process procedures for the review and approval of instructional materials.  In all cases, the primary concerns must be with designing instructional methods and materials that work, with protecting instructors’ academic freedom, and with protecting students’ First Amendment rights -- that is, with fostering student growth and understanding and with protecting intellectual freedom in our schools.  The materials included in this brochure -- the principles, guidelines, and selected resources -- are all designed to help teachers, parents, and school administrators to realize these twin aims. 

Principles

1. The students’ “right to know” includes all forms of communication: print, nonprint, and multimedia genres.

2. First Amendment rights to free speech and expression protect students’ rights to access, study, discuss, and produce nonprint and multimedia works.

3. Education at all levels must reflect the diversity and debate inherent in a democratic society.  Well-schooled citizens -- citizens prepared to confront choice, to raise questions, to consider contingencies -- must develop the skills and attitudes critical analysis depends on.  This kind of education must begin early.  Classroom instruction, therefore, needs to include a variety of print, nonprint, and multimedia materials so that students will have access to the issues, ideas, and information, as well as the multiple forms of expression, that public discourse depends on.

4. The ability to consider contingencies, to imagine alternative constructions, to think critically depends in important ways on a healthy and active imagination.  Cultivating (and celebrating) the imagination has always been a central function of the English language arts classroom.  Just as traditional print media -- poetry, fiction, drama, and the essay -- fire the imagination, so can the media arts inspire and enlarge students’ ways of perceiving and being in the world.

5. In order to succeed in a global society, students need to understand cultures beyond their own.  Nonprint and multimedia materials can expand students’ access to a variety of cultural products and perspectives.  Students must develop a respect for other cultures and the ability to analyze the ways the mainstream media shape their perceptions of those other cultures.

6. Language is the means by which teachers and students construct, examine, and evaluate print and nonprint texts for practical, intellectual, and aesthetic purposes.  Therefore, the English language arts classroom is an appropriate setting for the technical, aesthetic, and intellectual study of nonprint media and multimedia works.

7. Selection of nonprint and multimedia materials for study in schools should be the province of teachers and librarians; the selection should be based on sound educational criteria outlined in the school’s mission statement and curriculum.

8. The rating systems developed and employed in the music, motion picture, and television industries (e.g., the Recording Industry Association of America’s “Parental Advisory” labels; the Motion Picture Association of America’s G, PG, PG-13, R, X ratings) should not be the primary guide for determining the suitability of materials to be used in classroom instruction.  Such ratings are made without regard for artistic and educational value.

9. Intellectual freedom and development require that students learn to dispute civilly.  The teacher’s role in the discussion of nonprint and multimedia materials is one of mediating between and among conflicting viewpoints and perceptions.  The discussion of controversial topics or works does not imply endorsement or approval of the views or values suggested by those works or expressed by students in discussion of those works.

10. People interact with the world in complex ways, in ways that use all of their senses.  Consequently, good teachers will use print, nonprint, and multimedia forms to convey information in a variety of ways.
 
11. Students’ prior experiences shape their perception of texts, regardless of the medium they are presented in. As with printed texts, teachers need to devote class time to exploring the various ways students respond to nonprint and multimedia works, discussing the degree to which responses are culturally constructed and the ways responses reflect individual interactions with the world.
 
12. Just as removing potentially offensive materials -- words, phrases, incidents -- from printed works can substantially alter the meaning and impact of the original, the “editing” of multimedia works can prove equally problematic.  To protect both the integrity of the work and students’ First Amendment rights, artistic nonprint and multimedia works should be offered whole and uncut to students whenever possible, that is, as their creators intended them to be experienced.

13. The responsibility for media arts literacy does not rest with the individual teacher alone.  If students are to be taught to respond intelligently to the nonprint media and multimedia, schools and communities must commit a significant share of their resources to this goal.

Guidelines for Dealing with Censorship of Nonprint and Multimedia Materials in the Schools

Based on the principles outlined above, schools wishing to foster intellectual freedom should help create an environment in which teachers are encouraged to the teach critical analysis and aesthetic appreciation of nonprint media and multimedia.  They should:

1. Include media literacy as an object of study at all levels. Students must be taught how to access, analyze, and evaluate the powerful images, words, and sounds that compose contemporary culture.

2. Create, publish, and implement policies for selection of nonprint and multimedia materials. Policies governing the use of nonprint materials must be consistent with those governing the review and adoption of print materials, including “due process” provisions when materials are challenged.

