"Harry Potter", "Catcher in the Rye", "Captain Underpants": at first glance, these books don't seem to have a whole lot in common. Yet they are some of the most commonly banned books in America, according to the American Library Association.
But according to Tisch Library Assistant Director of Teaching and Research Laura Walters, Tufts students don't have to worry about barriers to accessing banned books.
"Since we're in academia, where freedom of speech is so important, we don't really have to face issues like [banned books]," Walters, who is also head of reference and collection at Tisch, said.
Away from the Hill, though, not everyone is so lucky. "Public libraries face this all the time; this is a huge issue ... because there's all kinds of special interest groups" that try to affect which books are available in a library's catalog, Walters said.
Students searching the Tisch stacks for titles located on ALA's "Top Ten Most Banned Books of 2005" list would find only three publications: "It's Perfectly Normal: a Book About Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health" by Robie H. Harris, "The Catcher in the Rye" by J.D. Salinger, and "Crazy Lady!" by Jane Leslie Conly.
Others, such as Robert Cormier's "The Chocolate War" and Dav Pilkey's "The Adventures of Captain Underpants" series, are not carried by the library.
Walters explained in a separate e-mail that any books not found in the library are missing simply because they aren't academic. "Here at Tisch, we purchase materials that support teaching and research in the schools of Arts & Sciences and Engineering," Walters said.
"The reason we don't have some of the books [on the ALA list] is because they are books that are outside of our collection scope - in other words, they wouldn't be used in teaching and research," she added.
Despite not having to worry about books being banned from Tisch, students feel strongly about book-banning and censorship. "I personally as a writer and reader do not believe that banning books is ever right," said senior Daniela Perdomo, editor-in-chief and founder of the Tufts Public Journal, which bears the slogan "an anthology of truth."
"What one person might find offensive is completely different from someone else," Perdomo said. "When you're banning books, you're banning art ... I just don't see any way you would ever be able to justify banning someone's art, whether or not you like it or are comfortable with it."
Senior Kristin Ceruzzi, co-editor of Tufts' short-story magazine Outbreath, said that she disagreed with public censorship, though she said certain contexts can make book banning more acceptable.
"I know in high schools they don't teach certain books because of content, but I feel like at college, or in a general sense in the United States, we should be able to read what we want and write what we want. That's what our country's about," Ceruzzi said.
Allison Hoover, junior and editor-in-chief of The Primary Source, voiced similar views: "Private organizations ... can have whatever books that they choose or choose not to have," Hoover said.
She maintained, however, that public schools were a different situation: "I think you can compare that to movies. To show an R-rated movie, a public school has to get permission from students' parents if they're under the age of 18. So public schools can exercise similar discretion when they're dealing with books that may or may not be age-appropriate."
However, Hoover said that public libraries had the right to be free from censorship: "In public libraries, people should have access to information," Hoover said, maintaining that even dangerous subjects, such as books that would encourage or teach illegal activity, should not be banned from public libraries. "If [people] choose to act using the information they read in a library, then they will have to face whatever consequences may follow from those actions."
Ceruzzi said that no topics should be subject to censorship, despite their potential for offensiveness. "There's definitely topics which I feel ... are risqu?© and can be considered offensive for people: different race topics, books that might be about sexual abuse, or topics like that," Ceruzzi said. "But at the same time, it's important for people to be able to read about them."
Ceruzzi, Perdomo, and Hoover's respective publications reflect their opposition to censorship.
"We publish anything and everything," Perdomo said. She explained that their standard for publishing is based on quality, not censorship. "We have to keep up a certain level of literary integrity. The only things we don't take are ... poorly written."
"Our policy is to take everything where the content is interesting and the writing is up to the same level as the content," Perdomo added.
Ceruzzi explained how Outbreath's publishing policy is different: "We have a meeting once a semester to talk about the different pieces and discuss why we like them or dislike them, to include them or not include them," Ceruzzi said. "Sometimes it does come up if people are offended by certain material."
Ceruzzi said they based their decisions on whether or not to publish potentially offensive material on "whether or not the Tufts audience would appreciate the pieces."
"Occasionally we have asked the authors if they would mind removing certain words," she said. "We have in the past decided not to include material that we think would be very offensive."
Ceruzzi explained, however, that quality of content trumped potential offensiveness: "This past semester, we did have somebody write a piece that had material that some of us were a little bit iffy [about]," she said. Ceruzzi said that the Outbreath staff discussed the issue with the writer.
"He explained why he used the word choice that he used [and] his reasoning behind it," she said. "We decided that this is what he believes in ... We decided to put [the story] through the way it is."
Hoover said that the Primary Source's policy also allows its writers to voice controversial opinions.
"In the Source, people write about topics that interest them or that they think are important," she said. "We don't censor our authors, but we do make sure they defend their ideas, especially when they're controversial."
The anti-censorship attitudes found at Tufts student publications are mirrored by those of the American Library Association and most librarians, Walters said in her e-mail.
"I will say that librarians in general, and the American Library Association in particular, are strong defenders of First Amendment rights," Walters said. "The ALA has a legal arm that fights censorship and promotes freedom of expression."
"It's the ALA that sponsors banned book week, and Tisch participates every year with an exhibit that highlights some of the books that have been banned in different time periods and in different places," Walters added.
