Slide 1

The Right to Read

Slide 2
Celebrating the right to read
About two months ago, at the end of September, I came across
Banned Books Week with the words Celebrating the Freedom to
Read following it. This caught my attention as banning books
prevents people from reading the books (that are banned which
means that their freedom is removed). And since I spent most my
childhood a variety of genre of books, I personally felt that it is not
right to prevent someone from reading a certain book (click). So I
decided to take a closer look at the matter. (click)
Slide 3
In Banned Books week 2014, they featured the top 10 most
challenged books of the previous year,2013 (click) which included
well known books such as Captain Underpants, The Hunger Games
and even The Perks of Being a Wallflower. The reasons that these
books are banned are (click) that these books instigate or mention
violence, drugs as well as any book that people feel are unsuited for
the age group. (click)
Slide 4
Of all of the complains the majority of (click) 72% were from parents
and I must clarify that
According to the American Library Association (ALA), parentsand
only parents (click) have the right and the responsibility to
restrict the access of their children to library resources as a result, it is
only when books are challenged that the libraries have the authority
to remove them from the shelves.
which leads to my central knowledge question (click)
Slide 5
(click)
To what extent should adults control the literary freedom of
children? (because by controlling the literary freedom of children, it
prevent exposure to ideas that may possibly affect their childhood
development so thats a good thing isnt it? but by restricting a child
from reading a book, surely their enthusiasm for reading will be
diminished and it is widely known that reading is somewhat vital in
terms of academics in the future) This then leads to the knowledge
question of (click)
To what extent are logical decisions ethical? Parents instinctively
try to protect their children from the violence, offensive language and
the drug abuse that is depicted in some challenged books. As they
believe that it is logical to protect the young mindset of their children
as they might not be mature enough to fully understand the situation
described in the book and may perceive it as the norm. (click)
Furthermore, does censorship harm or aid development?

After all, if art is an area of knowledge and literature is art, Is it

plausible to say that, restricting a child from reading is similar to
preventing them from acquiring knowledge? And wont this affect
their development?
Slide 6
At the top of the list of the top 10 most challenged books for the last
two consecutive years is The Adventures of Captain Underpants
series. And this is due to the offensive language (click) violence and
bullying (click) depicted in the book, which parents feel is unsuitable
(click) for the target audience of elementary school students, 5 to 11
years old. (click)
Slide 7
To what extent should adults control the literary freedom of children?
CLAIM1. parents have the right and thus they should control the literary
freedom of children as dont they know what is best for their child?
(click)
2. In addition, restricting what the child has access to read allows
parents to closely monitor their childs development and in some sense
shape their personality so that they might have a better understanding
of their child. (click)
3. After all, it is widely believed that a persons character and
personality is heavily influenced by their upbringing which is the role of
parents to nurture a child and to provide them with a happy childhood.
Parents nurture children in different ways and thus if parents feel that
children should not read Captain Underpants as it encourages rebellion
and bad school behavior, then parents will not let their children read it
and their child would not be exposed to offensive language such as
stupid at the age of 5. (click)
COUNTERCLAIM
But then again, one must consider the fact that (click) although
parents have the right to control the literary freedom of their child,
they should NOT control the literary freedom of children (click)
1. Because by restricting a child from reading a book, their enthusiasm
for reading may possibly be diminished because they are not allowed
to read this book and not allowed to read that book. And a poll had
shown that the readers of the Adventures of Captain Underpants series
were often young boys and as some of you with younger siblings might
know, making a 5-year-old boy to read a book could be a parents
worst nightmare. So if a child who is stubborn to read actually reads a
book that parents do not favor, is it right for the parent to stop the
child from reading that book because it shows kids treating adults with
disrespect? Wouldnt preventing a child from reading a book they
wanted discourage the child from reading? And is that ethically
correct? (click)
2. When I was younger, my parents didnt mind that I was reading
Captain Underpants but a parent of my best friend did. Her parents

