© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

Book Review
The Language Police
How pressure groups restrict what students learn
By Diane Ravitch

Alfred A. Knopf, Publisher, New York, 2003 241pp.

Review by Sarah Yanusz for The Tribune

American students are reading textbooks full of censored material in their classrooms, said Diane Ravitch, historian of education and research professor at New York University, in her book The Language Police. The result of such hidden censorship is a literary world that dulls students’ minds and contains an unrealistic picture of a society that is free of controversy.

For more than 25 years, political activists have been shaping the subjects included in educational materials, said Ravitch. As publishers are attacked from the political left and right, they have been forced to remove anything that might be deemed as “biased” from their publications in order to satisfy the political realm of the state selection committees.

Biased material is said to be anything that has the potential to “distract” a student when he or she is trying to learn. In other words, any material that is offensive, upsetting or even unfamiliar has been stated to be a possible cause for students to score lower on tests and to perform poorly in the classroom.

In her research, Ravitch came across several subjects that are often removed from educational materials. These subjects are among many that have been outlined by publishing companies and state institutions as “biased.” They include, but are not limited to, the portrayal of women and men in their traditional roles, the elderly as feeble, children as disobedient and the presence of anything that is not nutritious, such as cake.

The author also presented a large collection of “banned” words. In her book, she filled thirty pages listing over 1,000 such words and phrases. Some of these included: “Adam and Eve (replace with Eve and Adam to demonstrate that males do not take priority over females), Gay (banned, as it suggests homosexual, replace with happy, lighthearted), Sneaky (banned when referring to Asian Americans) and Yacht (banned as elitist).”

Her book elaborated that “experts” declared that these subjects either interfere with societal equality that is being pursued by the political left, or they represent a poor moral standard, which the political right is trying to avoid. While the removal of this material might seem unnecessary, she also said that in a commercial economy, publishers must do what brings in the most profit.

She points out that states are highly involved in this censorship process. Because of the states’ comprehensive adoption processes, where states choose what textbooks their schools will use, one textbook usually gets chosen for widespread use throughout a state school system. Most others seem to follow the lead of California and Texas. Publishers cannot afford not to comply with the demands of the state “language police.

The book details that in the textbook industry there are only four primary publishing companies. Ravitch said that out of these four companies, only one of them is American owned. All four of them have censorship boards of 10 to 20 members who decide what words, phrases and pictures can and cannot be published in textbooks. In order to keep political activists happy, the states choose textbooks that contain the least amount of perceived “bias.” “The way to survive is to delete anything that might offend anyone,” said Ravitch.

This censorship affects textbooks and standardized tests, as well as well-known literary works. Due to a fear of controversial content many states do not recommend certain books that are considered by many to be classics. In fact, “No state requires students to read a specific work of literature or specific author.” Many states do not name specific works in order to avoid controversy.

One example that Ravitch gave of a literary classic that could be controversial was Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. She said that the word “nigger,” and the rebellious attitude of Huck Finn, according to political activists, could be offensive to some student. Thus, many famous works of literature have been removed from the classroom because they are “biased.”

Perhaps Ravitch’s biggest complaint when it comes to the censorship bias she described is the removal of truth from America’s history, as well as the lack of reality that has crept its way into the American classroom. For example by eliminating the profanity found in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, publishers would be eliminating the very truth of America’s history- the truth that there was controversy between blacks and whites during Huck’s time, and the truth that the word “nigger” was actually used for blacks on a regular basis during this time period. By not exposing these truths to students, they are not learning reality in the classroom.

Part of the learning experience, said Ravitch, is hearing views that challenge one’s own. “A society is not free unless it tolerates offensive words and unpopular opinions,” she said. “No one has a right not to be criticized or offended.”

The “language police” who seek to remove these biases have left textbooks “dull and uninspiring.” “So long as books and stories continue to be strained through a series of political correctness, fashioned by partisans of both left and right, all that is left for students to read will be thin gruel.”

How can America stop the partisan politics that Ravitch called the “language police”? The author proposed a three-pronged solution. “Competition, sunshine and better educated teachers.”

By eliminating the state adoption process in the textbook industry, more textbook publishers would emerge and a greater variety of textbooks would be used by schools, leading to a greater diversity in viewpoints. A competitive market means that good books could flourish.

By shining light on censorship, the “language police” could be stopped. By exposing the censorship process to the public and by requiring the state and publication companies to publish their “bias guidelines,” the public will be more aware of the issue.

Finally, Ravitch said that by better educating teachers in their field, the teachers would be able to supplement the censored textbooks. Good teachers would be knowledgeable about the information available in their field, and they would seek out good, fair and inspiring material for their students to read in the classroom.

Sarah Yanusz is a journalism major at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill