Mediaboss Marketing

With the beginning of the college academic year, those of us teaching this fall are drafting various course syllabi seeing what might be worth revisiting, such as new readings that might be added.

But all too often, the upfront syllabus boilerplate sections are overlooked since they are cut and pasted from previous versions of the same course or similar ones. Unfortunately, a section dealing with free expression in the classroom is missing in many.

This is a more focused area than campus speech, which continues to attract national headlines as outside speakers from the right and left are disinvited or shouted down. The issue here is less about censorship which may be referenced in a syllabus by linking to an established campuswide free-expression policy or the University of Chicago Principles adopted by dozens of universities and more about self-censorship.

The latter concern often is more difficult to identify since it involves an unwillingness to speak freely in light of actual or perceived consequences for doing so. Data and personal experience suggest this needs to be addressed head-on.

For example, the Heterodox Academys 2023Campus Expression Surveyasked more than 1,500 full-time college students from universities across the country about how reluctant they are to share their views on various topics in class and what variables are associated with students reluctance.

Just over 58 percent of the respondents said they were reluctant to share their views on politics, race, sexual orientation, gender or religion in the classroom.

I concur with the observation of Nicole Barbaro, the organizations director of communications and marketing.This is a real problem that should concern all educators, especially across the social sciences, biological sciences and humanities where these topics are most likely to be central to academic research and discussions. If students arenot comfortable talkingabout these topics in class a space intended for exploring ideas, discussing research and critically thinking about problems then our universities are, in part, failing at their intended purpose.

Classroom self-censorship is a two-sided phenomenon. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) surveyed almost 1,500 college faculty members nationwide to dig deeper into the issue. Its data show that a third of faculty (34 percent) reported they self-censor on campus fairly or very often.

According to FIRE, faculty members are more likely to self-censor today than during the Joseph McCarthy era of the 1950s.

Based on its survey, this observation again rings true to me and probably to countless other faculty members. It is hard to comprehend the fact that the very group of people charged to showcase how viewpoint diversity and healthy debate functions are themselves limiting their expression at rates higher than the students they are supposed to teach.

Ten years ago, I served as the inaugural professor of communication in residence at Northwestern University in Qatar. Unlike the United States, there was no First Amendment there to reference. My students were brought up in a culture where free speech was not encouraged and, in fact, could be punished severely as a matter of law.

By discussing self-censorship in class with my students at the outset, I was gratified how an explicit conversation at the beginning of the semester supported and reinforced with each class session produced a high level of viewpoint diversity and dissenting voices. I saw how the students felt free to engage with me in covering the course material, not just learning about free expression as an ideal but also experiencing it in practice.

Given the wave of classroom self-censorship that has hit U.S. college classrooms in the intervening years, I intend not just to discuss this when I provide a course overview but also explicitly remove classroom self-censorship guardrails that may exist, even if they are not acknowledged.

The course syllabus is the ideal place to convey this, especially since it will be referenced by the students continuously throughout the semester.

Stuart N. Brotman is an endowed professor of journalism and media law, enterprise and leadership at the University of Tennessee. He wrote this forInsideSources.com.

More:
Its time to address college self-censorship - Maryland Daily Record

By Pete McGinnis Real Clear Wire

Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex. Its rather like the old military industrial complex, which was shorthand for the military, private companies, and academia working together to achieve U.S. battlefield dominance, with the R&D funded by the government that buys the final product.

But the censorship industrial complex builds algorithms, not bombers. The players arent Raytheon and Boeing, but social media companies, tech startups, and universities and their institutes. The foes to be dominated are American citizens whose opinions diverge from government narratives on issues ranging from COVID-19 responses to electoral fraud to transgenderism.

When first exposed a few months ago, many of the actors and their media defenders perversely claimed that they, as private entities, were acting out of concern for democracy and exercising their own First Amendment rights.

However, the records and correspondence of an advisory committee to an obscure government agency tell a different story. The Functional Government Initiative (FGI) has obtained through a public records request documents of the Cybersecurity Advisory Committee of the U.S. Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). The committee was composed of academics and tech company officials working with government personnel in a much closer relationship than either they or the media want to admit. Several advisory committee members who appear throughout the documents as quasi-federal actors are among those loudly protesting that they were private actors when censoring lawful American speech (e.g., Kate Starbird, Vijaya Gadde, Alex Stamos).

