Ensuring the Freedom to Read: Home

• Thinking independently: We believe in independence and its power to inspire excellence.
• Leading change: We imagine possibilities and innovate to strengthen the education landscape. 
• Embracing diversity: We welcome and encourage diverse identities and perspectives.
• Championing inclusivity: We affirm the rights of every individual to belong and flourish.
• Empowering community: We address complex issues through collaboration and advocacy.

Particularly in these times, the members of NCTE endorse and work to maintain academic freedom at all levels of public schooling.¹

Academic freedom is a public trust earned by way of formal disciplinary training and expertise.  It is an individual English educator’s (teacher’s, researcher’s, and librarian’s) right to translate, produce, and curate past and new knowledge and dispositions within broadly accepted disciplinary parameters in order to advance the common good. As a professional organization concerned with English education, NCTE contributes to the articulation of those broad parameters through its position statements, its sponsored programs, and its research, curricular, and pedagogical publications.²

Skilled, academically credentialed English educators earn that trust by striving to prepare all students as literate individuals with requisite dispositions and capacities for open inquiry, critical thinking, and appreciation for diverse thoughts, values, and modes of expression required within a just democracy.³

With trust comes responsibilities expressed below as freedoms to and freedoms from.

Responsibilities of Academic Freedom

English educators must nurture and maintain their knowledge, capacities to explain, and abilities to implement the theories, research, curricula, and pedagogies of the English education field, at least as these topics pertain to academic decisions within their level of practice.⁴

In their work, English educators must model the desired dispositions and capacities of a literate individual in a just democracy.⁵

English educators are responsible for the intellectual, emotional, and social development of all students to ensure that each is able to participate as a peer with all others in the production and decisions of democratic social life.⁶

English educators have the freedom to

• Follow their theoretical, research, and pedagogical commitments in all aspects of their work by situating their choices within the field and discipline.
• Express their views in speech, writing, and digital communication unless those views impair rights of others or demonstrate ignorance of their field of expertise.
• Choose topics and materials for inquiry and draw conclusions consistent with resulting evidence, establishing the relevance of their choices to the field and democratic social life.
• Participate meaningfully as peers in the decisions concerning organizational structures, curricular matters, and pedagogical practices of their work.
• Decide how to enact those decisions within their work, articulating how their choices fit within decision parameters.
• Grieve formally any transgressions of these freedoms before professional peers.

English educators have freedom from harassment, censorship, imposition, and retaliation or sanction from politicians, administrators, corporations, or members of the public for enacting the above freedoms responsibly.

Academic freedom does not prohibit scholarly challenges to English educators’ academic choices or actions; exempt them from school rules or regulations; or protect their incompetence, bigotry, or dereliction of responsibilities.

[EXCERPT]

The NCTE Executive Committee reaffirmed this guideline in November 2012.

This statement was originally developed in 1981, revised April 2009 to adhere to NCTE’s Policy on Involvement of People of Color, and revised again in September 2018.

Overview: The Students’ Right to Read provides resources that can be used to help discuss and ensure students’ free access to all texts. The genesis of the Students’ Right to Read was an original Council statement, “Request for Reconsideration of a Work,” prepared by the Committee on the Right to Read of the National Council of Teachers of English and revised by Ken Donelson. The current Students’ Right to Read statement represents an updated second edition that builds on the work of Council members dedicated to ensuring students the freedom to choose to read any text and opposing “efforts of individuals or groups to limit the freedom of choice of others.” Supported through references from text challenges and links to resources, this statement discusses the history and dangers of text censorship which highlight the breadth and significance of the Students’ Right to Read. The statement then culminates in processes that can be followed with different stakeholders when students’ reading rights are infringed.

The Right to Read and the Teacher of English

For many years, American schools have been pressured to restrict or deny students access to texts deemed objectionable by some individual or group. These pressures have mounted in recent years, and English teachers have no reason to believe they will diminish. The fight against censorship is a continuing series of skirmishes, not a pitched battle leading to a final victory over censorship.

