The Questions of Censorship Within the College Atmosphere

(This article was written in March 2006 with intent for publishing in the Mount Observer. It was declined due to lack of space. )


Several years ago, an incident occurred where a student had made a request to ban a particular book available for public reading at the Mount Wachusett Community College Library. For whatever motivations this undisclosed student may have had, be it religious or political, the reasons recalled by Library Director Linda Oldach were that the book contained “child pornographic” photos.

This book, entitled Playing with the Edge by Arthur Danto, is a critical assessment of Robert Mapplethorpe's achievement as an photographic artist. Ironically enough, this book focuses on the controversy that had taken momentum almost two decades ago when Mapplethorpe's Artwork, primarily depicting homoeroticism and sado-masochistic situations, was displayed through government funding from the National Endowment for the Arts. The overall question concerning the nature of Mapplethorpe's photography was “Should either the general public or its representing government have consent to whom is allowed financial support based on content potentially deemed pornographic or obscene?”

Despite the claims of pedophilia, attempts to rid this book from the school library proved inconsequential as it remains today for any and all to read. Upon inspection, one may find two enclosed photographs possibly relevant to the student's protesting claim; one photograph titled “Rosie” is of a preschool girl wearing a sun-dress and sitting in such a manner that incidentally reveals her vulva, and the other photograph titled “Jesse McBride” is of a young boy also sitting but completely nude and frontally exposed.

Regardless of subject preference, neither photographs bear any intended sexual innuendo nor had both models been apparently situated in any perverse setting. More importantly, neither model was reported molested. According to Danto, the boy model, now a young man, Jesse Mcbride had been asked of his feelings towards his experience fourteen years later to which he replied he “felt no untoward effects.”

From my own assessment, the children appear to me as oblivious to the moral platitude society bears upon nudity as those with children of their own would expect, witnessing the highly common habit of young ones running about naked or unaware of appropriate posturing in potentially revealing clothing articles.

Those familiar with Mapplethorpe's work and expression thereof understand that although most of his photography could be considered erotic in one sense or another, many pieces were not deemed sexually appealing to Mapplethorpe himself. The intention of his artwork was to expand the concept of human sexuality or to redefine our attitude towards supposed perversions when seen as natural inclinations and happenings.

When considering Mapplethorpe's intention to simply capture a moment presenting itself and the children unaware of the implications from others seeing them as they are, one must begin to wonder just how much of this proposed obscenity had been influenced by the witnesses themselves. Would these photographs remain as pedophilia if the viewer had no sexual thoughts associated with the images?

So here lies the argument: To what extent can one freely express himself and equally how much is one expected to tolerate those who challenge moral standards through ambiguous media?

“With my job comes a serious responsibility to select quality information for public and academical interest,” said Ms. Oldach. “Yet I must consider cases of objection based upon valid arguments from reliable sources.”

All members of faculty and student body alike are allowed the privilege of challenging content provided by the college library, by filling out a form called a Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials which asks for a full description of the work, your reasons why you chalenged said materials, if you had viewed the entire source for credibility purposes, and if you'd prefer to recommend any balancing material over outright banning of the work in question.

Although a student or faculty member may reserve the right to challenge any library content, the censoring process is far from automatic. The next procedure requires the Assistant Dean of Library and Information Services to consider the objection without infringement of the first article of the Library Bill of Rights of the American Library Association, which states, “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historic issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”

When asked what her personal stance was with those seeking to censor literary materials based upon disagreement of perception and values, Linda Oldeck responded, “Regarding this particular case, I find that Mapplethorpe doesn't reflect my tastes, but it is my principle never to interfere with another's right to artistic expression.”