3. Invite parents and community members to participate in intellectual freedom committees and study groups to support the selection by education professionals of appropriate nonprint and multimedia materials for use in the school.

4. Endorse and implement the American Library Association’s position statements, including their recommendations regarding children’s access to nonprint and multimedia works as suggested in The ALA Bill of Rights (http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html), and in ALA’s Access to Electronic Information Services and Network (http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/electacc.html).  Schools should similarly endorse the American Film and Video Association’s Freedom to View statement.

5. Provide information about teaching nonprint materials through inservice training, through ongoing networking groups, and in library/media center resources.  Specifically, the school should provide teachers with intellectual freedom guidelines, orientation to new electronic media, time to prepare electronic classroom presentations, ways to locate developmentally appropriate nonprint and multimedia materials, critical reviews of nonprint and multimedia works, articles and books on teaching nonprint and multimedia materials, and interpretations of copyright law as it affects the use of nonprint and multimedia materials, especially videotapes of televised broadcasts.

6. Encourage teachers to make full use of nonprint and multimedia materials in accordance with copyright laws rather than assuming that the laws are excessively inhibiting.

7. Provide for flexible scheduling so that students may view films, plays, television shows, art exhibits, musical performances, and other multimedia performances in the time frames in which they were designed to be viewed.  Scheduling should allot time for teacher-led reflection and discussion of the work.

8. Minimize the time and paperwork involved in ordering nonprint and multimedia materials and the equipment required to present it.

9. Budget sufficiently for ready access to nonprint and multimedia materials and related equipment.

10. Provide opportunities and facilities for teachers and students to view/listen to nonprint and multimedia materials in their free periods.

11. Assist in negotiations with commercial interests to reduce fees for educational uses of nonprint and multimedia materials.

12. Examine all works -- especially those offered free or inexpensively or through corporate sponsors -- for inherent biases, remembering that the function as English language arts teachers is to educate, not indoctrinate students.

Responsibilities of Teachers in Dealing with Nonprint and Multimedia Materials

In order to prepare for teaching with and about nonprint media and multimedia, teachers should:

1. Be aware of the values of their immediate communities and cultures and know the nonprint media and multimedia the students regularly view.

2. Work with school media resource centers to select developmentally appropriate nonprint and multimedia materials for the curriculum from a wide variety of outlets and viewpoints to encourage students’ intellectual and aesthetic development.

3. Preview nonprint and multimedia materials and prepare rationales for their use; specify in curriculum guides and course syllabi provided to students and parents how nonprint media and multimedia will be used for instructional purposes; and provide alternative nonprint and multimedia works where academically feasible and relevant.

4. Include sufficient introductory preparation in classes dealing with material for which controversy might be expected, provide careful explanation of the overriding educational purpose; schedule time for substantial follow-up activity for students to discuss and clarify their initial responses to a media work in relation to the curricular focus; and promote inquiry-based classroom strategies.

5. Help students to understand the interrelationship of nonprint, print, and multimedia materials, and to study the linguistic features of each.

6. Develop techniques of leading discussion and debate, and resolving conflict in the classroom.

7. Provide a cultural, historical, economic, and social context for nonprint media and multimedia materials whenever possible.

8. Follow copyright law as it applies to nonprint media and multimedia and current fair-use laws of broadcast programming for educational purposes.

9. Learn to engage students in producing nonprint and multimedia materials and how to protect their rights to free expression within schools.

10. Learn to assess and help students to assess the rhetorical features and artistic qualities of student and professional nonprint and multimedia productions.

11. Learn how to assess students’ comprehension of and response to nonprint media and multimedia in a variety of ways.

12. Examine sponsored, free, and inexpensive nonprint and multimedia materials for biases and propaganda.

Suggestions for Responsible Use of the Internet

Student use of the Internet poses particular challenges for teachers, librarians, and school administrators. On the one hand, schools are not responsible for the vast array of materials on the Internet, some appropriate for student use, some clearly inappropriate.  On the other hand, educators and parents are responsible for monitoring student use of the Internet to ensure the students' safety. In order to protect students and ensure legal and ethical use of the Internet, and to protect teacher and student First Amendment rights, schools should: 

1. Provide written “acceptable-use policies.” 

2. Arrange computers and school staff in ways that allow school personnel to supervise student use of the Internet to comply with the CIPA (Child Internet Protection Act).  To qualify for federal funds, schools and libraries must use technology to block or filter Internet use by children under seventeen.  However, Internet filters or blocks must be removed, if requested, by a user seventeen and older.

