In July 1995, the Surrey school board in British Columbia, rejected the request of Heather Stilwell to have a book banned from the school library at Surrey Traditional School. This incident is hardly an isolated case since, by all accounts, book banning is on the rise. Christian schools, which attempt to carefully scrutinize books added to their school libraries, are also faced with requests to remove or restrict access to books. For many Christians, censorship seems to be a logical procedure in attempting to uphold the moral fabric of our society in the face of increasing immoral literature, television programming, and so on. But the issue is not without complexity. Censorship has a long and chequered history, and it must be weighed against the merits of the freedom to read. This article will only attempt to highlight several of the more problematic aspects of censorship. The first part will introduce the Stilwell case and examine various groups involved in the censorship debate. The second part will focus on the problems associated with censorship requests made on the basis of morality or religion.

The Surrey Challenge⤒🔗

In the Surrey case, Heather Stilwell objected to the book No Place for Me by Barthe DeClements, which discusses the plight of a teenage girl who must live with various uncles and aunts, none of whom are portrayed as kind or loving. That is, all but one aunt, who finally manages to instil some altruism into the heart of young Copper Jones. But this aunt is a witch and practises Wicca, and many of the values she discusses with Copper are derived from the Wiccan religion. Stilwell rightly argued that the book is emotionally manipulative. But then many books are. The book, however, clearly puts the various relatives, except the witch, in a bad light, all the while glossing over the shortcomings in the young girl's personality. Stilwell further argued that since the witch is portrayed as the only kind and truly loving relative, and it is she who finally addresses some of the glaring problems in Copper's character, the book amounts to nothing more than a clear endorsement of Wicca. Since all public schools are to be operated on a secular basis, Stilwell believed that fiction in the library should not promote any one religion.

Lesley Krueger, of The Globe and Mail, wrote an article (“Fifth Column,” February 17, 1995) in response to the challenge of Stilwell. Krueger places the blame for the rise of book banning on Christian fundamentalists and she is certainly not alone in this attitude. She counters Stilwell's concern that children might be taken out of their parental religious heritage when exposed to this type of book in school, with the notion that perhaps these children just grow up. Krueger is implying, of course, that parents like the Stilwell's cannot expect their children to continue believing what their parents tell them, much like children outgrow the story of Santa Claus or the tooth fairy. Krueger concludes by questioning whether schools can cater to such “parental anxiety.” She was not disappointed. The Surrey school board finally decided to deny Stilwell's request.

Anti-Censorship Groups←⤒🔗

Krueger's attitude is typical of the media and other groups that oppose censorship. The media never seem to miss a chance to report on such cases and to cast the challenger in a negative and pathetic light. Thus CBC's Arts Report, on the morning following the school board's decision, expressed obvious relief that DeClements' book was not to be banned and accepted at face value Barthe De-Clements' statement that the book was not about Wicca, but about adolescence and today's social problems.

In addition to the media, there are also numerous other groups which oppose censorship of any kind. Particularly in the United States, censorship is vigorously opposed by civil libertarians. Nat Hentoff's The Day They Came to Arrest the Book, provides a fictional but interesting account of the various parties involved in trying to ban or save the presence of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn in a high school. Huckleberry Finn is widely used in high school literature courses and it has been challenged frequently because the main character, Huck Finn, is often considered to be an anti-black liar. In answer to such challenges, civil libertarians invoke the First Amendment clause. They argue that everyone has the right to decide for him – or herself, and that any attempt to ban anything is an infringement of one's right to read whatever one desires.

Perhaps the most vociferous against censorship are librarians, publishers and authors. Many Canadian libraries host an annual “Freedom to Read Week” each spring and they are greatly encouraged in this by a group known as the Book and Periodical Council. To have the political and social freedom to read is certainly of utmost importance, but the Book and Periodical Council has its own agenda. This group is against censorship of any kind and has taken up the fight against Canada Customs' censoring of pornographic and gay and lesbian material entering the country. To quote from their promotional material for the 1995 Freedom to Read week, they “abhor the expurgation and barring of literature on the false grounds of obscenity…There is no obscenity in truth.” Pornographic works merely attempt “to create a compassionate understanding of the human condition.” Nothing is ever to be censored, not even if doing so will aid justice. When the perpetrators of the sex abuses at Mount Cashel were facing criminal proceedings, a judge temporarily banned the publication of a book dealing with the crimes until the criminal proceedings were completed, so as not to compromise the case. The Book and Periodical Council lobbied extensively to overturn the ban. One might ask, does the Council not have any sense of social responsibility?

Public libraries have a mandate to provide balanced collections for the education and entertainment of the public. Libraries achieve a balanced collection by presenting various viewpoints on a topic, or by avoiding books which advocate an extreme position which cannot be balanced effectively in any way. Given this goal, it is understandable that censorship is perceived to be contrary to their mandate. This helps to explain that of all the challenges studied in a survey conducted over three years in the late 1980s, 72 per cent were not successful in removing or restricting the use of the book in question.

