CENSORSHIP AND THE REGULATION OF EXPRESSIONmarkets, usually Texas and California (Del Fattore
1992). As a result, publishers provide their writers
with guidelines that govern topics and viewpoints
that are currently deemed objectionable (or desir-
able) in the largest states that engage in statewide
adoptions. In this way, pressure groups in one
state, such as Texas, often exercise veto power
over the entire country’s textbook market. Local
communities in small and mid-size states exercise a
relatively small influence on content.
Community protest and lawsuits are the prin-
cipal vehicles used to challenge textbooks and
reading lists in literature, social studies, and health
education. An illustrative controversy—at McClintock
High School in Tempe, Arizona in 1996—high-
lights the susceptibility of teachers and schools to
parental and community demands. In this case, a
parent of a McClintock High student protested the
assignment of Mark Twain’s classic The Adventures
of Huckleberry Finn because the word ‘‘nigger’’ is
included in its dialogue. In the ensuing controver-
sy, some held that if schools were forced to shield
students from exposure to the term, such interven-
tion would undermine the legitimate authority of
teachers and would endorse ignorance of Ameri-
can history and the practice of censorship.
We may ask whether the students grasp the
distinctions among Twain’s stance on racism, the
use of the term ‘‘nigger’’ by a character in the
novel, and societal endorsement of the term then
and today. Of course the crux of such conflicts also
rests upon the educational and social contexts in
which sensitive, taboo, or potentially affronting
topics that appear in the world of fiction are
discussed. For instance, if The Adventures of Huckle-
berry Finn or any other literature is misused to
communicate racism, the problem is larger than
the choice of which books are read in the classroom.
Unfortunately, the social context of this con-
troversy added complexity. School benches at the
same high school were etched with the words ‘‘I
hate niggers.’’ Of course, there is an important
distinction between eliminating the word ‘‘nig-
ger’’ from The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and
removing ‘‘I hate niggers’’ from a school bench.
The etching creates a hostile educational and so-
cial environment in a way that the assignment of
book should not do, as long as teachers and schools
are doing their jobs well. In controversy after
controversy, these distinctions are as important as
they have been difficult to establish. Often teach-
ers simply capitulate to perceptions of the most
conservative or protective community elements
and use readings that are sure to be ‘‘safe’’ (Da-
vis 1979).
In 1990s most lawsuits were mounted by fun-
damentalists who condemned many books on
school lists as anti-Christian, antiparent,
antigovernment, immoral, and obscene. The chal-
lenged books change from year to year, but fre-
quently banned books have included Of Mice and
Men (Steinbeck), Catch 22 (Heller), and Catcher in
the Rye (Salinger). Fundamentalists are effective
out of all proportion to their numbers because of
the intense dedication they bring to their cause.Research has yet to provide a sound basis for
confidently assessing the effects of reading on
school children’s beliefs. When a story contains a
character’s arguments against the existence of God,
might students question their faith? Qualitative
research, particularly, has shown that students
take widely divergent readings from stories and
that these understandings are frequently critical of
the viewpoints adopted by both characters and
writers.
Can we maintain that literature gives readers
insights into life? That it can change lives? Par-
ents—former pupils, after all—have been encour-
aged to believe that great works contain great
truths. It is not surprising that some of those
parents who discern arguments against the social
order in their children’s readings seek to eliminate
the threat from children’s lives. Eventually, these
ongoing and recurring controversies may be illu-
minated by scientifically grounded understanding
of the social and cognitive foundations of narra-
tive impact (Green, Strange, and Brock 2000).One of the strongest arguments for keeping
school curricula open to ideas to which we current-
ly object or to heinous artifacts of historical preju-
dices is that one of the important functions of
education is the development of critical inquiry.
From this perspective, to turn the schoolhouse
into an environment where only ‘‘safe’’ ideas are
encountered is to do students and society a dis-
service. This position is rendered more compell-
ing in the context of the current media landscape
which makes it certain that students will also en-
counter these ideas outside the context of a critical
learning environment. This argument, of course,