Banning Books in Public Schools, A Mass Communications Issue.

Should public schools be allowed to challenge or outright ban books based on content? This question has become a very controversial topic in the United States education system. The banning of books is not a new concept, and the new wave of bans has raised a national debate about free speech, student right to information, and the democratic purpose of education. My paper will argue that book bans are unethical and suppress and harm marginalized communities.  

Book bans in school have a long history in the United States. The case Board of Education v. Pico (1982) remains a landmark case. The Supreme Court ruled that schools can remove books that are “pervasively vulgar” they cannot ban books solely for the purpose of suppressing ideas the school may dislike or not agree on. This decision reinforced students’ First Amendment Rights and gave a push back to government official’s attempt to restrict information (Lewis & Darolia). An earlier case introduced the concept of “community standards”, Miller v California (1973). This case explains why book bans vary across the country. Not every community is going to feel the same about a controversial topic due to location, and upbringings. These rulings both showcase the tension between constitutional rights and student education.  

These book bans raise many ethical questions. First, it goes against freedom of expression. The purpose of public schools is to prepare students for life in a diverse society, which requires multiple and diverse viewpoints of society. Removing books simply because they challenge a narrative only teaches students that “erasing” the issue is the answer to a disagreement instead of communicating (Lewis & Darolia). Next, these bans infringe on student rights. Education is not just your IQ score, or how quickly you can come up with math problems, it is there to shape your worldview and challenge your thinking. When schools ban books telling the stories of oppressed communities, it only denies the students opportunity to see themselves, or their best friends represented (Jones). Lastly, book bans create a representation crisis. Books serve as a window into the soul, telling the experiences of others’ lives. Removing books that feature LGBTQ+ characters or growing up as a person of color in a predominantly white community, sends a very destructive message to the communities affected. They are unwanted, and do not belong in public conversations (Sims-Bishop).  

The current book bans are organized and politically charged. In Texas a legislator sent out a list of over 850 books to review for public schools. The bans target books that might cause discomfort or guilt to the readers. The topics of these books were race and gender (Chappell). Popular books like The Hate U Give and Gender Queer have been banned in multiple districts. These bans go along with the larger attack happening on the public education system, such as significant funding cuts. Students in Texas are fighting back. Banned book clubs have been formed to organize protests to fight against the suppression of intellectual freedoms (Kim).  

The people who advocate for book bans typically say its to protect children from certain content they deem “harmful”. Topics like sexuality, violence, or racism are often deemed too mature for younger readers and may cause psychological distress. They also want to uphold parent rights, believing that they should be able to control what their children are reading and that it “reflects community values”. Advocators of books bans also want to preserve moral standards, claiming that some books promoting LGBTQ+ identities or that challenge traditional ideas goes against religious beliefs and cultural norms (Lewis & Darolia). While these claims all stem from a place of genuine values, it more often than not causes problems when applied to public education. As all these claims go against the constitutional right to information.  

Groups against book bans argue that the bans limit exposure to outside perspectives, that gives students the ability to gain critical thinking skills as well as empathy. They also argue that democracy does best with diversity as it gives everyone’s perspective, instead of one uniform community. Research shows that engaging with controversial topics builds resilience and empathy in students (Lewis & Darolia). By removing these challenging books, schools fail at preparing students for a complex and diverse world.  

Book bans do more than restrict reading, it has eroded public trust in the education system and weakened our democracy. When schools censor ideas, it models authoritarian behavior rather than liberation. Teachers have had to face an increase in ethical responsibility, often putting themselves at risk. This was seen in Amanda Jones’ case, she was harassed and had an entire smear campaign made for her, simply opposing the bans at a small local meeting (Jones). These attacks on educators show the movements true goal, to reshape public education to fit narrow political agendas (Kim). School should be a place where you can develop your own opinions about the outside world.  

Book bans in public schools are very unethical. They harm students by denying who they are, stunts intellectual growth, and go against the purpose of a democratic education. Protecting democracy means we must protect our freedom to read. In Board of Education v Pico, it was made clear that the government cannot ban books based on disagreement of ideas to push a certain perspective, this concept is more important than ever. The solution is not censorship, but conversation. We need to better prepare students to live in a diverse society, not to ignore that diversity exists. 

Works Cited  

Chappell, Bill. “A Texas Lawmaker is Targeting 850 Books That He Says Could Make Students Feel Uneasy.” NPR, Oct. 28, 2021.  

Jones, Amanda. “You’re Gonna Hear Me Roar: Speaking Out Against Censorship Efforts in My Community.” Knowledge Quest, Nov./Dec. 2022.  

Kim, Robert. “The Legal Fight to Preserve Public Education—and Democracy.” Phi Delta Kappan, May 2023.  

Lewis, Bonnie, and Laura H. Darolia. “Why Should I Care About Book Bans?” Social Education, Nov./Dec. 2022.  

Sims-Bishop, Rudine. “Mirrors, Windows, and Sliding Glass Doors.” Perspectives, 1990.