Flanagan 1

Michelle Flanagan
Prof. Gary Vaughn
English Composition 2089
3 March 2016
Book Censorship in Schools: A Comparative Genre Analysis
Do you remember what it was like to be told that you couldnt do something as a kid?
Did you throw a temper tantrum? Give the all-too-prevalent argument of This is America, so I
can do what I want? And do you remember that the thing you were denied of suddenly became
the most important item you could possibly possess?
The banning and censorship of books can work in the same way. Censorship in schools
across America is a hotly debated topic. What is appropriate for students to read? How much
power should parents have over what their children are assigned? How much freedom do
teachers have? Because censorship is often met with a mix of outrage and praise, many different
sources have featured it as an article or a focus. Across different genres, most easily identifiable
as scholarly or popular, audiences vary. Sources differ in their strategies depending on their
audience because genre often determines purpose. While approaches vary, academic and
mainstream sources all use rhetorical devices, establish a context, and offer a solution to the
problem of book censorship.
An opinion-editorial article for The New York Times, for example, will differ in its
approach to the topic than a scholarly article would. Because it is an opinion piece, the author
doesnt have to worry about being objective or showing two sides to the argument, as can be
seen in journalist Frank Brunis article The Wilds of Education. Bruni begins by using a hook:
When it comes to bullying, to sexual assault, to gun violence, we want and need our schools to

Flanagan 2
be as safe as possible. But when it comes to learning, shouldnt they be dangerous? By using
hot topics in contrast with the goal of education, he is able to grab an audience on a topic they
may have otherwise skipped past. Bruni engages his audience by using pathos, most consistently
seen through his use of open-ended questions. Providing provocative questions encourages
discussion among readers after they put the article down, generating conversation about the topic
and Brunis own take on it. His questions may be construed as dramatic, but they definitely get
his audience thinking and provide the potential for in-depth discussions, an extremely effective
way to maximize the impact of a newspaper article.
Bruni is able to continue his stylistic tone even while providing more background to his
argument. He talks about a large school in Colorado that raised the possibility of pruning the
curriculum of books and material that could be seen to exalt civil disobedience and promote
unpatriotic thoughts. After introducing the case, he then asked, Where does that leave the civil
rights movement? Vietnam? His audience would be outraged by thought of students not
learning about highly influential events like Vietnam and the civil rights movement because they
are an uncomfortable topic. Bruni essentially asks his audience where the line would be drawn if
this kind of behavior were allowed. Giving this example helps establish context for his audience.
He gives a specific place that this censorship is happening as well as the reason behind it.
Anecdotal evidence helps bring the abstract concept into the real world for his audience. By
pairing context even one he is critical of with his style of rhetorical questions, his writing
becomes even more powerful.
Bruni closes his piece not with a question, but with a challenge, saying:

Flanagan 3
Education is about growing bolder and larger. Its about expansion, and that cant happen
if theres too strong an urge and a push to contract the ground it covers, to ease the
passage across, to pretty up the horizon.
While he does not offer a concrete solution to the issue, this writing is a call to action. Bruni is
pointing out what needs to happen and contrasting that with what absolutely cannot happen. He
clearly lays out a way forward, offering a conceptual fix, giving the reader motivation to do
something, but not clear instructions on what that is.
Brunis style is pathos-heavy, using open-ended questions to stir a reaction in his
audience, briefly establishing a context for his wide audience, and he seals the deal by setting up
an ideal of education to close with. His tone fits perfectly with his intended audience as well as
his medium.
In contrast, Edward B. Jenkinson, English Education professor at Indiana University,
takes a different approach to impress the seriousness of censorship onto his readers in his
scholarly article Protecting Holden Caulfield and His Friends from the Censors. Because it is a
scholarly article, Jenkinson faces the challenge of proving to his audience that he is a credible
source, something he accomplishes through his first-hand investigation and interviews, as well as
references to other scholarly works, proving his research.
Similar to Bruni, Jenkinson provides a hook for his readers before delving into the nittygritty of the article. Although it is an academic piece, Jenkinson still makes it interesting, an
important aspect of any writing, by saying, Censorship did occur in the schools, but it certainly
did not excite many teachers because so few seemed affected by it. The 1974 textbook war
changed that (26). He contrasts a clear before and after, as well as creating an interest point
for readers, making them want to discover what this textbook war was all about. Although his