Recognizing Censorship←⤒🔗

On the basis of the media coverage, one would think that only fundamentalists of one religion or another are prone to censor. In reality this is not so. The need to be politically correct has resulted in censorship as well. The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Benjamin Bunny, two delightful little books by Beatrix Potter, were removed from all London schools in an exercise of self-censorship by the London County Council in England in the early 1980s. Why? Peter and friends only portray middle class bunnies, while society contains more than just middle class people.

Sometimes those who claim to be opposed to censorship are guilty of a form of censorship known as “self-censorship.” Rather than order a book that might prove to be controversial, the librarian or school administrators might just choose to ignore it. If it is not on the shelf or in the classroom, it simply cannot cause trouble. After all, even those who dislike censorship do not like to become embroiled in a controversy.

Librarians may also have at their disposal what can amount to a silent form of censorship. Nonfiction books in a library are generally classified, but classification cannot be done in a vacuum. No classifier can fully escape his or her own beliefs. Thus, is the latest book on creation a religious book, or should it be given a spot in the science section of the library? Should a book espousing New Age solutions to personal problems be placed in the general self-help section, or should it be placed in the religion section? By controlling the placement of books, cataloguers can influence the amount of credence given to ideas.

Schools and libraries can also experience censorship in other ways. Books which are considered controversial – especially those which have already been the subject of a challenge – often disappear mysteriously. If a request to ban a book is not successful, why not just steal it? In the short-term the result is the same: no one can read the book. Other times the offending parts may simply be removed or the book is mutilated so that it will have to be withdrawn from the collection.

Thus far, reasons for censoring have only been alluded to. There can be any number of reasons for challenging books or movies, but most interesting are those cases where censorship is requested on the basis of morality. The final part of this discussion will focus on the problems associated with such censorship.

Judging Morality←⤒🔗

Censorship is requested for a multitude of reasons, with the most obvious being religious or political, although these are by no means the only reasons. Those who have moral or religious reasons for requesting censorship are often perceived as being the most determined of all censors. One need only think of the death sentence or fatwa placed on Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses, which allegedly blasphemes the Islamic religion, and the reaction of the Western media. It is much easier to become excited, one would think, when one's religion or moral convictions are being attacked, than about the possibility of Peter Rabbit compromising the economic worldview of young children. In the fictional account by Nat Hentoff about the fate of Huckleberry Finn, there were innumerable groups such as SOCASH, or Save Our Children from Atheist Secular Humanism, which claimed that by banning Huckleberry Finn, the children's morality would remain intact. Since cases which involve a moral judgement of a particular work evoke the strongest sentiments on both sides of the issue, it is worth considering in more detail the problems associated with this form of censorship.

Those who would like to censor books such as Huckleberry Finn, are imposing their moral judgement upon others, by declaring that these books are inappropriate and should not be read. But in today's society, the question frequently being raised is, whose moral standards are correct, and should any one person have the right to impose his or her moral beliefs or ethics on anyone else? Christianity today is but one of many religions and therefore, many suggest, there is no place for any value judgements based upon Christianity. In fact, those who oppose the Christian view often respond that the Bible itself records many gruesome and immoral acts and wonder how parents can let their children read certain passages in the Bible. Of course such people miss the point that not every action described in the Bible is normative, but must be viewed in the context of the entire Scripture. But, given Canada's multicultural society, it is sadly enough becoming more and more difficult to find support for the Christian view as the only normative one. This dilemma is by no means a 20th century development. In fact, the age-old problem with censorship is deciding whose values should underlie the criteria or norms which determine what will be censored.

If one considers the historical examples of censorship, it is evident that censorship has been both used and abused by states, ruling groups and even churches. Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church prohibited the translation of the Bible into the languages commonly spoken by the people. During the Reformation, the church attempted to restrict the impact of the Reformers by placing their writings on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, a list of books which the people were not to read. In the world of politics, censorship has also been abused. In the former Soviet Union, the communist rulers decreed that all libraries could only provide antireligious books in the religion section of the library. In all these cases, the ruling group, or those in control, chose the criteria for censoring which allowed them to maintain, at least for a period of time, their control over society.

Today the Canadian government still censors, sometimes in ways which may be beneficial for the promotion of Christian values. Customs Canada frequently inspects shipments of literature in an attempt to stem the tide of pornographic and other obscene literature entering Canada. Similarly, movies are still previewed by groups of citizens to determine what ratings they should receive and whether sections should be cut out before releasing them for general viewing. Despite these positive actions, one must wonder whether the government can be trusted with the right to censor, because most government policies betray a lack of Christian values. Indeed, many might ask, is the government censoring enough? Then again, what if the government totally abandons its Christian heritage and continues to censor? One cannot help but wonder who or what would suffer as a result. While Christians applaud the actions of Customs Canada, those who support total freedom to read, such as the Book and Periodical Council, cry foul and launch extensive court challenges. It soon becomes clear that there will never be a society which is completely united in its selection of criteria against which books, movies or internet files can be measured.