But the advisory committee members met often and worked so closely with their government handlers that the federal liaison to the committee regularly offered members his personal cell phone and even reminded them to use the committees Slack channel. Your average concerned citizen doesnt have a Homeland Security bureaucrat on speed dial.

What were they working on? CISAs Mis-, Dis-, and Mal-information (MDM) subcommittee discussed Orwellian social listening and monitoring, and considered the governments best censorship success metrics. Who was to be censored? CISA was formed in response to misinformation campaigns from foreign actors, but it evolved toward domestic threats. Meeting notes record that Suzanne Spaulding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said they shouldnt solely focus on addressing foreign threats [but] to emphasize that domestic threats remain and while attribution is sometimes unclear, CISA should be sensitive to domestic distinctions, but cannot focus too heavily on such limitations. So CISA should combat high-volume disinformation purveyors before the purveyor is attributed to a domestic or foreign threat and not worry so much about First Amendment niceties.

More telling is the groups attitude toward what it called mal-information typically information that is true, but contrary to the preferred narratives of the censor. Dr. Starbird wrote in an email, Unfortunately current public discourse (in part a result of information operations) seems to accept malinformation as speech and within democratic norms Therein lies a dilemma for the censors, as Starbird wrote: So, do we bend into a pretzel to counter bad faith efforts to undermine CISAs mission? Or do we put down roots and own the ground that says this tactic is part of the suite of techniques used to undermine democracy?

It is chilling that there is no consideration of whether the information is true or of the publics right to know it. Democracy in this formulation is whatever maintains the governments narrative.

Accordingly, the group discussed recommendations for countering dangerously inaccurate health advice. It contemplated the roles of the FBI and Homeland Security in addressing domestic threats, and a CISA staffer felt the need to remind the subcommittee of CISA's limitations in countering politically charged narratives.

CISA couldnt censor all the people the advisors wanted. And it could face the same outrage that greeted President Bidens Disinformation Governance Board, led by singing censor Nina Jankowicz. Americans didnt want that body deciding what they could say, and Biden shut it down within three weeks. CISAs advisers were acutely aware their work could be conflated with that of the DGB, and even considered changing the name of the MDM subcommittee. Dr. Starbird noted in an email that shed removed monitoring from just about every place where it appeared and made other defensive word changes/deletions. Similarly, Twitters Vijaya Gadde cautioned the group against pursuing any social listening recommendations for the time being.

The group also sought cover from outside and inside the government. They spent an inordinate amount of time talking about socializing the committee and its work something DGB apparently hadnt done. And like a partisan campaign, they looked for natural allies. Meeting notes record that they sought to identify a point of contact from a progressive civil rights and civil liberties angle to recruit as a [subject matter expert].

A government committee that seeks partisan allies, obfuscates its purpose, and cant even be honest about the nature of its members participation is going to sort out online truth for Americans? Welcome to the Censorship Industrial Complex.

Pete McGinnis is director of communications at the Functional Government Initiative.

Go here to see the original:
Docs offer glimpse inside Censorship Industrial Complex - The Highland County Press

Attacks on gender and sexuality in the American school system need not be direct. According to a new report from PEN America, they are often insidious and harmful all the same.James Tager

The report illustrates the frequency and volume with which legislative action goes beyond just overt content bans, instead creating chilled climates that deter the teaching of such content in schools.

These educational intimidation bills (EIBs) function not through blatant censorship but through fear, supervision, pressure, and the supporting of opposition, all of which lead to self-censorship, the authors of the report wrote.

Put simply, these educational intimidation provisions, as we dub them, empower the use of intimidation tactics to cast a broad chilling effect over K12 classrooms by mandating new and intrusive forms of inspection or monitoring of schools, as well as new ways for members of the publicincluding, in some cases, citizens with no direct connection to the schoolsto object to whatever they see that they do not like, the authors wrote.

The report together with the organizations Index of EIBs lists the state-level educational intimidation bills in the past three years. 392 were introduced between January 2021 and June 2023, and 39 have been passed into law since. And while these policies have a less than 10% pass rate, they can be reintroduced or recycled for future legislative sessions, the report authors wrote.

At least 19 U.S. states have educational intimidation tactics in place, and many local districts are also experimenting with similar sentiments, according to the report.