3. Require that parents sign permission forms allowing their children to use the Internet, to maintain an e-mail account, and to enter chat rooms. Parents have a right to determine what kinds of materials and activities are acceptable for their children but have no right to dictate what other people’s children can and cannot do.

4. Require students to sign written contracts co-signed by their parents or legal guardians -- an “honor code” -- defining appropriate use of the Internet and specifying the penalties involved for violating this agreement. Typical concerns may include any of the following: intentionally accessing pornography, violating copyright laws, plagiarism, engaging in illegal activities, playing games, advertising products, using profanity, participating in hate sites and/or sending threatening messages, sending and/or preparing chain letters, and engaging in other specified inappropriate behaviors.  Appropriate penalties may include temporary suspension and/or revocation of Internet privileges, parental notification, and possible legal and financial liabilities.

5. Inform users that e-mail and other Internet activity will be vigilantly monitored for their safety.

6. Educate students about the potential dangers the Internet poses and instruct them how to respond.  Children need to be warned not to give out personal information on the Internet.

Students have rights, rights which must be respected.  As the Supreme Court ruled in Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), “First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. This has been the unmistakable holding of this Court for almost 50 years.”  Changes in the ways information is disseminated create new opportunities and challenges for students and teachers, but they do not alter the basic rights extended to all citizens.  No one, perhaps, should assume that e-mail correspondence is perfectly private or secure from administrative oversight. Students’ rights, as well as the rights of all citizens -- with regard to issues of privacy and the ownership of intellectual property, among others -- need to be respected.

Resources

1. Print Resources

Booklist. American Library Association, 1905-present. Biweekly review journal, includes assessment of age appropriateness of new print and nonprint materials, including video and computer software.

Brown, Jean. (Ed.). (1994). Preserving Intellectual Freedom: Fighting Censorship in Our Schools. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Chomsky, Noam. (1989). Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Boston, MA: South End Press.

Constanzo, William. (1992). Reading the Movies: Twelve Great Films on Video and How to Teach Them. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Davis, James. (Ed.). (1979). Dealing with Intellectual Freedom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Foerstal, Herbert N. (1998). Banned in the Media: A Reference Guide to Censorship in the Press, Motion Pictures, Broadcasting and the Internet. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Golden, John. (2001). Reading in the Dark: Using Film as a Tool in the English Classroom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Gruber, Sybille. (2000).  Weaving a Virtual Web: Practical Approaches to New Information Technologies.  Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Heins, Majorie and Cho, Christina. (2002). Media Literacy: An Alternative to Censorship. Free Expression Policy Proposal. New York: National Coalition Against Censorship.
(http://www.fepproject.org/policyreports/medialiteracyfull.html)

The Intellectual Freedom Manual. 6th ed. (2001). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

Multi-media: Its Promise and Challenge for Pubic Education. (1994). West Haven: National Education Association, Research Division.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1982). "The Students’ Right to Read." Urbana, IL: NCTE.

National Council of Teachers of English. (1982). "The Students’ Right to Know." Urbana, IL: NCTE.

National Council of Teachers of English and International Reading Association. (1992) "Common Ground:  Speak with One Voice on Intellectual Freedom and the Defense of It." Prepared by the NCTE/IRA Joint Task Force on Intellectual Freedom. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

National School Board Association. (1989). Censorship: Managing the Controversy. Alexandria, VA: NSBA.

Powers, Ron. (1990). The Beast, the Eunuch, and the Glass-Eyed Child: Television in the ‘80’s. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Sacco, Margaret. (2002, April). "What Educators Can Do to Enable Students to Have Greater Access to the Internet." SLATE (Support for the Learning and Teaching of English) Newsletter, 27 (3), p. 5.

Simmons, John. (2001). School Censorship in the 21st Century: A Guide for Teachers and School Library Media Specialists. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

United States v. American Library Association, 123 S.Ct. 2296 (2003).

West, Mark. (1997). Trust Your Children: Voices Against Censorship in Children’s Literature. 2nd Ed. New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.

2. Nonprint and Multimedia Resources

"The Boundaries of Free Speech: How Free Is Too Free." (1996). [videorecording] (produced by Patty Satalia). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing. Discusses the issues of free speech and whether or not there should be limits.

"'Dangerous' Songs: Censors, Rock and the First Amendment." (1991). [videotape]. 18 minutes. Social Studies School Service (800-421-4246). Explores lyrics deemed racist, sexist, and obscene and their protection by the First Amendment; includes interviews of songwriters, parents, and teens. 

