Hundreds of books have been challenged or banned in schools throughout the US. These books are banned on a huge range of reasons, from obscene language to sexual content to violence to the discussion of menstruation. But all of these things are facts of life. Should academic institutions have the power to censor books?
No, schools should not be able to ban booksShow moreShow less
Schools should not have the capability to regulate what children are reading.
Books have the ability to give an abundance of information to readers, thus increasing intelligence.
Literature is able to teach history in context. Readers can gain first-person experience about a part of history through characters, even if the book is fiction. It is an alternative way to learn about history from a direct perspective.
For example, books can teach readers empathy. By reading about characters' experiences, children gain a better understanding of emotions and can feel compassion, sympathy, then empathy.
Children can learn through other mediums besides literature. Teachers, family, and the news all are capable of teaching the same information books can. Literature is not necessary for teaching, therefore should not be considered a teacher.
[P1] Reading improves memory.
[P2] Reading increases intelligence.
[P3] Reading increases emotional empathy.
[P4] As reading enriches students so much, schools should not be censoring what they read.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P4] Literature is not the only thing that offers these benefits.