The right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas thriugh which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive, and disseminate ideas. (ALA Intellectual Freedom Q & A, 1/17/2008)
But the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), a federal law enacted by Congress in December 2000 to address concerns about access to offensive content over the internet on school and library computers, imposes certain types of requirements on any school or library that receives funding support for internet access or internet connections from the "E-Rate" program - a program that makes certain technology more affordable for eligible schools and libraries. In early 2001, the Federal Communications Commission issued rules implementing CIPA.
While the ALA openly disdains the restriction of access to information, for children as well as adults, school media specialists are subject to CIPA . Conflicting opinions exist as to how to make the law and the ALA standards of intellectual freedom best work together and vary according to one's position and role in society. If CIPA guidelines are not followed, then funding discounts for certain technologies in school libraries are prohibited. What school library can afford this situation if its inherent intent is to teach college level information researching skills to the student? A situation in the Grosse Pointe school system arose in November of 2007, a case of intellectual freedom versus censorship in the school library, and is interesting for its grassroots level.
According to Steve Wolosyn, District Technical Director of the Grosse Pointe school system, (1/17/2008), a principal reported from one of the district schools that a teacher had found a student on a graphic (sexually objectionable) site on Wikipedia. Because such material cannot be selectively filtered , the whole of Wikipeda was made inaccessible in the school libraries. The decision was made by the Technology Steering Committee, which serves under the school board, in accordance with CIPA. The site remains inaccessible at this point.
A Detroit Free Press article dated 1/13/2008 "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad", addressed the Grosse Pointe incident from a students point of view, which was that of protest against the censorship. Veronica Menaldi, author of the article, wonders "that only at school is access to both offensive and useful material blocked". She consulted Dr. Elliot Soloway, a professor with the Center of Highly Interactive Computing in Education at U of M. Dr. Soloway states "Outside of school, Wikipedia and blogs are used all the time. People have learned how to evaluate the information they find there. Children inside of school need to be taught how to critically evaluate informatio so they, too, can take advantage of the value of the Wikipedia and the blogs.".
I consulted Karen Villegas, full time school media specialist for Grosse Pointe North High School. She has been in this position with GP North for 9 years. According to Karen, in summing up our interview:
- The internet is very tough to manage - as a professional she agrees with the freedom to read, but she also sees some benefit to filtering. It is a dilemma for her because protecting kids from something they are going to be using outside of school does not help them - it is more important to steer them to other sources. If a teacher accepts Wikipedia as a reference, then that is his/her prerogative. On the other hand, filters can be positive because they can prevent "unintended material" from reaching the student. Before filtering became more sophisticated, a student unintentionally received email from a porn site. In another situation, education web sites were being "porn-napped" by advertisers who provided disguised links to their pornographic sites on these seemingly safe web sites at school.
- "Good stuff is not free on the internet." If students want to use Wikipedia and Google, then, according to Karen, we must teach them to evaluate the sites they go to. If unreliable information is used then the student suffers. Since Wikipedia has been banned, Karen has seen some positive changes in the students research habits - they are not using Google as much nor wasting so much time as people do when they get distracted by the myriad of unrelated information on Wikipedia. The students are recognizing that their time is valuable and appreciating qualified references that the school provides and pays for.
- On a positive note for Wikipedia, it can provide a jumping off point for research about a subject that there is not much information about with keywords and related subjects.
Students who are 18 years of age (no longer minors - who can vote as well as go to war) are still restricted from banned sites at school because they are students. Wikipedia will remain banned at GP North until it can be determined whether pictures that are obscene, pornographic, or harmful to minors can be selectively filtered.
Questions to consider:
Should parents or government have jurisdiction over what their children view on the internet at school and in public libraries? Perhaps students could carry an access card which would contain sites approved by parents.
Wikipedia contains a great deal of thoughtful, useful information as well as unreliable information and sources. Disclaimers and warnings to the reader as to the possibility of objectionable content are loud and clear. Does banning this site in a school library violate intellectual freedom and the right of an individual to have access to information or is this a necessary protection of minors for the good of society?
Does censorship maintain a certain quality or moral fabric of life?
Who rules? The majority who is ready to learn responsible internet researching?
or the few who complain? or those who get caught on inappropriate sites?
Is censorship a way for schools to avoid litigation by those who may be offended?
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Freedom
http://www/scils.rutgers.edu/-kvander/censorship.html
http://www.greenlakelibrary.org/blog/archives/016470.htm
Detroit Free Press, "Does Wikipedia good outweigh the bad". Veronica Menaldi, Sunday, anuary 13, 2008.
