[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 29, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E938-E939]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             STATEMENT BY MATTHEW DOLE REGARDING CENSORSHIP

                                 ______


                          HON. BERNARD SANDERS

                               of vermont

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, May 29, 1996

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my colleagues I would 
like to have printed in the Record this statement by Matthew Dole, a 
high school student from St. Johnsbury, VT. He was speaking at my 
recent town meeting on issues facing young people.

       My name is Matthew Dole. I face censorship every day as I 
     watch movies, try to read a book or even read the newspaper. 
     All people have beliefs on what should be censored, but those 
     should not infringe on others' choices. If you are to ban 
     books, please do it [right], but don't force your opinions 
     upon others.
       Proponents of censorship base their argument on the First 
     Amendment. They interpret their Freedom of Speech as freedom 
     to ban books. The opponents also use the First Amendment as a 
     major right, not to be infringed upon. They have the freedom 
     of choice, choice to read or watch whatever they want. They 
     say that the proponents do not have the right to physically 
     remove the books from our libraries and school shelves. 
     People against censorship see it as large government once 
     again challenging the individual, as was done in 1919 with 
     Prohibition, later repealed. They ask for more local control, 
     at the most local in fact--individual decision.
       In this, the era of political correctness, people challenge 
     books on today's standards. They do not historicize texts, 
     meaning they don't consider the time or circumstances under 
     which it was written. I have with me today three books that 
     have been banned. The first one is Mark Twain's, ``The 
     Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.'' To historicize this book, 
     it was written in 1884, as Twain lived in Mississippi, and he 
     had previously fought as a Confederate in the Civil War. It 
     was banned for racism, and the reason for that was the 
     circumstances under which it was written. The second book is 
     ``Catcher in the Rye.'' This was banned for sexual scenes. I 
     read this last year as a sophomore in high school as part of 
     a Classic American Literature section. The third, and last, 
     book is Margaret Mitchell's ``Gone With the Wind.'' This book 
     was again banned for racism, and the reason [is that] if it 
     hadn't had racism in it, it wouldn't have been historically 
     correct. It is a book about the Confederate South, once 
     again; and it was also banned for one word.
       As I've said, violence, racism and sex--three touchy, 
     controversial subjects, are the most common reasons for book 
     banning. Will banning the books make these issues disappear? 
     I say, ``No.'' They may, however,

[[Page E939]]

     help educate people on these issues. What we must do instead 
     is educate our children early. We can teach them to have 
     opinions, and teach them why they can't read that book, or 
     why they shouldn't read that book. As time passes, they will 
     be able to handle the issues, before being offended. Also, 
     they will be able to personally ban books, TV with the V-chip 
     and movies with the rating system.
       There's no ``cut and dried'' solution to this. If a case in 
     book banning or any other censorship were to reach the 
     Supreme Court, they can interpret the First Amendment. Or if 
     two-thirds of each House vote in Congress, they could rewrite 
     the First Amendment more specifically. And on a more local 
     level, if two-thirds of all state legislatures wanted to, 
     they could call an actual Convention and rewrite it 
     themselves
       Thank you for inviting me, and I hope something can be done 
     on this issue.
       Congressman Sanders: Thank you very much, Matthew. Matthew, 
     let me ask you a question, because you have dealt with a very 
     sensitive and controversial issue. So, here's my question: if 
     at town meeting, or better yet a school board meeting, a 
     parent gets up and says, ``I read this book. It is vulgar, it 
     has filthy words in it, it has ideas that I don't want my 
     daughter to see; I want that book out of the library.'' 
     You're a member of the school board--how do you respond to 
     that?
       Answer: Tell her that we can ban the book, in a sense, ban 
     by putting it in, maybe, a section, like an adult section or 
     a high school section. This happened at my old school, as a 
     matter of fact, and they did not remove it from the library, 
     and just put it in a separate section. What happened, was a 
     5th grader was basically in the high school section, reading 
     this book. And I would ask them to educate . . . their kids, 
     and I would ask the teachers also need to educate their kids 
     on why they shouldn't read that book at that age.
       Congressman Sanders: In your judgment, what is the danger 
     of somebody defining a book and saying, ``This book is 
     terrible, I want it out.'' What are the long-term 
     repercussions of that approach?
       Answer: With these books that I've brought--these are 
     classics, these are used in teaching. If we lose these books, 
     we lose a valuable tool in teaching our youth.
       Congressman Sanders: So what you're saying is that what may 
     be vulgar for one person may be a work of art and a classic 
     for somebody else.
       Answer: That's right.

                          ____________________