All but 15 of the 392 bills introduced since January 2021 were sponsored exclusively by Republicans, and both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump have touted these educational policies on the presidential campaign trail, the reports authors wrote.

EIBs come in various forms and many share similar strategies. The report categorizes 12 common provisions, including burdensome content inspection requirements; broad and vague opt-out policies;expansions of what counts as 'harmful to minors';and monitoring and surveillance access.

What these EIBs do is set the stage for systems where people whether it be teachers, librarians, supervisors, or school leaders are incentivized to err on the side of caution so as not to include potentially controversial topics or content, said James Tager, research director for PEN America.

We have to think about the fact that it's not just the individual teachers who are sort of the targets of these bills. Because an individual teacher or librarian may feel brave enough to put, at times, their job on the line, Tager said. But often it can be the higher-ups who feel incentivized to follow the notes of caution that these laws impose on an entire school.

It incentivizes school districts and schools at large to basically streamline the process so that anything remotely controversial, anything that can be objected to, anything that an ideologically driven member of the community or individual parent may object to, they just kind of remove that from the curriculum or library."

And gauging just how pervasively EIBs are silencing educators can be difficult, given that many of these instances will be invisible and never reported on, Tager said.

Floridas Dont Say Gay Act

One prominent example of an EIB is DeSantiss 2022 Parental Rights in Education Act commonly called the Dont Say Gay law which espouses parental rights but has privacy and safety risks for LGBTQ+ students.

PEN Americas report explains how the bill legally obligates teachers to notify parents of their childs well-being and health. Though seemingly well-meaning and innocuous, the bill requires educators to let parents know if there is asuspicionthat their children might be LGBTQ+, even if the student may not want to disclose that information, the authors wrote.

Its also just simpler to play it safe, as demonstrated by how the governor-turned-presidential candidates bill has led at least one school district to remove Safe Space stickers for LGBTQ+ friendly campus locations. Pasco County did so, not because of opposition to safe spaces, but because of the ambiguity that comes with discerning why a student would be there in the first place, according to the report.

A student being there could possibly warrant a parental notification. So instead, the stickers were removed to avoid misinterpretation and a potential violation of the law, according to the report.

For the states passing these bills, the fear is the point, Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in an email statement. Teachers are walking on eggshells because their freedom to teach, and kids freedom to learn, is under siege.

Amid the current political environment across the nation, there must be more done to prepare and support future teachers and administrators, said Dr. Robert Teranishi, professor of social science and comparative education at UCLA.

We also need to express support for teachers and principals when they communicate their commitment to create a safe and inclusive learning environment, he said in an email statement.

Parental rights

Using arguments hinged on parents rights, make it an uphill battle for opponents of EIBs, said Dr. Nicholas D. Hartlep, the Robert Charles Billings Endowed Chair in Education at Berea College.

"They utilize parents' rights and concerns as cover for policies and laws that ultimately harm democracy and children, a lot of times, said Hartlep, a father of three. Parents love their children. And no matter what party you are,it's hard to dismiss parents.

Society loves parents. And so, these policies and strategy are effective because they're using parents as a form of censorship. You see that with anti-trans bills and rhetoric."

Local policies and decades-old federal laws including the 1974 Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the 1978 Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment already exist to ensure parental input and curriculum transparency, the report stated.

EIBs instead extend the reach of some parents to govern more than just their own children, Tager said.

No one here is saying that parents don't have a major role to play in their child's education, Tager said. But what we're seeing is the idea that some parents' rights get to trump the rights of other parents, that the more ideological a parent is, that these laws basically impose the preferences of a few parents over the preferences of the majority of parents, students, and teachers."

Such legislation and resulting censorship ultimately lead to watered-down education and poor preparation for todays students, Tager stressed.

"We basically incentivize school districts, teachers, and librarians to present this sort of sanitized, inoffensive, milquetoast version of American history, of access to literature and specific books, Tager said. This ill-prepares kids to operate in the modern world. It ill-prepares them to interact with people from other backgrounds. It ill-prepares them to engage in robust civic debate.

Continue reading here:
Report: 'Educational Intimidation Bills' Result in Fear and Educator ... - Diverse: Issues in Higher Education

The International Youth and Students for Social Equality (IYSSE) is continuing its campaign against the de facto banning of its club at Sydneys Macquarie University.