Express Yourself. [computer software]. Interactive software program that utilizes video, animation, graphics, and text to teach students their First Amendment rights. (Download from ACLU at http://www.aclu.org).

3. Organizations

A number of organizations provide information about media literacy, censorship, and teaching nonprint and multimedia materials.  Teachers should examine the following web sites to locate reports, news, and multimedia resources concerning intellectual freedom:

Each state’s Department of Public Instruction’s English Language Arts and School Library Media Offices can provide policy statements and other resources for teachers of media arts.

National Council of Teachers of English, 1111 W. Kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL 61801-1096. (800-369-6283); http://www.ncte.org. The Council provides immediate assistance to teachers in censorship cases and offers local consultants through its network of affiliates.  The NCTE Commission on Media promotes media literacy.

People for the American Way, 2000 M. St. NW, Washington, DC 20036.
(202-476-4999); http://www.pfaw.org.

American Library Association, Office of Intellectual Freedom, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611.  (800-545-2433); http://www.ala.org./alaorg/oif/.

Center for Democracy and Technology, 1634 Eye St. NW, Suite 1100, Washington, DC 20006.  (202-637-9800); http://www.cdt.org.

National Coalition Against Censorship, 275 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10001.  (212-807-6222); http://www.ncac.org.

Center for Media Literacy (formerly Center for Media and Values), 3101 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 200, Santa Monica, CA 90405. (310-581-0260); http://www.medialit.org.    CML publishes Media and Values.

National Telemedia Council.  http://www.nationaltelemediacouncil.org. The NTC publishes Telemedium: The Journal of Media Literacy.

Media Education Foundation. http://www.mediaed.org.

Citizens for Media Literacy, 34 Wall St., Suite 407, Ashville, NC. 28801. http://www.main.nc.us/cml. CML publishes The New Citizen.

Project Look Sharp, 1119 Williams Hall, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY 14850-7390. (607-274-3471); http://www.ithaca.edu/looksharp.  Look Smart publishes Project Look Sharp Newsletter.    

Media Literacy Review.  http://interact.uoregon.edu/MediaLit/mlr/home/.

New Mexico Media Literacy Project, 4060 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109. (505-828-3129); http://www.nmmlp.org. NMMLP publishes The State of Media Education.

Just Think Foundation, 39 Mesa St., Suite 106, Presidio Park, San Francisco, CA 94129. (415-561-2900); http://www.justthink.org.

Media Literacy Project, 6 Annenberg Hall, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122; http://www.reneehobbs.org. Hobbs created Assignment: Media Literacy, a comprehensive K-12 curriculum guide adopted by the Maryland State Department of Education.

Center for Media Studies, SCILS, Rutgers University, 4 Huntington St., New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1071.  (732-932-7500, ext. 8017); http://www.mediastudies.rutgers.edu/cmsyme.html. CMS hosts the New Jersey Media Literacy Project.

Media Literacy Clearinghouse.  http://medialit.med.sc.edu/

Media Channel. http://www.mediachannel.org.

Alliance for a Media Literate America, 721 Glencoe St., Denver, C0 80220. (888-775-2652); http://www.amlainfo.org.

Action Coalition for Media Education, 4060 Wyoming Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87109. (505-828-3377); http://www.acmecoalition.org.

Media Coalition, 139 Fulton St., Suite 302, New York, NY 10038. (212-587-4025); http://www.mediacoalition.org.

4. Library Searching

Larger libraries and some Internet vendors will have Media Review Digest (Pieran Press, 1973/74-present), “the most comprehensive guide to reviews of educational nonprint media.” Additionally, current articles and documents on media censorship and related topics can be found in Reader’s Guide to Periodical Literature, Infotrac, Education Index, ERIC (RIE and CIJE), and Humanities Index. Articles on censorship of nonprint and multimedia resources can be accessed through subject headings and descriptors singly or in combination, for example: censorship, intellectual freedom, academic freedom, freedom of information, mass media censorship, videotape recordings-intellectual freedom, films-censorship, Internet-censorship, computer software reviews. A library media specialist can provide assistance. The Librarian’s Index to the Internet (http://www.lii.org) identifies many excellent Web sites that contain information on censorship.

NCTE Standing Committee Against Censorship
Chair: Marlene Birkman
Members: Robert Crafton, Elissa Kido, Margaret Sacco, and John Stewig

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated
without permission from NCTE.