We can safely make two statements about censorship: first, any text is potentially open to attack by someone, somewhere, sometime, for some reason; second, censorship is often arbitrary and irrational. For example, classics traditionally used in English classrooms have been accused of containing obscene, heretical, or subversive elements such as the following:

• Plato’s Republic: “the book is un-Christian”
• Jules Verne’s Around the World in Eighty Days: “very unfavorable to Mormons”
• Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter: “a filthy book”
• Shakespeare’s Macbeth: “too violent for children today”
• Fyodor Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment: “a poor model for young people”
• Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick: “contains homosexuality”

Modern works, even more than the classics, are criticized with terms such as “filthy,” “un-American,” “overly realistic,” and “anti-war.” Some books have been attacked merely for being “controversial,” suggesting that for some people the purpose of education is not the investigation of ideas but rather the indoctrination of a certain set of beliefs and standards. Referencing multiple years of research completed by the American Library Association (ALA), the following statements represent complaints typical of those made against modern works of literature:

• D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye: “profanity, lurid passages about sex, and statements defamatory to minorities, God, women, and the disabled”
• John Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath: “uses the name of God and Jesus in a vain and profane manner”
• Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson’s And Tango Makes Three: “anti-ethnic, anti-family, homosexuality, religious viewpoint, unsuited to age group”
• Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird: “promotes racial hatred, racial division, racial separation, and promotes white supremacy”
• Katherine Paterson’s Bridge to Terabithia: “occult/Satanism, offensive language, violence”
• Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye: “offensive language, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group”
• Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings’s I Am Jazz: “inaccurate, homosexuality, sex education, religious viewpoint, and unsuited for age group”

Some groups and individuals have also raised objections to literature written specifically for young people. As long as novels intended for young people stayed at the intellectual and emotional level of A Date for Marcy or A Touchdown for Thunderbird High, censors could forego criticism. But many contemporary novels for adolescents focus on the real world of young people–drugs, premarital sex, alcoholism, divorce, gangs, school dropouts, racism, violence, and sensuality. English teachers willing to defend classics and modern literature must be prepared to give equally spirited defense to serious and worthwhile children’s and young adult novels.

Literature about minoritized ethnic or racial groups remains “controversial” or “objectionable” to many adults. As long as groups such as African Americans, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Asian Americans, and Latinxs “kept their proper place”—awarded them by a White society—censors rarely raised their voices. But attacks have increased in frequency as minoritized groups have refused to observe their assigned “place.” Though nominally, the criticisms of literature about minoritized racial or ethnic groups have usually been directed at “bad language,” “suggestive situations,” “questionable literary merit,” or “ungrammatical English” (usually oblique complaints about the different dialect or culture of a group), the underlying motive for some attacks has unquestionably been discriminatory. Typical of censors’ criticisms of ethnic works are the following comments:

• Maya Angelou’s I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings: “homosexuality, offensive language, racism, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group”
• Rudolfo Anaya’s Bless Me, Ultima: “occult/Satanism, offensive language, religious viewpoint, sexually explicit, violence”
• Khaled Hosseini’s The Kite Runner: “sexual violence, religious themes, ‘may lead to terrorism’”
• Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian: “anti-family, cultural insensitivity, drugs/alcohol/smoking, gambling, offensive language, sex education, sexually explicit, unsuited for age group, violence, depictions of bullying”

Books are not alone in being subject to censorship. Magazines or newspapers used, recommended, or referred to in English classes have increasingly drawn the censor’s fire. Few libraries would regard their periodical collection as worthwhile or representative without some or all of the following publications, but all of them have been the target of censors on occasion:

• National Geographic: “Nudity and sensationalism, especially in stories on barbaric foreign people.”
• Scholastic Magazine: “Doctrines opposing the beliefs of the majority, socialistic programs; promotes racial unrest and contains very detailed geography of foreign countries, especially those inhabited by dark people.”
• National Observer: “Right-wing trash with badly reported news.”
• New York Times: “That thing should be outlawed after printing the Pentagon Papers and helping our country’s enemies.”

The immediate results of demands to censor books or periodicals vary. At times, school boards and administrators have supported and defended their teachers, their use of materials under fire, and the student’s right of access to the materials. At other times, however, special committees have been formed to cull out “objectionable works” or “modern trash” or “controversial literature.” Some teachers have been summarily reprimanded for assigning certain works, even to mature students. Others have been able to retain their positions only after initiating court action.