Management at Macquarie University still refuses to affiliate the IYSSEs club, despite its having met all stipulated requirements including holding a successful Annual General Meeting on May 3. Management blocked the affiliation on the basis of the false claim that the IYSSE had overlapping aims with the pseudo-left Macquarie Socialists group.

The IYSSE has thoroughly exposed this false pretence. The Macquarie Socialists issued a statement acknowledging it has no common aims with the IYSSE. But the university has stonewalled for three months, underscoring its blatant political censorship of the only genuine socialist, anti-war club on campus.

Over 600 have signed a petitionto demand that the IYSSE be affiliated. Add your voice to the petition and send statements to management, copied to the IYSSE.

The IYSSE has published an open letter, End political censorship at Macquarie University! Affiliate the IYSSE! and is hosting a meeting on September 7 under the same title. Join the meeting:

Date: Thursday, 7 September Time: 5:00 p.m. (AEST) Room: 14SCO T5 Lecture Theatre, Macquarie University

Or participate in the online livestream via Zoom. Register atthis link.

Below are two statements from academics. One is from Thomas Mackaman, a distinguished professor of history at Kings College in Pennsylvania, and another from Professor Emanuele Saccarelli, a political scientist at San Diego State University. Both are correspondents for the World Socialist Web Site.

***

To Macquarie University management:

I call on you to reverse your decision barring the International Youth and Students for Social Equality from reaffiliating at Macquarie University.

Managements claim that the IYSSE is redundant to another student group does not withstand elementary scrutiny. Despite its use of the term socialist, the other student group in question is a pro-war organization. It is oriented to the promotion of issues of special interest to the upper middle class, for example identity and lifestyle politics. By its leaderships own admission, it has nothing in common with the IYSSE.

The IYSSE is an anti-war student group oriented to the working class. It has a long record of independent existence at universities, colleges, and high schools in a number of countries. Everywhere it has earned a reputation for its defense of democratic rights and for its serious engagement with historical questions. Nowhere is the IYSSE confused with the various upper middle class groups that, for their own purposes, misuse the word socialist. I am confident that the students at Macquarie University are every bit as capable as their peers in the US, Germany, Sri Lanka, and elsewhere, to tell the difference between the IYSSE and these other organizations.

College administrators, as we call them here in the US, have a duty to facilitate debate and discussion, and to foster the intellectual life of the campus. In the scales of your obligations to students, far greater weight must be attached to this than petty bureaucratic concerns over the repetition of the word socialist by two completely differentindeed, diametrically opposedorganizations.

The aim of fostering discourse and intellectual growth among students has never been more critical than the present. This generation of young people faces the threat of world war, the rise of fascism, the COVID pandemic, and the global climate crisis. It is imperative that students capacity to address these questions not be arbitrarily limited in the name of administrative bookkeeping.

For these reasons, I call on you to immediately reverse your decision denying the reaffiliation of the IYSSE at Macquarie University.

Sincerely,

Thomas Mackaman John J.A. Whitman Distinguished Service Professor Department of History Kings College Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

***

To Macquarie University management:

I am a Professor of Political Science at San Diego State University, where I serve as faculty advisor for a local chapter of the IYSSE.

Donate to the WSWS 25 Year Fund

Watch the video of workers internationally explain why you should donate to the WSWS.

I was informed that your office is refusing to officially recognize the IYSSE club at Macquarie even though they have complied with all of your official requirements. I understand that your explicit reason to do so is that a nominally socialist student club already exists on your campus. You have continued to deny the students efforts after being informed multiple times and quite exhaustively by both the student group that is already recognized and by the IYSSE of the vast political differences separating them. This, to say nothing of the hundreds of protest letters you have already received from concernedcitizens, students, and educators around the world, and of the online petition I just signed.

It is difficult to determine from afar whether your behavior is simply the product of bureaucratic stupidity or of a sinister inclination to politically censor the activities of your students. As politically reactionary and obtuse as my own universitys administration is, I must say that even they would not dare to get in the way of students in such a hamfisted and openly undemocratic manner.

