The issue of self-censorship is a relevant one because, in our rapidly changing world, the literature that is seen as “fitting” into the curricula often does not adequately reflect the processes and events that happened. This happens because of the self-censorship of teachers or whole institutions that believe adolescents need to be protected from the dark side of our world. However, as it was mentioned by NCTE (2009), the purpose of social justice as a process and activity is to explain to students that not all people are equal, that some have many privileges while others have none. Strict self-censorship might be useful if one is talking about extremely disturbing and gruesome texts; however, most of the texts marked as “controversial” can be recommended to students to show them that even fiction is often just a reflection of those problems that the real world faced or keeps facing.
However, when introducing students to controversial texts, one should keep in mind the importance of background knowledge that is often crucial to the understanding of a controversial book (Shanahan, Fisher, & Frey, 2012). As NCTE (2009) correctly points out, it is essential to “teach about injustice and discrimination in all its forms” (p. 1). A controversial book is a perfect teacher if it is introduced and explained correctly. Too often, good books are seen as “unsuitable” because of their content that focuses on disturbing and suppressed content. As an example, at least two books can be mentioned: “Slaughterhouse-Five” by Kurt Vonnegut and the graphic novel “Sandman” by Neil Gaiman. Both were banned in the USA due to the so-called inappropriate content. However, although “Slaughterhouse-Five” does discuss violence and death, these discussions are related to the horrors of war and its utter pointlessness. As for “Sandman”, Gaiman was one of the first authors who was not afraid to introduce LGBTQ+ characters and discuss sex and masturbation on the pages of a graphic novel. Thus, those who belong to LGBTQ+ felt inclusive, and sex education, important for teenagers, was provided to them by a comic book.
The problem directly linked to self-censorship and “boring” literature classes is discussed by Gilmore (2011). The problem of the literature canon in schools is that it is obsolete, not quite relatable to the new generations, and “dominated by white, male, European or American authors” (Gilmore, 2011, p. 48). A great number of relevant issues such as sexism, racism, gender issues, elitism, discrimination, etc. is partially left out because most of the authors presented in canon focus on other problems. It would be unreasonable to say that these problems are less important; however, they are the roots of our self-censorship. It is hard for us to imagine that children can read other literature that is harsh, contains explicit language, or openly portrays difficulties experienced by any underprivileged group. The canon becomes the tool we use to censor books suitable for analysis and discussion, which eventually results in a very limited reading material for students.
It sometimes appears that such a limitation causes a limited view of the world; the world “limited” here implies that students cannot read the world with attention to details just as they cannot read books that the school is forcing them to read. The importance of “reading the world” is supported by Kirkland (2013), who explains how such an approach towards the world helps “the reader” comprehend what unfair conditions are reigning in it. Therefore, it is inadvisable to self-censor if you want to discuss a book that revolves around social justice issues. Some of the students (or the majority of them) might not even see these as issues at all because students perceive them as annoying “details” just as in the boring books from the school curricula.
However, self-censorship is necessary sometimes. It is useful to evaluate whether students are ready for a certain type of books. Some of them might be too complicated and challenging for students to grasp the meaning behind them fully (some adults have the same problem with such books). “A clockwork orange” by A. Burgess, “Catch-22” by J. Heller, and “Metamorphosis” by F. Kafka can serve as examples. The structure, word choice, and themes in these books are challenging even for adults; that is why it would be unreasonable to analyze them with students because even with the best guidance these books require significant experience in reading to understand them. At best, students will regard such books as boring or too complicated. At worst, some of the ideas expressed in the book (the ultraviolence, for example) will be misunderstood. Thus, self-censorship can be helpful when you are certain that students are not yet ready for such a complex material; even if they are willing to try, it is probably more reasonable to explain why this book is a wrong choice (for now). Of course, students might try reading such books on their own; if this happens, the teacher can encourage them to discuss the book to evaluate whether or not it was misunderstood.
To conclude, self-censorship is often limiting and harmful, both for the teachers and for their students. However, some reading material needs to be censored by teachers if they are certain that students need more reading experience to understand it.
References
Gilmore, B. (2011). Worthy texts: Who decides? Educational Leadership, 68(6), 46-50.
Kirkland, D. E. (2013). Teaching the (uni) verse: An essay for teachers of languages, texts, and cultures. Voices from the Middle, 21(1), 41.
NCTE. (2009). Beliefs about social justice in English education. Web.
Shanahan, T., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). The challenge of challenging text. Educational Leadership, 69(6), 58-62.