College Students Debate Book Bans

NEWS | College Students Debate Book Bans
National organization encourages anonymous debate amongst local college students.

(Students and faculty from various colleges gather around in a circle at the start of the debate on November 28, 2023. Source: The Spectator.)

“Resolved. K-12 schools should ban controversial books.”

Nearly 100 students from four colleges — Virginia Military Institute (VMI), Washington and Lee University (W&L), Southern Virginia University (SVU), and Mountain Gateway Community College (MGCC) — gathered in Marshall Hall on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, to debate the above resolution.

Unlike local school board meetings, or broadcasted debates between well-known academics, last month’s unstreamed debate put the question directly to students. The catch: speakers were expected to share no information beyond their position on the resolution. The debate followed a parliamentary format, so all participants addressed only the debate chair, and not each other.

“These debates are meant to be a safe space where people can freely voice their opinions and discuss controversial issues in a civil and respectful manner,” said Lt. Col. Kim Connolly, an event organizer with VMI’s Center for Leadership and Ethics.

Connolly also asked The Spectator to maintain the anonymity of all speakers.

As with all debates hosted by the College Debates Discourse Alliance and Braver Angels, pre-selected students began by speaking either in favor or against the resolution.

A VMI cadet spoke first, in favor of the resolution to ban controversial books from K-12 schools. “The word that sticks out to me the most is controversial,” he said. “Controversial can be beneficial … Controversial can also be bad. I am up here because there are or can be books that are too controversial.”

The debate chair, Doug Sprei of the College Debates and Discourse program, then called on students to pose a question for the speaker.

When asked to define “controversial,” the cadet admitted, “I don’t know … but that’s my point, controversy seems to invoke some sort of negative emotion around it.” Referencing “modern issues” like LGBTQ and transgender literature, he said that “where the line crosses kind of depends on majority values.”

The second speaker, from W&L, opposed the resolution by referencing the controversy surrounding Matt Walsh’s W&L campus visit.

He shared how hundreds of students signed a petition to prevent Matt Walsh from coming to W&L’s campus. When students asked a professor to sign the petition in class, the professor declined for fear that it might set a precedent.

“When we ban one book, we can ban other books and that could be really harmful for society,” the speaker said. The student also mentioned how attention should be turned towards discussing more pressing issues such as universal preschool.

An SVU student spoke next, listing a few questions about childrens’ education. “First, do children and adolescents know what is best for them? Second, is all information appropriate for children and adolescents to consume? Third, what role do we have as parents, teachers, and members of our community to influence our children’s education?”

Speaking in favor of book bans, he emphasized the importance of parental discretion. If a parent says that a book is inappropriate, the child is best suited to trust their parent’s experiential knowledge. “Children are naturally curious,” he said. But “curiosity can also be quite destructive and chaotic in our lives.”

When asked by a W&L student whether parents or teachers were more qualified to make these decisions, the speaker replied, “Parents have a lot more skin in the game in general. Their opinion matters more than the teacher.”

Another VMI cadet said that she opposed banning books because they enable people to “understand different viewpoints.” She further stated that bans target “books that go against the status quo,” including ones with an “anti-police narrative” or “language … that is not acceptable to use today.” But, she continued, “the lessons that you can learn from them go beyond the use of that language.”

The cadet, as well as later speakers, said that banning books is a violation of the First Amendment. “The most important thing, the first thing [the founding fathers] thought was that we should have this freedom of expression,” she said.

Another cadet began his speech in favor of book bans by stating. “I’m more concerned with who is teaching the material.” He continued, “The teacher's agenda … often goes unchecked … The teacher can just say whatever she wants about a book, and nobody really cares.”

A W&L student spoke next. “We should not under any circumstances ban any book we deem controversial,” he declared. “This applies to all books, even some that are more widely considered to be banned … By reading these books you’re able to analyze the contradictions within them in order to see that their authors may just be wrong.”

The speaker defended his position even against the highly controversial audience examples of Lolita, The Anarchist Cookbook, and books which encourage suicide and self-harm. Regarding the latter topic, he said, “I’m not suggesting that we put [those books] into any elementary school curriculum. I’m just suggesting that we have it available for those curious students if they want to branch out and further their ideas.”

Another W&L student shared his experience of having served on a school district committee to review controversial books. He said that you have to value the entire book, and not just the two pages that might have sexually explicit or controversial content.

He also put his trust in the hands of librarians, who “are diligently putting these books in their libraries.”

One librarian spoke during the debate. “In our society,” she said, “the library is a safe and open space for everyone. Destroying, banning a book, that destroys our culture.” She also outlined VMI’s “collection development policies” and concluded, “When we stand up for the books, the pen really is mightier than the sword.”

After the debate concluded, Chairman Sprei conducted a debriefing session where participants were encouraged to reflect on what they gained from the event. Every comment was positive.

“It’s good to have a structured debate to be able to speak your mind,” said one SVU student.

“There’s always something more for you to understand,” a VMI cadet stated.

The Spectator spoke with Doug Sprei after the event. He said that the debate was successful because “every point of view you could hope for was expressed, and people were heard and respected.”

Sprei said that Braver Angels has hosted nationwide debates on the Second Amendment, universal healthcare, the southern border wall, critical race theory, affirmative action, abortion, greek life, and more. Students always choose the topics, he said.

“This type of debate opens them up to the possibility that people who disagree with them are not adversaries, they’re just interesting human beings who have a different point of view.”

Sprei told The Spectator that he looks forward to hosting similar events in Lexington in the near future.