Flanagan 4
hook style is not readily seen throughout the rest of his piece like Brunis was, it is still an
important part of the article. Articles without an engaging beginning have a much smaller
audience than those that pull readers in. Jenkinson took a first-person approach in his
introduction to attract more readers before delving into the academia of his topic.
After introducing the topic, he begins to work to prove his credibility, employing the
rhetorical device ethos. He does this throughout the article by quoting outside sources that have
also studied this issue as well as referencing his own research and interviews. The first outside
quote he uses said that the textbook war was:
In part a class war, a cultural war, a religious war. It was a struggle for power and
authority that has sundered a peaceful community into rigid and fearful factions. And it is
a complex and a profoundly disturbing reflection of the deep fissures that crisscross
American society. (Jenkinson 27).
This type of language demonstrates that the issue is more than a simple feeling of
discomfort among those in school and instead represents a deep-rooted issue in America.
Jenkinsons use of this quote reveals that he also believes this and is using it to potentially
persuade his readers, although he is writing in an academic setting. Using the quote itself,
Jenkinson employed ethos; he began to show that he is a credible writer because he has done his
research and others have also written on the topic. His choice of quote to use, however, could be
seen as pathos. This quote sets his audience up to view the rest of the article through the mindset
that this struggle was about more than a simple textbook. Rather, it was about the things that
make up a persons identity, pulling on his audiences heartstrings. The use of pathos is a great
way of shaping his readers thoughts on the article, and potentially persuading them agree with
him.

Flanagan 5
Jenkinson continues to suggest the presence of larger issues by quoting Rev. LaHaye, a
California minister, who said, humanists have invaded public classrooms, brainwashing
children with ideas about evolution, sex, death, socialism, internationalism, and situation ethics
(29). The idea of humanism is used by public school critics, believing that schools are
corrupting the youth with faith in man instead of in God [It] promotes: situation ethics,
evolution, sexual freedom, including public sex education courses, and internationalism
(Jenkinson 29). Rev. LaHayes contribution provides more context, but perhaps more important
is that Jenkinson provides a definition of humanism. Although his audience is an academic one,
this is not a common concept. Offering this extra information allows his audience to more fully
understand what he is referencing, and in turn makes for a stronger article.
He also uses historical events to provide background, referencing that many believe
humanism in schools began with the Supreme Court case Abington v. Schempp, which stated that
school-sponsored Bible reading was unconstitutional (Jenkinson 29). Similar to Brunis article,
Jenkinson must provide context for his readers to better understand the significance of the issue.
In Brunis case, it needed to be a shallow overview; his audience was less educated on the topic,
meaning that they would likely not understand the ins and outs of censorship, and the article was
written for a newspaper. Newspaper articles are shorter than scholarly articles because of printing
capacity, so Bruni quite literally had less space to work with. Jenkinson, however, is able to go
quite in-depth on certain cases because his audience is more specific, presumably already having
some knowledge about banned books, and his medium would have allotted more area per article.
Perhaps because of the difference in audience and genre, Jenkinson offers a more
concrete solution than Bruni did. Jenkinson closes his article by saying:

Flanagan 6
But that does not mean that because one parent objects to a book or story that the school
must remove that book or story. What it does mean is that all school systems must have
established policies for selecting classrooms and library materials and must have
procedures for handling complaints. (32)
He also references his discovery that less than 15 percent of the school systems had both
policies and procedures that protected intellectual freedom and, at the same time, guaranteed a
fair hearing to all who might protest (32). He emphasizes the need for balance in schools, and
the importance of more evenly distributing power. He lays out ten steps he believes are crucial
for teachers to adhere to. His logical organization appeals to logos, and also neatly cinches his
article together.
While Jenkinson had specific solutions, writer Rob Kunzigs article for The Atlantic gives
the topic an even narrower focus. Although Kunzigs is not a scholarly article, he concentrates on
one specific event of censorship. This style of writing makes the issue more personal for his
audience. It gives it a sense of humanity, perhaps allowing it to hit home more than pure statistics
would. In Who Should Decide What High School Kids Are Allowed to Read, he hones at Cape
school in Southern Delaware, which deemed the novel The Miseducation of Cameron Post too
foul-mouthed, too racy, and possibly too gay for incoming freshman at Cape Henlopen High
School. Similar to Brunis opening, Kunzig hits his audience with emotionally charged words
while also introducing the articles focus. Kunzig largely employs pathos throughout the article,
giving quotes from various people involved in this case. The use of pathos in this case is not
necessarily to generate conversation like Brunis was. Instead, it is used to give different
perspectives, a fuller understanding, and a more personal connection to the subject. Kunzig also
interviews the books author, Emily M. Danforth, who said: I wanted it [the novel] to be a great

