The Student's Right to Know (review)

Abstract

Reviewed by: The Student's Right to Know Judith Rovenger (bio) Burress, Lee and Edward B. Jenkinson , The Student's Right to Know. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE, 1982. The Student's Right to Know provides arguments against censorship, and strategies for protecting both students' right to know and the derived right of teachers to teach. Both these rights "must be safeguarded if the goal of education in this nation is to prepare the student to live in, and contribute to, a democracy." Endorsed by the National Council of Teachers of English Committee Against Censorship, this document is a welcome addition to the already impressive body of literature against censorship. It is always heartening to see a respected organization take a position in a controversy, and give leadership and support to members of its profession. Lee Burress and Edward Jenkinson have constructed reasoned and well-thought-out arguments. They have organized their material under chapter headings which in themselves encapsulate issues, such as, "How Selection Processes Differ from Censorship" and "Censorship Attacks Good Books." They recommend policies for preventing confrontation and procedures for dealing with complaints, including a sample form. They also present overviews of the policies of right wing organizations active in promoting censorship and of the major judicial decisions affecting censorship in the schools. But I have some reservations about this document. The treatment of censorship from The Left skirts the real problems involve: More traditional critics may object to books such as Our Bodies Our Selves or to the magazine MS. because they object to an equalitarian concept of the role of women. The principles of intellectual freedom presented here suggest that the diversity of our society should be recognized by using school materials that present both the traditional and the equalitarian view of women's role in this society. Read the last sentence of this quotation substituting the word 'blacks' for women for a clearer picture of my objections. This lumping together of complicated issues does disservice to all points of view. If the authors chose not to complicate their arguments on intellectual freedom by delving into these confusing aspects of the problem (since their mission was clearly to defend against censorship from The Right), they would have done better simply to acknowledge the complexity and go no farther. I also found the choice of a quotation by the lawyer, Julia T. Bradley, on the differences between censorship and selection, to be dubious, simply because it is so concise: Selection, on the other hand, is a process; the only inherent constraint upon choosing among all published materials is that of budget. Where censorship occurs, decisions are absolute; a book is unsuitable. In the selection process choices are relative; is this book more useful for varied reasons, than another? Moreover, where censorship occurs, one group permanently terminates another's right to judge a book for itself. Where selection operates without restraints, a book which readers consider 'bad' will die of neglect. I doubt that any good librarian, especially a children's librarian, would agree that discussion should stop at this point. Space and budget considerations aside, there are other issues involved in selection, to which this document barely alludes: literary quality, style, entertainment value, age appropriateness, accuracy, relationship of content to format and illustration, to name but a few. Evaluating materials using these kinds of criteria is what is meant by professional judgment; this is what the advanced degrees and professional training are for. Selection and censorship are not as clear-cut and separate as we could wish. Self-censorship, whether from a lack of expertise and lack of familiarity with the diversity of materials, or from a bias either Left or Right, needs to be recognized as a component of selection; it should be a concern of professionals, individually and collectively. While this might seem to weaken the argument against censorship by reclouding the issue, it is an argument already known to the other side anyway. Burress and Jenkinson's list of answers to "Why Censorship Is Increasing" is excellent. Unfortunately, it left out an essential point, that the increase in censorship may be a reflection of many parents' feelings of alienation from the values of society. Parents...