Interview with Karen Villegas, GP North High School, School Media Specialist, January 31, 2008
16 comments:
This is a tough one. Although kids may have access to questionable material on the internet outside of school, should they have such freedoms inside school? Schools are public institutions, and therefore, in the public interest. It's probably a good idea to take a census of what parents, teachers, and staff feel is an appropriate way of dealing with potentially inappropriate materials. It is extremely important for children to learn how to evaluate resources, such as Wikipedia. They can surely benefit from learning good research skills. Rather than let them go at it in a school library, how about teaching this in a classroom setting. Have a computer class where Wikipedia is searched and criticized as a group, in a controlled environment. It was also mentioned that although Wikipedia is not always accurate, it often serves as a "jumping off point" for research. Why not have the library media specialist in conjunction with teachers compile information on popular research topics in the form of indexes and pathfinders. This would give students a great resource for how to go about learning more on a certain subject.
I agree that censorship is a tricky issue in the context of school libraries. Parents cannot supervise their children on-site, as they can in a public library. And, barring homeschooling or expensive private options, must allow their child to attend school. Moreover, teachers, burdened by large classes, also are unable to effectively monitor what children are looking at. And then you throw the Internet, with its porn sites, and sexual predators, into the mix.
As a result, I can understand why many schools resort to filtering or censoring certain materials, but only in the lower grades. At some point, if we are really serious about teaching college level research skills, schools must stop censoring information for students and teach them how to evaluate sources of information for themselves.
You asked whether censoring helps to maintain a certain quality or moral fabric of life, and to answer, I think censorship reduces everyone to a common denominator of mediocrity. It’s like forcing everyone to eat vanilla ice cream. There is nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream in and of itself, but think of all the tastes and combinations of flavors you’d be missing.
And it is exposure to conflicting opinions and new and surprising ideas that makes learning fun and worthwhile. If we never let children explore the world around them, unrestricted, some will rebel (with mixed results), but many will simply internalize the absence of curiosity that they have been carefully taught. They will stop exploring the world of ideas and, instead, accept rote learning of prescreened and preapproved curricula as the proper model for learning. They will never develop fully the skills that a college bound child should have, and that an innovative and successful adult must have.
But how a school achieves this without being sued? I don’t know. But usually if something is important, its worth a fight.
I definitely think that it is important that students learn to evaluate resources, such as Wikipedia. Students should be taught that there are a lot better sources out there, which as you guys point out can be provided by the school media specialist. I also really like Nicole's idea of having the students search and criticize these sites as a class. While I definitely appreciate the fact that the banning of Wikipedia had a positive impact on students' search habits and use of research time, I think that there are a lot better ways the same thing could have been accomplished.
As far as students inadvertantly accessing in appropriate materials, I really think they need to take into consideration the age groups they are dealing with. I understand the need for younger students to have the content selectively filtered, but I think that when it comes to older students, especially over 18, having the same overarching ban is a little ridiculous.
This is the area I struggle with the most and perhaps it is the reason why I have with 100% certainty ruled out wanting to be a school media specialist!!! I want somebody else to lay awake at night wondering how to find the balance between censorship vs. selection in the school setting...give me public libraries any day...
I am not a parent yet. I do not have children that I need to raise properly and protect from the evils of the world. Regardless, I do understand morals and I have a set of them I live by. I understand that there are certain things a child should not see until they are emotionally mature and at an age where they are capable of processing what it is they see. However... I strongly believe in what the ALA states about all individuals having the right to information without restriction. Is this a conflict of interest for me? Perhaps.
I most certainly would not want my hypothetical fifth grader looking at porn in the school library when he should be working on a project about tornados, or butterflies, or whatever project fifth graders get assigned these days. And I would hope that the school has put in place some sort of filter to prevent that from happening. But on the flip side, if I have raised a hypothetically mature 18 year old who I believe to be an emtionally ready individual, capable of processing difficult material who just happened to be working on a project about the Holocaust, I would most definitely want her to be able to access material that some might deem questionable. Otherwise, isn't that doing the student/child an injustice? It's preventing them from learning!
I really agree with and think it was a wonderful analogy that K. Gordon made about it being comparable to forcing everyone to eat vanilla ice cream. Truly outstanding statement! Censorship, in a way, is an attempt to conform us all to one school of thought...
Censorship really is a tricky issue in the context of a school library, one that will never have a right or wrong answer. All we can hope is that the librarians who step up to fill the roles as school media specialists don't abuse the power and can really strike a balance between censorship and free access. Good luck future school media specialists! I don't envy you!
