Banning books does more harm than good

Forbidden Books Week is an annual event hosted by the American Library Association that celebrates the freedom to read, usually during the last week of September. This year, the initiative took place from September 26 to October 2 under the theme “Books unite us. Censorship divides us. The aim of the week is to shed light on current and historic attempts to censor books in libraries and schools.

The tradition dates back to 1982, when the first Forbidden Book Week was held in response to a sudden increase in the number of challenges from various book interest groups in schools, but also in bookstores and libraries. The books are often contested because they deal with sensitive subjects, such as racial problems, “harmful” lifestyles, sexuality, violence or even witchcraft.

The American Library Association distinguishes between a challenge and a ban for a book in that a challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict material by the objections of a person or group, while a prohibition is the actual withdrawal of said documents. But these discrepancies don’t change the fact that we shouldn’t challenge or ban books just because they deal with sensitive or uncomfortable topics. These titles are necessary to foster open conversations with children and young adults on topics as a society that we are unwilling to discuss.

Some of the most commonly banned and contested books from 2010 to 2019 include “Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck, “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morison, “The Catcher in the Rye” by JD Salinger, “To Kill a Mockingbird By Harper Lee, “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood and “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas. This might sound shocking, as a lot of these titles are considered classics, but they’re also all titles that deal with uncomfortable topics like race, mental illness, sex, and death.

Groups that dispute the presence of these books in schools or other places to which children have access argue that these books are corruption waiting to happen. However, the texts in question are in fact doors to necessary but difficult conversations. We want children and young adults to understand how the world works and their place in it, and how they can make change. So, we need to have these conversations about race, sexuality, gender, mental illness and other taboo topics that are too often the reason why books are contested or banned.

It is normal to feel uncomfortable with some of these topics, as society creates a clear stigma around them. For example, Jay Asher’s “Thirteen Reasons Why” is frequently challenged (and was in fact the most contested book of 2017) for its discussions of suicide, mental illness, sexual assault, and bullying. Many of these challenges likely work as a backlash against the divisive (and in my opinion, poorly executed) Netflix series based on the book, as the novel was released in 2007 while the TV show premiered in 2017. But this book is meant to make you feel uncomfortable because it ignites a conversation about such difficult topics by conveying an undeniable message regarding bullying and mental health in adolescence.

Unhappy as it may be, many teens can relate to the themes of “Thirteen Reasons Why.” It is better to make these books available to troubled teens rather than leaving them in the dark, believing that they are alone in their experiences.

It’s not that all of these difficult books should be available in kindergarten classes, but older children and young adults should have access to them. These books can spark conversations that can end up saving lives, so banning them makes it harder for teens to open up to adults.

Challenging these books simply makes people want to rebel and read them more, which thankfully further extends their impact despite the attempted censorship. For example, many libraries and avid readers celebrate Banned Books Week by promoting frequently disputed or banned books.

Just because you personally disagree with an author’s words doesn’t mean that no one will or that no one else should be able to read those words. You cannot block children in whole world schools of thought.