Flanagan 7
big coming of gay-age story Its a fraught love letter to growing up gay in rural Montana. By
directly quoting the author, Kunzig gets rid of any deliberation over what the intention of the
novel was. Reading this, his audience could think that the book sounds inappropriate for
students. He continues, however, by providing the books accolades: a 2013 William C. Morris
Young Adult Debut Award finalist, and included on the 2013 Best Fiction for Young Adults list
and The Blue Hen List. Librarians curate both lists. Providing this background not only puts the
book into context but also gives it credibility. Clearly, it is a highly acclaimed novel. This
inclusion of information can be used as logos, appealing to the readers logic that librarians are
reliable and can be trusted to recommend appropriate books.
After the introduction, Kunzig begins to weave the story of this schools issue. Unlike the
other two articles, Kunzig writes in a chronological style, giving his audience the impression that
they are reading a book, or were there when this was happening. While the mention of the
novels awards put it into context, Kunzigs interviews and descriptions of the school help the
reader more fully understand the big picture. The uproar started when the high school gave
students the Blue Hen List, requiring them to choose one of the books and read it. One parent
was appalled and said, We expected to see classics like Of Mice and Men or Lord Of The Flies
... Instead, Cameron Post seemed to be a roadmap or guide book on how to become a sexually
active lesbian teen (Kunzig). The inclusion of this quote allows Kunzigs audience to
understand why there was an issue and exactly how this debacle started. He follows up with one
school board members reaction, who readily understood why this novel rattled conservative
community members, but who nonetheless believed the book valuable because of its honesty.
This member was the only one to vote against removing Cameron Post from the list of reading
options.

Flanagan 8
Kunzig provides framework through direct quotes from the community as well as
presenting recaps from school board meetings and local policies. Similar to the other two
articles, he ends his article with a remedy. He reveals that Browsabout Books, the local
bookstore, had 266 copies of Cameron Post donated after the school board voted to remove it
from the list. Since that decision, Cape students have bought 250 of those copies. Kunzig uses
this evidence to prove that censorship does not stop students from reading the illicit material;
many times, it works the opposite way because everyone wants to see what the hype is about.
The article closes with quotes from a school board member who believes that the moral compass
belongs at home. Students were given a list to choose from, meaning that parents should have
been able to work with their children to find something they could both agree on, without
dragging the school board into it. This seems like a fair solution to the problem of book banning:
give kids a choice. If a book is controversial, offer an alternative option. If parents are
uncomfortable with their children being exposed to one option, chances are they will be satisfied
with the other. Kunzig presents this in a way that suggests he believes this to be the best option
as well.
Bruni, Jenkinson, and Kunzig are united in their attempt to provide a better understanding
of book banning. While they are divided in genre and audience, all three authors employ
rhetorical devices, context, and possible solutions to the problem to make the reading more
interesting and informative to their readers. Each author uses a strong hook to draw the audience
in and uses anecdotal evidence to keep them engaged. Although writing styles and devices are
used in contrasting ways, each article is highly effective in its genre.
Works Cited

Flanagan 9
Bruni, Frank. The Wilds of Education. The New York Times 27 Sept. 2014: n.p. NY Times.
Web. 3 March 2016.
Jenkinson, Edward B. Protecting Holden Caulfield and His Friends from the Censors. The
English Journal 74.1 (1985): 26-33. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
Kunzig, Rob. Who Should Decide What High School Kids Are Allowed to Read? The
Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, 5 Sept. 2014. Web. 3 March 2016.