Even Christians do not always agree with one another. The censorship issue is not always fought out between non-Christians and Christians, but sometimes even among Christians. What one Christian may find appropriate, another may not. Christian school boards or library committees are then forced to choose one side over against the other, when a book is challenged. Committees are often set up (there may even be a permanent committee so that challenges can immediately be brought to the right group) to examine the book and determine to what extent the offending sections or message contravene the values and beliefs of the school and its supporters. Usually schools will have a policy in place to ensure that each challenge is treated fairly.

Is Censorship the Only Answer?←⤒🔗

A professor of English at Wheaton College, Leland Ryken, is convinced that books, movies, and television have replaced the pulpit as the leading influence on the morals of our society (“Of Banning the Bible and Other Books: how do you decide?” Christianity Today, vol. 26, no. 14 (September 1982), 30-32.) But rather than rushing ahead and censoring everything objectionable, he suggests that the most crucial control is the inner control one exercises in deciding what to read. But what if society in general no longer exercises this inner control? If the freedom to produce books and movies or the freedom to read whatever one desires is abused, does this automatically mean that the freedom must be denied? Can one effect social morality by legislating obscene material? R. K. Harrison, in a book about Christian ethics, (Encyclopedia of Biblical and Christian ethics, R. K. Harrison, ed. [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987]) points out that one can legislate any number of things, but the important thing is to change people's attitudes and beliefs. The key word here then becomes evangelism. Christians should be and are seeking means to promote Christian values so that the first time they are mentioned is not during a censorship case.

Yes, there will definitely be situations which warrant a challenge of a book. And in those situations, Christians must not only prepare a solid case as to why the book in question should be banned, but they will have to provide a defence for their right as a Christian to request censorship, and even more importantly, for the validity of Christian criteria in determining what should be censored. As soon as the media detect a Christian focus, the issue will immediately be taken beyond the objections surrounding the book or movie, and all the questions regarding individual rights and responsibilities will have to be addressed. The challenger will have to provide answers to the many questions raised in our discussion – questions to which there are no easy answers.

Stilwell in Perspective←⤒🔗

Was Heather Stilwell wrong for challenging No Place for Me as the media suggested? Those who dislike Stilwell's attempt to curb their freedoms have to admit that everyone has the freedom to challenge a book. And the media seem to have missed the key point in Stilwell's challenge. Stilwell was not trying to ban the book from the reading public of Surrey: the point was simply that the book had “religious” undertones which therefore made it unsuitable for a school which is supposed to be entirely neutral on the subject of religion. Because Stilwell was not trying to ban No Place for Me from the entire reading public of Surrey, she could have left some of the questions unanswered, if the media had not thought otherwise. But perhaps in the Stilwell case, another point needs to be considered as well. If Stilwell is concerned about the faith of Christian children, she would be well-advised to choose a school which is not prohibited from teaching religion. Stilwell (and others, of course!) should realize that schools required to instil values which are not founded upon any religion, will in all likelihood fail.

Moving Beyond Censorship←⤒🔗

Should someone decide not to challenge a book, but desire to counter the message of a book, there are often other avenues which can be explored, although here too the Christian will meet with resistance. In a school setting, parents could perhaps volunteer to create a library newsletter which can contain, among other things, book reviews. While society in general is unsympathetic towards those who would deny someone the freedom to read something, it is still acceptable to express one's opinions. Similarly, it may be possible to suggest a title that students or library patrons should read once they have read the book in question, so that the other side of the issue can be seen. In the Surrey case, now that the challenge has been made public and has been lost, it is doubtful whether the aforementioned activities would be condoned by the Surrey Traditional School authorities, since they will be wary of anything which would appear to come close to censorship.

Since in most cases challenges of books in public libraries or schools are unsuccessful, parents should definitely help their children select books and discuss with them what they are reading and learning, so that a Christian perspective may be applied to what is read, regardless of what type of library the book comes from. Since authors also occasionally receive grant money or other forms of financial assistance from the government, Christians should not neglect to make their views known to the government in regards to morality and other issues. Similarly, authors can often be reached if not directly then through their publisher, and they too should be reminded of the need to reflect biblical norms in their writing. If Christian viewpoints are only brought to the fore in the context of negative challenges of books, the challenges will in all likelihood be lost and Christians will find it increasingly difficult to effectively express their views and to ensure that Christian morals and values are reflected in our society's norms and cultural expressions.