Wow, this is continuing from the hornet's nest I knocked over in class!
Kids will be kids, and most kids know all the tricks of getting all the "dirty stuff" on the web, so even if the media specialists and teachers compile information, there's always going to be one who turns to Wikipedia to look at "dirty" stuff. In a classroom of 30, you can't always keep an eye on everyone, and the same rule applies when you take them to the media center, art class, and so on. It's inevitable that someone's going to try to access dirty sites.
As far as censorship trying to enforce a moral fabric, I agree with Katherine that if everyone was the same, it would lead to mediocrity. We are all human beings and many of us are "wired" biologically to be different. Some people will never conform, and they're the ones that truly make history. They're the ones that truly find the lines, cross them, and make people think, and make a bigger impact on the world.
Does censorship maintain a certain quality or moral fabric of life?
Yes, censorship maintains a certain quality or moral fabric of life. It maintains a specific person’s or community’s way of life and filters all other pieces out. Margaret Atwood says, “The aim of such suppression is to silence the voice, abolish the word, so that the only voices and words left are those of the ones in power.” On a national level, I imagine this sort of suppression can eventually lead to political violence.
Atwood provides another interesting aspect about censorship. She acknowledges that society has not banned social drinking in order to counter alcoholism. “On the other hand, we do have laws about drinking and driving, excessive drunkenness and other abuses of alcohol that may result in injury or death to others.” Likewise, censorship attempts to regulate social/moral codes of a community by controlling it. When a community leader or parent decides to limit access to certain ideas they are doing so with the intention of preserving a valued code of ethic. Their motive is to protect the patron or child from harm. Although, I’m not sure that reading A Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx will do bodily harm to someone but it may stir up some controversy on the home front or in school classrooms. Still, it is a form of control and places limits on the depth to which someone can explore an idea completely.
Those who censor are maintaining that “a certain quality or moral fabric of life” is being upheld. That certain moral is their own.
Works Cited
Mark Cohen, "Censorship in Canadian Literature." (2001): pg68.
We're making some assumptions, aren't we, when we say that making everyone read the same thing means that they'll all turn out the same way? By that reasoning, a required reading list in English class means that I'll somehow begin to think like my fellow students. And what evidence is there that this is true?
And besides, taking some things out of the reach of students is NOT the same thing as making them read the same things. It just means that the things that they CAN'T read are the same.
Anne made the point before, and I'll ask again. Why do we think that giving children access to the same materials that we'd give adults access to, means that they are equipped to process it in the mature way that the I.F. advocates seem to assume they will?
All that said, I can't repeat strongly enough how important--how crucial--it is that the parent be a parent. Pay attention to what your kid is doing. Don't expect librarians or the ALA to mother or father your child. Once we start down THAT path--and unfortunately, we have already started--the parent is being essentially excused from solely exercising his or her parental obligations. (You think reconciling intellectual freedom with your own values is hard? Try having to make decisions about the general welfare of kids whose parents are--in any of the ways that count--no-shows. See how "easy" that is.)
I could not agree more that it is the role of the parent and not the school's to determine what material is suitable for their child to view in all areas of media. It happens to be the school gets caught in the middle in this scenario between the parent, child, and information as they are charged with the supervisory role of educator. They are also at the mercy of a variety of parenting styles and have to serve as an intermediary behind them. They contend with the permissive parent, the strict parent, and as Yashmyn mentioned, the parent who is simply absent. Striking a happy medium in those circumstances can be all but happy.
To me that place of compromise would be setting differing levels of access to the internet with an accompanying code based on the parent's level of comfortability. Will there be loopholes? Yes. But a child who is determined to find out about certain topics will be sure to find out about them regardless. The school library can only do so much.
Censorship within the school system is a difficult topic to face. On the one hand, we want our children to have access to information on the Internet, but on the other, some of the material is not appropriate for them to view. I feel that filtering sites for younger children is appropriate, but for the high school students, especially if they are 18 or older, they should not have limitations on what they can view. As stated, if an eighteen year old student can vote and go to war, then they should be able to decide what is appropriate for their own viewing on the Internet.
I have to agree that some of the content within certain Websites are offensive, schools are trying to look out for the best interests of the children, but they are categorizing all children as the same. But by banning Wikipedia, many young children still can find ways around the Internet to obtain the same material. So if the site is to be blocked, the Media Specialist should have an alternative plan to other sites that give the same information if not better material. Anyway one looks at the situation, if children want to get around the filtering, they will.