Not as sensational, but perhaps more important, are the long range effects of censoring the rights of educators and students to self-select what they read and engage with. Schools have removed texts from libraries and classrooms and curricula have been changed when English teachers have avoided using or recommending works which might make some members of the community uncomfortable or angry. Over the course of their schooling, many students are consequently “educated” in a system that is hostile to critical inquiry and dialogue. And many teachers and other school staff learn to emphasize their own sense of comfort and safety rather than their students’ needs.

The problem of censorship does not derive solely from the small anti-intellectual, ultra-moral, or ultra-patriotic groups which will typically function in a society that guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The present concern is rather with the frequency and force of attacks by others, often people of good will and the best intentions, some from within the teaching profession. The National Council of Teachers of English, the National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Library Association, as well as the publishing industry and writers themselves agree: pressures for censorship are great throughout our society.

The material that follows is divided into two sections. The first on “The Right to Read” is addressed to parents and the community at large. The other section, “A Program of Action,” lists Council recommendations for establishing professional committees in every school to set up procedures for book selection, to work for community support, and to review complaints against texts.

Where suspicion fills the air and holds scholars in line for fear of their jobs, there can be no exercise of the free intellect. . . . A problem can no longer be pursued with impunity to its edges. Fear stalks the classroom. The teacher is no longer a stimulant to adventurous thinking; she [sic] becomes instead a pipe line for safe and sound information. A deadening dogma takes the place of free inquiry. Instruction tends to become sterile; pursuit of knowledge is discouraged; discussion often leaves off where it should begin.

—Justice William O. Douglas, United States Supreme Court: Adler v. Board of Education, 1951

The Right to Read

An open letter to our country from the National Council of Teachers of English:

The right to read, like all rights guaranteed or implied within our constitutional tradition, can be used wisely or foolishly. In many ways, education is an effort to improve the quality of choices open to all students. But to deny the freedom of choice in fear that it may be unwisely used is to destroy the freedom itself. For this reason, we respect the right of individuals to be selective in their own reading. But for the same reason, we oppose efforts of individuals or groups to limit the freedom of choice of others or to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large.

One of the foundations of a democratic society is the individual’s right to read, and also the individual’s right to freely choose what they would like to read. This right is based on an assumption that the educated possess judgment and understanding and can be trusted with the determination of their own actions. In effect, the reader is freed from the bonds of chance. The reader is not limited by birth, geographic location, or time, since reading allows meeting people, debating philosophies, and experiencing events far beyond the narrow confines of an individual’s own existence.

In selecting texts to read by young people, English teachers consider the contribution each work may make to the education of the reader, its aesthetic value, its honesty, its readability for a particular group of students, and its appeal to young children and adolescents. English teachers, however, may use different texts for different purposes. The criteria for choosing a text to be read by an entire class are somewhat different from the criteria for choosing texts to be read by small groups.

For example, a teacher might select John Knowles’s A Separate Peace for reading by an entire class, partly because the book has received wide critical recognition, partly because it is relatively short and will keep the attention of many slower readers, and partly because it has proved popular with many students of widely differing skill sets. The same teacher, faced with the responsibility of choosing or recommending books for several small groups of students, might select or recommend books as different as Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Scarlet Letter, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovitch, Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, Malcolm X’s The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Charles Dickens’s Great Expectations, Carlos Bulosan’s America Is in the Heart, or Paul Zindel’s The Pigman, depending upon the skills and interests of the students in each group.

And the criteria for suggesting books to individuals or for recommending something worth reading for a student who casually stops by after class are different from selecting material for a class or group. As opposed to censoring, the teacher selects texts, and also helps guide students to self-select them. Selection implies that one is free to choose a text, depending upon the purpose to be achieved and the students or class in question, but a book selected this year may be ignored next year, and the reverse. Censorship implies that certain works are not open to selection, this year or any year.

Wallace Stevens once wrote, “Literature is the better part of life. To this it seems inevitably necessary to add / provided life is the better part of literature” (1957). Students and parents have the right to demand that education today keep students in touch with the reality of the world outside the classroom. Many of our best literary works ask questions as valid and significant today as when the literature first appeared, questions like “What is the nature of humanity?” “Why do people praise individuality and practice conformity?” “What do people need for a good life?” and “What is the nature of a good person?” English teachers must be free to employ books, classic or contemporary, which do not hide, or lie to the young, about the perilous but wondrous times we live in, books which talk of the fears, hopes, joys, and frustrations people experience, books about people not only as they are but as they can be. English teachers forced through the pressures of censorship to use only safe or antiseptic works are placed in the morally and intellectually untenable position of lying to their students about the nature and condition of humanity.

