Banned Books Week strikes a controversy near and dear to our heart as a newspaper: Censorship.
Sept. 25 through Oct. 2 is Banned Books Week - a time for us to examine works of literature that, through the years, have been rallied against for questionable content. Classics such as To Kill a Mockingbird, childhood favorites such as Harry Potter and books that have entertained us outside the classroom such as The Perks of Being a Wallflower have come under attack.
Last year, 460 books were challenged, which requires filing a formal complaint to a library about the book's content. Ohio challenged five books last year. This is slightly above the national average, but it was five too many.
Although many were children's books, there's something about outright banning a book that makes us, as student journalists, queasy. If the goal is to protect children from explicit material, then let parents use their discretion and choose what their children read.
In contrast, both Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler and Anne Frank's Diary of a Young Girl were challenged during the past 12 months. One motive is to protect children, but another is to deny the public access to literature because it makes society uncomfortable.
These are not mere novelties. They are history - the realities of influential individuals. Because the media are often the bearers of bad news, it is easy for us to relate. Preventing readers from accessing literature doesn't make the facts that inspired a certain work go away.
Taking Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting by in America off the library shelf doesn't end poverty. Challenging a collection of Ernest Hemingway's short stories doesn't change prevalence of opinion about abortion. Reading about problems creates awareness, and - we hope - solutions.
Editorials represent the majority opinion of The Post's executive editors.
4 Opinion