didnt tell her why she shouldnt read the book; they just told her that it
was unsuitable for her. Wouldnt it be much better if parents let their
children read the book of their choice then discussed the contents of
the book with the child instead? This way, the child would have a
better understanding of the book and might realize that the violent or
disrespectful actions of the characters in the book is wrong. Thus, if
parents really know what is best for their children, they should monitor
(click) but not control (click) the literary freedom of children. (click)
3. Moreover, if literature is subjective and open to interpretations, so
what might be considered inappropriate for one parent might not be
inappropriate to another parent so is it right that just because a group
of parents complained about the description of violence in a book that
the book has to be removed from the library? That is the same as
saying just because a hundred people dont like the Water Lilies by
Claude Monet (click) because the painting is fuzzy, vague and obscure
does that mean that it should be removed from the museum? Since
literature is so subjective, should parents really control what their
children read? (click)
4. After all, some children are more mature than others, which means
that even at the age of 5, some might understand that bullying is
wrong even if it is described as the cool thing to do in the book. And
once again, we must remember that the books that are challenged and
removed from libraries are often fiction books. (click)
5. By controlling the literary freedom of children, arent parents
preventing the growth of imagination? And isnt imagination often
associated with the mental ability to think outside the box and be
creative? (click)
Surely a child has the right to read a book and knows if a book is
suitable for them? But then again, dont parents know what is best for
nurturing a child?
Slide 8
CLAIM (logical decisions are ethical)
1. From parents perspectives, they will feel that it is logical to control
the books their children read as they feel that they know what is best
for the child as it is books that shapes the childs innocent mind.
(click)
2. After all it is often acknowledged that children are educated by
reading books even if it is fiction. Consequently, reading books
describing children of their age bullying younger students might give
readers the impression that bullying is normal and justified as the
characters in the book are not reprimanded for bullying other
students. (click)
3. 4.
In addition, it is widely assumed that a child that grows up in a violent
environment will develop a violent and aggressive personality and
thus, a child reading a book depicting violence and graphic images
may also develop a violent personality as they might have the
perception that beating up robots and bullying small students (as
depicted in Captain Underpants) is normal (click). So in some sense,

parents are linking logic and ethics to create a safe, enjoyable and
happy childhood for their children which is ethically correct. (click)
COUNTERCLAIM (But logical decisions might not necessarily be ethical)
1. Parents themselves, however often admit the fact that reading
educates. (click)
2. And one must remember the fact that if literature is art, and art is an
area of knowledge, is it plausible to say that preventing a child from
reading a book, it is the same as preventing them from acquiring
knowledge? (click)
3. Which then leads to the question, is it ethically right to restrict a child
from gaining knowledge? It might be logical to not let a 5 year old
read a book that advocates bullying but surely if the content of the
books were discussed, the child would be able to understand that this
book is fiction and that certain events in the book such as euthanasia
is both good and bad for the society. For example, another banned
book, The Giver (click) has been removed in libraries in America for
being unsuited for the age group due to violence, religious viewpoint
and the hint of suicide and euthanasia. Euthanasia might seem like a
subject that is too mature for children about 9 years old but be
reminded that each child has a different level of maturity and getting
them to think about these issues from a young age could possibly
enhance their critical thinking skills.
4. In addition, if parents can restrict a child from reading a book because
the content is unsuitable for their age group, does that means that
parents can also restrict a child from listening to certain pieces of
music because literature and music are both subcategories of art
which are so subjective to interpretation that a piece of art could be
ones antidote or ones worst nightmare. Thus, parents often try to
protect their children and provide their children with best education
that they can but sometimes restricting a child from fiction and
imagination found in books, (click) is not giving them room to grow
and mature. And is that what a parent is supposed to do? Is it ethical
for parents to be a hindrance for a childs development? After all,
literature is art which is an area of knowledgerestrict a child from
reading books and youre restricting a child from knowledge which in
my opinion is unethical. (click)
Slide 9 Does censorship harm or aid development?
CLAIM (Censorship aids development) (click) (click)
1. As I mentioned before, parents instinctively try to protect their
children from certain matters such as graphic pictures of warfare and
violence as they feel that the child is not mature enough to fully
understand these issues and may harm their development and
personality. If parents controlled everything around their children,
parents would ensure a safe upbringing for their child, as everything
the child learns would have a filter to ensure that no harmful content,
which may scar their development, will affect them. (click)
2. For example, in The Giver (click), babies who are born with slow
mental development are put to sleep as they will disrupt the (perfect)

