The student news publication of Libertyville High School

Drops of Ink

The student news publication of Libertyville High School

Drops of Ink

The student news publication of Libertyville High School

Drops of Ink

Boys volleyball fights hard against Glenbrook South Titans
Badminton gives their all on the courts against Glenbrook North
Girls lacrosse endures a hard fight against Lockport

Why Censorship Isn’t Black and White

Writers Week this year included a controversial performance, and the reaction it elicited since has sparked heated debate over the role of censorship .
Photo from Flickr /CC
Writers Week this year included a controversial performance, and the reaction it elicited since has sparked heated debate over the role of censorship .

If I had started this article with, let’s say, the f-word, followed by more explicit language and detailed imagery describing what can only be described as graphic and subversive, then two things would have occurred.

First, you would all immediately read the rest of the story because what the hell is DOI doing parading around swear words in an article? Second, and more importantly, the magazine would be taken out of circulation and I would face the consequences. This is a classic scenario of censorship. Censorship, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive or politically incorrect.

This brings us to Writers Week.

Disclaimer: It’s imperative to note that Writers Week is not about one person, nor is it about one piece of writing. There is an obligation to recognize all and every single individual who had the courage to share their own words, and, in that process of sharing, made us laugh, feel vulnerable, and, yes, forced us to self-reflect.

However, it would be a disservice to Libertyville students and staff to ignore the obvious debacle regarding the reaction that Ian Belknap, founder of Write Club, elicited.

Here’s the backdrop, as paraphrased by Ms. Dyan Naslund, one of the main organizers of Writers Week. Belknap was invited as a speaker to perform in Writers Week. Ahead of his arrival at the school, the Writers Week committee pre-read and approved the sample essays he had submitted, as the committee does for all invited who present their work. Among these samples submitted were not any that resembled the content read during second period on Wednesday, March 30.

“As I told the teachers I spoke with, and your principal, my goal was to reconcile my own artistic goals with the aims of the school and Writers Week,” remarked Belknap.

In his first essay, Belknap pitted Santa vs. Jesus. While the essay was meant to be interpreted as clearly satirical, that insinuation didn’t completely carry over to the crowd. In the process of bashing Jesus and making the case for Santa Claus, Naslund stated that Belnap said Jesus was a dick; that Jesus probably had ass play with little boys like most Catholic priests; that when Jesus was dying, he called out to God and asked Him to forgive the people because they were basically retarded. Not to mention, Belknap used explicit language, such as “ass,” “shit” and “fuck.”

And then came the second essay. Titled “Skin,” the essay made the claim that skin was better than bone, and in the course of the essay, Belknap asked the audience to imagine pornography, talked about sex without flesh, and mentioned a boner.

The reception in the auditorium was described as generally positive by Naslund  — although who could be surprised? When an adult delivers an energetic performance laced with expletives and references to sex, it’s hard to bore a crowd of students.

“Students were laughing, people were applauding, there was a lot of energy in the auditorium, but the unfortunate thing is that there were students clearly in the auditorium, and adults, who were offended and very upset,” stated Naslund.

It was after the second essay that Mr. Craig Schmidt, another main organizer of Writers Week, talked to Belknap. The conversation was quick and to the point. Mr. Schmidt told Belknap that he could not read those stories and would not be allowed to read any more profanity or sexually graphic material. Naslund reported that Belknap agreed right away.

After that encounter, Dr. Marina Scott (principal of LHS) and Mr. Paul Reiff (supervisor of the English department), also spoke to Belknap, unaware that Belknap had already been spoken to by Mr. Schmidt. That conversation was more of the same, where Belknap was asked not to include the points of controversy sprinkled throughout his essays. Again, he agreed.

Mr. Belknap read two other essays for the duration of his day at Writers Week. One was about a middle school fight he had, and the other was about the last time he saw his dad. Both essays received praise, according to Naslund.

That’s the synopsis of what happened, but the conversation since then has expanded into a contentious debate, questioning the decision to effectively censor Belknap and challenging the role of censorship in schools. Students have protested the response to Belknap, asserting that censorship has no place in a learning environment, especially when students are taught the dangers of censorship (for example, through reading Fahrenheit 451 and history lessons on authoritarian leaders).

In fact, Belknap noted the wave of student support, stating that he had corresponded with many LHS students who voiced their support for the author’s right to speak freely.

“While I have found aspects of this episode troubling, I have found the response of students to be incredibly impressive. I have had a number of email exchanges in the aftermath of my reading, I have found the students – even where they disagree strongly with the content on my essays and my means of expressing myself – to have exhibited a degree of open-mindedness and tolerance that has been largely lacking in my communications with adults in your community.”