Even if the differences separating the two clubs were slight (and by now surely you must have grasped that they are not), what exactly would possess you to step in and prevent any group of students to organize themselves according to their own understanding of their principles and political views? I struggle to come up with any plausible account of what your reasoning might be that does not involve bad faith, fear of the very students whose education and initiative your are supposed to facilitate, and, if the political climate in Australia is anything like what I see here in the United States, eagerness to capitulate toward political pressures coming from politicians and donors to prevent, among other things, the development of a genuinely anti-war movement among the youth.

I urge you to reconsider your decision and to officially recognize the IYSSE at Macquarie University.

Best,

Emanuele Saccarelli Professor, Department of Political Science San Diego State University

End political censorship at Macquarie University! Affiliate the IYSSE! Time:5 p.m. Thursday, 7 September Location:14SCO T5 Theatre, 14 Sir Christopher Ondaatje Ave, Macquarie University

Or join the online livestream via Zoom. Register atthis link.

We call on all readers to support the fight to defend the IYSSE at Macquarie University by sending letters of protest over the rejection of the IYSSEs affiliation to the Student Engagement, Inclusion and Belonging division of university management atstudentgroups@mq.edu.au, and CC:iysse.macquarie@gmail.com.

Get in touch with the IYSSE to find out how you can be involved:

Email:iysseaus@gmail.com Facebook:facebook.com/IYSSEaustralia Twitter:@IysseA Instagram:@iysse.aus

Join the fight to defend public education!

Subscribe to our student and youth newsletter

Link:
Two US academics protest ongoing political censorship of IYSSE at ... - WSWS

Books are a vital part of our lives, but with the recent increase in censorship, access to literature is dwindling. Photo by Hannah Barone.

SADIA KHATRI | OPINION COLUMNIST | sskhatri@butler.edu

For a country that prides itself on its principles of free speech and autonomy, the United States partakes in an absurd amount of censorship and book bannings. From state legislation that makes banning books as easy as learning the ABCs to individual school districts and libraries creating strict rules to ban a wide array of literature, American citizens especially American students are no strangers to censorship.

Book bans are a form of censorship that are particularly prevalent across the United States. These bans are typically defined as any type of action that is taken towards censoring certain books because of the content they may contain. School districts, parents and political groups can all contribute to book bans. Book bans are especially common in traditionally conservative states like Texas and Florida.

However, what content do these titles contain that warrant such censorship? Many of these banned books include some type of reference to race, gender or sexuality-based narratives or experiences, as is the case with The Bluest Eye, This Book is Gay, Gender Queer and The Perks of Being a Wallflower just a handful of the commonly banned titles. These are all novels that contain references to the LGBTQ+ experience, racism or sexual abuse.

Though these types of books are commonly banned, they are not the only types of novels that are banned. Historically, many magical or fantastical stories have also been censored. Alice in Wonderland was often banned in the 20th century for its depictions of talking animals. Harry Potter has often been banned for its references to magic. Books are banned for all types of ridiculous reasons, but we are seeing a dramatic increase in bans that target books that focus on race and sexuality.

Junior finance major Elizabeth Reed believes that the culprits behind book bans are motivated by some type of fear.

The people banning [these books] are scared that people are going to learn all of these different things and learn about different cultures and that its going to affect them in some deep, harmful way, Reed said. In reality, knowledge is power.

The perpetrators of these bans often claim that they are protecting children from explicit content. However, the titles that are often banned rarely contain content that younger students need to actively stay away or be protected from. Instead, novels are typically good sources that provide young readers with insight into topics they may be struggling with or experiencing themselves. For students who may not be experiencing the topics they are reading about, these novels can be valuable sources of information. Some of these books also provide remarkably valuable information about history, especially with respect to systemic and structural forms of racism.

Reed believes that the claims that banning books protects children is absurd and untrue.

I think its complete nonsense, Reed said. [Books are not inherently] harmful Those are all things people are going to learn about regardless.

History and classics lecturer Dr. Jeana Jorgenson also mentioned that the children that the book banners are trying to protect are often part of a very narrow and specific demographic.

Historically, claims of trying to protect children have primarily been about white children, Jorgenson said. [It] also implied heterosexual, cisgender, probably middle class [and] probably Christian [children]. So I think its only a narrow slice of children that these people actually care about.