Schools are caught in the crossfire when it comes to censorship, many feel that access to information should not be restricted and others feel that there should be restriction. I do not have any children of my own, but I have a nephew, and I would like him to have access to information that is appropriate to his age level. I want him to succeed in school and I do not want him to have the same access to information when he is eighteen as he did in the fourth grade. There needs to be a balance in the way schools censor information, and I am sure that Media Specialists have looked at it from all angles, but is it right for all ages to be treated the same, and have every age subjected to the same kind of filters?
I don't think wikipedia should be banned. It is a great starting point when it comes to research. Schools should be teaching online researching skills rather then out right banning them. Online research is such a basic tool these days and I doubt it will ever stop being a basic tool, that I think it would be more beneficial for schools to teach right from wrong. It is true that if students can not use Wikipedia at school in a controled environment, they will just go home (or to the local library) and access and come up with who knows what.
On a side note, I remember my mother mentioning how she never displayed the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit addition when she was the Media Specialist in a middle school and High School libraries.
I think that a better approach than censorship is education. If the children are not only taught how to search for information but also how to filter/evaluate it themselves, they will do a better job. Children armed with a morale gauge will know how to identify good information, and will know that a single source is never enough for valid information. With today’s access to Internet on so many places, it is impossible to ban everything questionable and be in the same time a free society. Best example is China: many sites that are banned contain mostly political information. Is that good for them, does it make them safer? If so, does it make them safer from what exactly?
Applying censorship in general raise questions regarding the authority of the person (or group) that decides that certain information should be banned. You relay on someone else to make the judgment for you.
With this in mind, Wikipidea would be only one source among others. Data contained there is not all “good” or “bad”, it really depends on the subject, but that would be only one viewpoint.
Should parents or government have jurisdiction over what their children view on the Internet at school and in public libraries?
.
As a parent I feel like I need to protect my children from certain concepts, cruelties, images (the kids have enough to deal with in everyday life). I think that parents should monitor what their children read, listened, play, websites they visit. That is a parent’s job, and it is part of their responsibility to monitor their children education.
A sentence that states,” The library accepts no responsibility for enforcing what a parent may not want a child to see, read, or view while in the library” should be part of every library’s policies or procedures. “Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” is very clear on this point:
" Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents-and only parents-have the right and responsibility to restrict the access of their children-and only their children-to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials or facilities, should so advise their children. Librarians and governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child."
Work Cited:
Ann K. Symons and Charles Harmon-“Protecting the Right to Read”-A How –To-Do-It Manual for Schools and Public Librarians. (1995), p. 60
I believe that the issue of what children should have access to on the internet at school is a very difficult question to deal with.
Ultimately I believe that it is up to the parents. But I also believe that the school media specialist needs to work along with the parents to develop an arena for kids to research and to be able to explore everything that the internet has to offer without getting into trouble.
Ultimately I think that all of a childs internet use needs to start at home, if a foundation is built there than it will more than likely hold up at school.
There is also another interesting point that I think we should look at, should the maturity level of the student make a difference in what they are allowed access too, and who should make that decision?
I'm not a parent let the kids do what they want! I suppose that is the all too easy answer for someone in my position. However I do have an 11 year old sister in law and I know her parents are incredibly careful in the nature of media that she is exposed to. Recognizing the community need to exhibit some care and responsibility for children as well as attempts to respect the intentions and wishes of parents censorship is an incredibly tricky road. Especially when there is the issue of children who may need access to information that would not be covered in a traditional "children's/ young adult" section. Medical information, issues related to abuse, or drug addiction are going to be pretty limited in a school library but with access to sites like Wikipedia moderately decent information can be obtained while maintaining student privacy. This I feel is part of the problem as well, recognizing that despite not being 18 children do have a right to privacy.
I have been wrestling with the idea of Internet censorship in schools and libraries since we first started discussing it, and I have to say that it really should come down to the discretion and judgment of the librarian or teacher in charge.
I don't think that sites like wikipedia should be blocked. As we have mentioned students may often need access to various types of information, be it for academic or personal reasons, and to deny them that would be a crime. Certain types of information might fall within a gray area, and I don't necessarily think a librarian should remove a student from a computer simply because they are reading about drug addiction or some other such taboo subject.
On the other hand, I think its absurd that we need to debate whether children should be allowed to look at something like pornography on a public or school internet terminal. They are not going to glean any pertinent information from something like that. Information on sexuality, or communicable diseases, etc is entirely permissable, and clearly not the same as something that is blatantly pornographic.
Post a Comment