As far as the content of the essays, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to label it as vulgar. Now, humor in vulgarity and the distinction between the two is a separate topic, but the perceived, unabashed use of black comedy struck a nerve in some individuals. Others, however, didn’t mind the language.

“Personally, I wasn’t offended by either — I think the second speech was slightly graphic for school purposes, but I thought it was funny; it was the most entertained I was all week,” commented Sarah McLennan, a junior who was present at the event.

However, she later acknowledged that she agreed with the decision made by the school, as it potentially offended other individuals in the audience.

“I think it’s totally fine that people feel offended… I don’t think people should feel that attacked when they come into school because it’s supposed to be a place where you feel safe,” McLennan said.

So, do students have a right not to be offended? That issue has been raging for the last few years, being particularly prolific around college campuses. Regardless, higher education is a place where young adults are encouraged to explore and embrace diversity, expose themselves to the new and the thrilling, and confront the hard truths that shadow American society.

Some argue that young minds in the process of growing, developing, and learning should be exposed to grown-up topics — sophisticated entities like religion and sex.

However, the point was brought up by Ms. Naslund that high school is not just a learning environment for seniors; young freshmen also belong to the student body, and, at 14 years old, it may be hard to face some of the topics or hear some of the words present in Belknap’s essays.

To that, Ms. Naslund commented that students could feel personally attacked. Take, for instance, a moment — one moment in which the word “retarded” has been thrown out — which in conjunction with the rest of the essay, causes an uproar of laughter. Now imagine you are a student with a disability. Take, for instance, a moment — one moment in which a joke about Catholic priests molesting children catalyzes a ripple in laughter and gasps from the crowd. Now imagine you’ve been a victim of sexual abuse.

However, that line of thinking was sharply rebutted by Belknap.

“With regard to my use of language, I feel that there was an impulse toward overprotection on the part of LHS staff that was frankly a little ridiculous,” stated Mr. Belknap. “Any student who attends R-rated movies, has a gaming console, reads stuff on the web, or engages in conversation will have encountered every one of the words I used in a couple of my essays hundreds of times.”

Through a legal lens, while speech is free, no right is absolute. Limitations exists that forbid the excessive use of lewd or profane language in the school environment. In a 1986 Supreme Court decision, Bethel School District v. Fraser, the court held that lewd or profane language were not guaranteed in a school setting under the protection of the First Amendment.  

The court contended that “the undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.” In short, students’ rights in schools were placed under the custody of adults, and it was up to their discretion what constituted the gray area in between taboo and permissible.

The question here is whether the right decision was made in asking Belknap to not read the essays that provoked such uproar. Whatever divergent conclusions arise, it’s not justifiable to dumb down the issue and minimize the legitimate arguments that both sides have to offer. Yes, the word “censorship” carries an authoritarian, oppressive, and anti-democratic ring to it; however, to have that connotation stymie any further discussion of the role and appropriateness of censorship is just as oppressive to freedom of speech as unregulated censorship.

“Yes, I think it was censorship, but I think it was appropriate censorship for the school environment, within the parameters of the law and within the parameters of what we think is acceptable for 14/15-year-old kids to not be confronted with,” commented Naslund.

Dr. Scott also voiced her opinion on the issue. While she was not present during the initial reading, she had been briefed on the content of the essays read and spoke with Belknap, asking him to not read those essays. From her view, she contended that the role of school was to expose students to different things, but to do so in a way that is compatible with keeping students safe.

“I have students in [the auditorium] who didn’t choose to come; their teachers brought them, and they’re expecting to hear things that are appropriate for school. It would be different if it was an after school thing and you made your choice to come,” said Dr. Scott. “In the end, if I have to be critiqued for censorship, I would err on making kids feel emotionally safe here.”

Leave a Comment
More to Discover

Comments (0)

Drops of Ink intends for this area to be used to foster healthy, thought-provoking discussion. Comments are expected to adhere to our standards and to be respectful and constructive. As such, we do not permit the use of profanity, foul language, personal attacks, or the use of language that might be interpreted as libelous. Comments are reviewed and must be approved by a moderator to ensure that they meet these standards. Drops of Ink does not allow anonymous comments, and we require a valid email address. The email address will not be displayed but will be used to confirm your comments.
All Drops of Ink Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activate Search
The student news publication of Libertyville High School
Why Censorship Isn’t Black and White