Ways to Take a Stand Against Censorship: Supportive Materials for Students

Karly Shepherd is a dedicated student at Baylor University, pursuing a multifaceted education encompassing English, Philosophy, and Political Science as part of the Baylor Honors Program's interdisciplinary major. Her fervent advocacy for free speech was ignited during her internship at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Within her campus sphere, Karly takes the lead in several expressive initiatives, including Baylor's Public Deliberation Initiative, an interfaith dialogue group named "Better Together," and a departmental podcast delving into student communities and campus culture. Her passion for collaborative discourse and narrative-sharing is also evident in her contributions to UnTextbooked, a youth-driven history podcast supported by The History Co:Lab.

My encounter with "The Book Thief" in seventh grade and "Fahrenheit 451" in ninth grade had introduced me to the concept of book banning as a fictional notion well before it emerged as a personal reality. However, the tragedy of censorship portrayed in these texts seemed confined to the realms of Nazi Germany or the imaginative dystopias they depicted.

The presence of this very page within the "Banned Books Resources" section now invites a wry smile at my previous naivety.

Regrettably, book banning is on an upward trajectory in the United States. The nation's bedrock principles of individual freedom and expressive autonomy face a barrage of targeted constraints within schools and libraries. While ostensibly presented as outcomes of parental concern and communal values, the majority of contemporary book bans are not genuine, democratic responses to evolving cultural norms. Instead, they mirror the efforts of increasingly partisan advocacy groups and elected representatives aiming to eradicate dissenting viewpoints from educational environments and public discourse.

At a conceptual level, book bans fuel political polarization and nurture intolerance. They signal and facilitate a widespread reluctance to entertain perspectives divergent from our own. By censoring authors, we implicitly assert that only viewpoints aligning with our convictions deserve a platform for expression and contemplation. Additionally, we relinquish opportunities for critical thinking and forfeit our right to challenge prevailing notions.

These ideological implications manifest within classrooms. Book bans fundamentally impede students' exploration and discussion. They curb curiosity from extending beyond the bounds of common knowledge and acceptance. What remains is not an impartial representation of truth, but rather a limited comprehension of reality that fails to encompass the varied and diverse viewpoints constituting our society. While it's not feasible or necessary to represent every perspective at all times, the strategic prohibition of contentious outlooks fails to address the root of the controversy.

In essence, book bans impose silence. What is imperative is the act of raising our voices.

This realization has crystallized during my role as a facilitator of civil discourse on my college campus. As I train students in the art of public deliberation and guide them through contentious discussions, I've had the privilege of reminding them that our beliefs stem from a distinctive amalgamation of personal experiences. By taking the time to comprehend the reasons behind our neighbors' viewpoints, we unveil a shared aspiration to be acknowledged and comprehended. We are compelled to abandon stereotypes, acknowledge good intentions, and engage with our genuine differences—often less extreme than initial assumptions suggest. Agreement need not be our aim. In fact, authentic disagreements should be embraced. Nevertheless, we must be willing to confront the potential for disagreement while preserving respect for free expression and one another.

To foster this ethos, I propose the following guideline for civil discourse: "Everyone is expected to be fully present & to engage in the deliberation—your voice matters!"

Within the national discourse about censorship, every voice holds a place, and the active participation of each is imperative. If individual voices wield enough influence to merit banning, our collective voice must wield enough power to assert the right to speak.