The teacher must exercise care to select or recommend works for class reading and group discussion. One of the most important responsibilities of the English teacher is developing rapport and respect among students. Respect for the uniqueness and potential of the individual, an important facet of the study of literature, should be emphasized in the English class. One way rapport and respect can be developed is through encouraging the students themselves to explore and engage with texts of their own selection. Also, English classes should reflect the cultural contributions of minoritized groups in the United States, just as they should acquaint students with diverse contributions by the many peoples of the world. Finally, the teacher should be prepared to support and defend their classroom and students’ process in selecting and engaging with diverse texts against potential censorship and controversy.

1. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.
2. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.
3. We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.
4. We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.
5. We treat co-workers and other colleagues with respect, fairness, and good faith, and advocate conditions of employment that safeguard the rights and welfare of all employees of our institutions.
6. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.
7. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.
8. We strive for excellence in the profession by maintaining and enhancing our own knowledge and skills, by encouraging the professional development of co-workers, and by fostering the aspirations of potential members of the profession.
9. We affirm the inherent dignity and rights of every person. We work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations through awareness, advocacy, education, collaboration, services, and allocation of resources and spaces.

Adopted at the 1939 Midwinter Meeting by the ALA Council; amended June 30, 1981; June 28, 1995; January 22, 2008; and June 29, 2021.

Forthcoming... requires login credentials

Academic freedom means that both social studies educators and students have the opportunity to engage in intellectual debate without fear of censorship or retaliation. Academic freedom gives both social studies educators and students the right to express their views—in speech, writing, and/or through electronic communication without fear of sanction. Academic freedom for social studies educators and students includes the right and responsibility to study, investigate, present, interpret, discuss, and debate relevant facts, issues, and ideas. Academic freedom means that the political, religious, or philosophical beliefs of politicians, administrators, and members of the public cannot be imposed on students or faculty.

Rationale for Academic Freedom in Social Studies

In order to foster democratic processes and establish an informed citizenry, the ability to freely study, investigate, present, interpret, discuss, and debate relevant facts, issues, and ideas is deemed necessary. The presentations of topics within the ideals of academic freedom are fundamental to the advancement of truth and understanding of humanity. The ability of educators and students to make comparisons and contrasts between subjects taught in a course and any field of human knowledge or period of history, aids in the development of an engaged citizenry, contributes global understanding, and promotes the common good. Without the aforementioned opportunities of intellectual inquiry, the overarching mission of social studies education shall be quelled.

The study of controversial issues should develop the following skills and attitudes:

• The desire and ability to study relevant problems and to make intelligent choices from alternatives.

• The desire and ability to use rational methods in considering significant issues.

• The willingness to recognize that differing viewpoints are valuable and normal.

• The recognition that reasonable compromise is often an important part of the democratic decision-making process.

• The skill of analyzing and evaluating sources of information–recognizing propaganda, half truths, and bias.

Responding to Academic Freedom Challenges

The Supreme Court has delineated a three-step test for First Amendment cases brought by public employees, which includes the academic freedom cases of elementary and secondary teachers.

1. Is the conduct of the teacher “protected expression,” which must be both: concerning a public issue, and not unduly rocking the boat?1

2.If so, was this protected expression a substantial or motivating reason for the school district’s adverse action against the teacher?

3.If so, would the district have taken the action against the teacher regardless of the protected expression?

To prevail on the constitutional grounds of academic freedom, an educator must successfully clear the first two hurdles and not be beaten by the school board on the third one.

Documents such as this, while valuable as a guideline, do not presume to constitute sufficient guarantees. Only continuing concern, commitment, and action by educators, administrators, school boards, professional organizations, students, and the citizenry, can insure the reality of academic freedom in a changing society.

Academic freedom is neither easily defined nor can it always be protected. Academic freedom, like the freedoms of speech, press, and religion, is not absolute. However, it is recognized by NCSS as a fundamental element in teaching excellence and in the maintenance of our culture and government.

Note 1. Kirkland v. Northside Indep. School Dist., 890 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 2620 (1990). Prepared by Melissa Collum, Viterbo University, La Crosse Wisconsin, Feb. 2016.