It is ludicrous to claim that banning books with somewhat sensitive topics is protecting children. Students deserve to be able to read literature that contains references to topics that they may be experiencing or struggling with themselves. Students deserve to be able to read literature that contains references to challenging historical topics so they can learn about our gruesome history. Students deserve to be able to read literature that contains references to topics that broaden their horizons and provide them with unique perspectives.

Students deserve to be able to read uncensored literature.

Jorgenson mentioned that having a diverse selection of titles can be very beneficial for students of different backgrounds and identities.

I think that the absence of these works will do more harm than their presence, Jorgenson said. We have multiple studies showing that, for instance, in gender nonconforming children, knowing its okay and its normal [to be gender nonconforming] is a huge step and that has really positive mental health impacts for a lot of these marginalized populations.

In the early 2000s, around 400 books were typically banned per year. Now, however, that number has drastically increased, and a unique facet of many of these book bans is that a few specific school districts are responsible for a large number of banned books. As of April of 2023, it was found that 1,477 book bans took place during the 2022-2023 school year. These bans took place over the span of 37 states and included 874 specific books that were banned.

Students in traditionally red states, including Indiana, are at a much larger disadvantage and risk of facing increased censorship. Censorship and book bans have become commonplace, and Indiana is no exception. Indiana recently passed legislation that requires censoring books in school libraries that contain any obscene content that is harmful to minors. School librarians that do not comply with these standards could potentially face up to two and a half years of time behind bars and a level six felony.

This legislation is vague and open to interpretation, and Dr. Jorgenson thinks this only makes it more dangerous.

I think there are people, probably more conservatively aligned people, who view the expansion of gender and sexuality and, Hey, other religions are okay, [and] Hey, immigrants are okay, [and] I think theyre threatened by this, Jorgenson said.

It is absurd that the power to censor and ban titles is concentrated in the hands of individuals that are using questionable political beliefs and scare tactics to keep school districts and libraries subservient to their demands.

Reed believes that these scare tactics add another level of fear and stress for librarians.

You think, as a librarian, Okay, well, I could speak out about this and risk losing my job, Reed said. Thats one thing. But now, [they think], I could speak out about this, not remove these titles and end up with a felony record.

The Indiana bill does not specifically target literature about race or sexuality, but it does refer to titles that may be sexual in nature. Books with LGBTQ+ themes may be deemed as titles that contain sexual content that is not suitable for children, even though there may be no actual sexual content included.

Banning books is dangerous on various different levels. Apart from depriving young students from literature they deserve a chance to read, book bans are also something that Jorgenson finds to be adjacent to fascism.

When you restrict education [and] when you restrict which types of identities can just be seen as normal and a topic for literature and books, that is a move towards authoritarianism, Jorgenson said. I know that sounds alarmist but its the fascist playbook.

Yossra Daiya, a senior psychology and political science major, made the important point that books may not be the only thing that start getting censored as we progress through these uncertain times.

I think the question is, Where does it stop? Daiya said. Once you open that door to censorship, theres no longer regulation. You set the precedent to do more and to continue to censor things that are parts of American history.

Censoring books is just the start of a troubling future. There is something deeply alarming about Americas descent towards authoritarianism and fascism that words cannot even begin to describe. Children and students are beginning to lose access to more and more titles. We are starting to lose our grip on keeping literature safe and accessible.

We live in a country where there is an open playing field for people with questionable, and arguably unethical, political beliefs to run wild. America is a political playground and some politicians are jumping around without a care in the world.

As censorship efforts continue to persist, it is imperative that we make an effort to read banned books. Many of these novels indeed contain content that may make us feel uncomfortable, but that is more than okay.

Its good to be uncomfortable, Reed said. When youre uncomfortable, youre learning.

On campus, Irwin Library is a great place to begin your banned book journey. In September, Irwin Library will be hosting a month to commemorate and focus on banned books. They will be hosting a banned book showcase and panel with professors on Sept. 21. The library will also have blind dates with banned books throughout the month for students to enjoy, where students can pick up a banned book to read, along with events where students can sign petitions and write letters to their senators. As we head down a shaky and uncertain future, we must continue to keep banned books alive. Censorship is only effective if we are silent.

Take the time to read something that makes you feel a bit uncomfortable. Take the time to read something that widens your perspective. Take the time to read something that helps you understand a new identity or background. Take the time to read a banned book.

See the original post here:
Read banned books: Book bans and America's descent towards ... - The Butler Collegian