community that has been created. Furthermore, the elderly in the

community are in some sense murdered without knowing it. This
could instigate fear into the child who might not ever want to grow up
for the fear of being killed once they get old. Thus, if parents acted as
a filter for their children, they would be able to steer their childs in
the right direction and may possibly bring out the best of the child.
(click)
3. Additionally, isnt ignorance bliss? If children did not know the
dangers of the real world, they would not have to worry about it! But
then again, when does oblivion (click) become ignorance? (click)
COUNTERCLAIM (censorship harms development)
1. Being oblivious could harm development, as it would not let a child
think about critical issues such as euthanasia for population control. Is
it right for the parents to continuously shield their child from the real
world? It might be logical for parents to instinctively try to shape their
childrens upbringing by restricting the books they read but wouldnt
that lead to the development of a close-minded individual who is
oblivious to the issues presented in the book? (click)
2. Censorship of various types of media restricts imagination and
children growing up in such a strictly facilitated environment would be
unprepared to face the real world. Is that what a parent is supposed
to do? Arent parents meant to prepare us for the real world instead of
keeping us in a security bubble all the time? (click)
3. Fiction books often have moral values, which allow readers to think
about the actions of the characters. In The Giver, (click) the people
there have all been genetically altered not to have feelings as normal
humans do so they dont feel sadness or anger but neither do they
feel happiness or excitement. This is why parents think that this book
is unsuitable for children. But parents who restrict their child from
reading this book (point) often dont explain to their children that
logical decisions could have ethical implications and thus, it is
important that parents should not just censor what their children read
but instead, parents should discuss the issue and encourage their
child to think beyond. (click)
4. Forbidding a child from reading is just avoiding the issue when the
child grows up and realizes what the parent has done will the child be
grateful? Or will it strain the relationship? It seems logical to shield
their child from violence and the harsh reality of the world depicted in
books which may provide a happier childhood for the child. But will
that make the child less prepared to face the real world and make
them a close-minded individual?
Moreover if reading educates, (click) letting the child read whatever
book that they wanted, will spark their curiosity in the content of the
book and these children will be further motivated to read more books
and other genres which will develop their literary skills. (click)
Thus, I believe that censorship is the biggest enemy of truth.
Slide 10
Knowledge questions revisited

(click)
To what extent should adults control the literary freedom of
children? (click)
It allows parents to control and be more involved in their childs
development (click)
But at the same time, it increases the chance that the child might
have a diminished enthusiasm for reading and may prevent the
growth of imagination (click)
To what extent are logical decisions ethical? (click)
As I mentioned earlier, parents know what is best for their child dont
they? So if parents restricts a child from reading a book in order to
create a safe and happy childhood, what they are doing is logical. But
is it necessarily ethical? (click) Literature is a form of art which
means that literature is knowledge (click) and preventing a child
from reading a book, restricts them from acquiring knowledge and
moral values that could be present in the book. (click)
Does censorship harm or aid development? (click)
Ignorance is bliss and if one does not know about the dangers of the
world, one does not have to worry about it. Which could in possibly
shape the personality of an optimistic, happy child who doesnt have
to worry about things such as food scarcity and security. But then
again, is being ignorant good? (click)
And when does ignorance become oblivion? And does that aid the
development of a child? OR does that lead to the development of a
close minded individual?
Slide 11
Conclusion (click)
In my opinion, if parents really know what is best for their children,
they should not control the literary freedom of children, instead they
should (click) monitor and make suggestions if they feel that the
book is unsuitable for the child and discuss the book with their
children and allow the child to decide for themselves if they still want
to read the book. This way, the childs enthusiasm for reading will not
be diminished. (click)
Allowing the child to read whatever book they wish to read will
stimulate the child to think little further to think about the importance
of the issues in the book and why it is frowned upon by different
communities. Reading can give children a different perspective of life
and lets them question and understand why parents want these books
to be removed from the libraries, which will enhance the childs
critical thinking skills, essential for the future. So parents should not
act as a filter for their children, instead they should grant their
children literary freedom and room for (click) growth. (click)
It is only when the child understands the concept of why parents want
books to be removed that the child will decide whether they still want
to read it or not. Self censorship is much better than forced
censorship as it will allow the child to start thinking critically for

themselves at young age and enable them to think critically in the

future a skill that is essential to ones development.
This follows the principle that yelling at a child to behave at a social
gathering does nothing but frustrates the child. Instead, parents who
ask the child to consider their actions upon others raise better
children who are more engaged and aware of their surroundings
allowing them to make better decisions in the future. And making
them think whether their actions are good for others is educating
them to make better judgments. Thus, instead of imposing rules,
parents should teach children the art of (click) self censorship
(click).
Thank you
And fight for the right to read