Braver Angels Debate Recap: Should Controversial Books Be Banned In K-12 Schools?
By Caleb Palmer
On November 28th, in the Hall of Valor in Marshall Hall on the Virginia Military Institute campus, an intercollegiate debate was held between students from Washington and Lee University, Virginia Military Institute, Mountain Gateway Community College, and Southern Virginia University. The debate format did not follow traditional standards; it invited students, faculty, and other attendees to interact with the speakers and even volunteer to give a two- to four-minute speech on the topic: should controversial books be banned in K-12 schools?
For privacy reasons, however, the audience was asked not to refer to any speaker outside of the debate using their name, gender, political affiliation, or the school they attend. Moving forward in the article, speakers will be referred to as “Speaker 1” or “Speaker 2” for example.
The debate begins with Speaker 1 giving a speech in the affirmative that books should be banned in schools. Speaker 1 articulated that his definition of a negatively controversial book is written literature that impedes a student’s educational progress. He also believes that “good controversy” should be allowed, although he articulated that he is not the one to draw the “line in the sand.” The specification of what a negatively controversial book is was illuminating. However, it does not seem to clear up Speaker 1’s overall point because “good controversy” is a subjective line and too vague a statement to hold much weight to it. Speaker 1, after making the initial point, then went on to say that they believe in a “fluid line in the sand.” Meaning, that “good controversy” can become a supposed “bad controversy” at any given point, under whose definitions of “good” and “bad” are unknown and/or undefined.
Speaker 2 then followed in the negative. It was Speaker 2’s belief that “the mentality of finding a line in the sand is distracting from other issues.” The speaker believed that the students, given the option, might not even choose to read the supposed controversial books in question. Speaker 2 alludes to the idea that banning a book for reasons that are deemed controversial might make the literature that much more enticing to a group of young children in the public K-12 system. Furthermore, Speaker 2 went on to say that a witch-hunt of banning books could lead to books that are undeserving of a ban receiving a ban and vice versa. While Speaker 2 was in opposition to banning books, they were in favor of contextual curation of literature selected to be readily available to students and that a democratic approach to deciding what books are included in school resources should be taken in doing so.
It is following Speaker 2 that we heard the third speaker. Speaker 3 spoke in the affirmative, and they chose to employ an authoritarian approach to their viewpoints. The third speaker asked, “Do children and adolescents really know what is best for them?” and affirmed the idea that parents carry the weight of deciding what is right and wrong in the child’s life. It was the speaker’s belief that some information is “too sensitive” and that adolescents are simply “unready to understand certain information” for controversial books to be placed in libraries. It was their belief as a speaker that not only books but curriculum as well should be curated and decided on by parents in the school districts in an attempt to dictate the curriculum’s relevancy to their contexts as a communal body. Speaker 3 then went on to say that it was the parents’ “sole responsibility” to decide what information their children were allowed to consume. What Speaker 3 failed to realize, or at least mention, is that children and adolescents have and act in their own agency to choose what they will. This approach visibly upset some individuals in attendance due to its strict and rigid perspective.
Speaker 4 then spoke in the negative. The speaker used a quote attributed to Walt Whitman (although it has been found that it is, in fact, not an original quote from Walt Whitman) by saying their beliefs are that we should “be curious, not judgmental.” The speaker then went on to say that book banning is a direct violation of the First Amendment right to free speech. The speaker agreed with those in the affirmative that there is some content that should be “aged in,” as the speaker put it. This means that, like movies and television, they have ratings G through R. The speaker believes books should likewise have a rating scale. I would venture to say it is inaccurate to say banning a book denies the ability to invoke the First Amendment right because publishing a book, while it may be banned from public schools or not, is still a privilege awarded to you- you don’t have the right to your books being placed in school libraries, you have the privilege of it.
Speaker 5 followed, and they spoke in the affirmative. Speaker 5 articulated their idea that book banning would not affect curriculum in any way and that curricula are the most important parts of education. The fifth speaker spent a large portion of their speech time speaking about how teachers have agendas, and those agendas often go unchecked or unchallenged, and that if banning books would “check their agendas,” it makes the most sense to do so. The speaker also made sure to mention that children do not have the right to decide their value system because that is placed on the parents only and that adolescents are “not free-thinking, and are more monkey see monkey do.” It is my belief, however, as a student learning to become a teacher, that a teacher’s agenda is to teach how to learn. A good teacher would actively discourage a “monkey see monkey do” behavioral pattern and encourage students to think for themselves. A logical fallacy in the way of a hasty generalization undermines the speaker’s intent to make a well-thought-out argument.
The next two speakers, 6 and 7, both speak in the negative. Conveniently, Speaker 7 happens to be a librarian. They both share the sentiment that exposing yourself to subjective “immoral views” can have the ability to enforce your own beliefs on morality as a whole. Speaker 7 devoted much of their time in their speech to speaking about how banning books creates unsafe rhetoric and the destruction of culture. Because morality is subjective, all culture is culture. Deleting, banning, or otherwise removing culture perpetuates the idea that we have no longer honored our commitment to unity and justice. The seventh speaker also wanted to make the audience aware that meticulous and due process is in place for the construction of a library’s collection. They would like to make it known that book age ranges, as listed by the Library of Congress, are for the context of the development of a library’s collection and not prescribed and enforced guidelines on who is allowed to consume what. The speakers also highlighted that there is inherent value in questioning why a book is being challenged and if the challengers have read the book from cover to cover. Simply put, is there a proper and fair reason for a book to be challenged?
The final speaker for the affirmative, Speaker 8, began their speech with a disclaimer that their experience with education was different from the normal. Speaker 8 spoke about how their personal experience with Speaker 8’s parents disagreeing with the public school curriculum led the speaker to be placed in a privatized Christian school. The speaker mentioned that this clearly “sheltered me (Speaker 8) from current societal viewpoints, such as minority voices, gender identity, and LGBTQ acceptance.” Speaker 8 believed that because they were sheltered at a young age, it made them more “open-minded” to outside voices when he had already “gathered his opinion about the subject.”
In all fairness to the eighth speaker, their speech had a nice sentiment to it, but their argument was filled with post hoc ergo propter hoc. Simply put, the correlation of being sheltered from certain ideologies because of your schooling may not be the cause of your curiosity. However, if it is the cause, then it cannot be considered a common experience for other people.
I’m sure by now you can sense my biases. I can say, though, that the debate did its job in the way that it allowed for civil discourse among disagreeing peers. I decided to remain silent for the duration of the debate, as I had initially gone with the role of being a spectator, unaware that my participation would have been welcomed and encouraged. I find it morally pressing to make my viewpoints clear; I am in favor of education. I can and will express vehement opposition to the removal of texts or otherwise written literature due to the reasoning that it is controversial or bad in another person’s moral viewpoints, which are indeed not universal and are very much subjective. An educational setting can be the safest place to explore and identify viewpoints or ideologies differing from those of your own, and censorship in those places not only creates distrusting rhetoric but also fosters the idea of removal of free thought and agency. We are all awarded the right to choose; it is our responsibility as united citizens to choose; removal of choice from another is unfair and has no place, especially in education.
Overall, this intercollegiate debate was an illuminating experience. There are plans to move forward with more intercollegiate debates, one happening at each of the campuses. I look forward to the next opportunity to hear from peers in our community speak on issues relevant to each of us.
