CENSORSHIP OF CURRICULUM MATERIALS, ERIC DIGEST SERIES NUMBER EA44

By Aurnague-DeSpain, JeanMarie - Baas, Alan[34]

The definition____censorship is itself the subject of disagreement. In a democracy, it is customary for decisions to be made by majority rule. How can those who hold to minority viewpoints seek to have their concerns addressed by the schools without being labeled "censors"? Likewise, how is the professional judgment (and at the secondary level, academic freedom) of educators to be weighed against the desires of the community and parents that their children not be exposed to certain materials or experiences? Reichman defines censorship_____"the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic or educational materials . . . on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in the light of standards applied by the censor." Yet, as Chion-Kenney points out, "virtually any decision made by school board members concerning what is taught, used, and learned in school can be viewed as the act of a censor."Meanwhile, out in the field, censorship issues continue to arise, most typically regarding sex and drug education; "secular humanism" materials; teaching evolution without attention to creationism; literature portraying children in conflict with parents or authorities, women in nontraditional roles, or "negative thinking" by people in minority or alienated roles; and "invasions of privacy" - any assignments (such as journals) in which students are asked to examine their personal backgrounds. Accordin_____one point of view, censorship cannot be clearly distinguished from the gatekeeping function that is exercised by those who select materials for use in schools. One of the goals of selection, say adherents of this position, is that of protecting children from material judged to be inappropriate. "It is right," argues Wynne, "for us to restrict their choices among media materials or prohibit self-seeking adults from selling certain such materials." Others question the wisdom of excluding topics from guided discussion at school when students are exposed to a barrage of information about controversial subjects through other sources, such as the media. To prevent selection decisions from becoming sinonymous with endorsement of content, they should be gueded by sound, clearly stated polici. "Intelligent selection," according to Reichman, should balence the concerns of a wide variety of groups and be carried out by trained professionals who "take into account and work with community and parental concerns" and maintain "a high tolerance for our national diversity." The selection process favors majority involvement; when it either disregards or fails to allow for minority rights, censorship issues make their appearance.

SCIENCE: CONTEMPERORY CENSORSHIP

By Brian Martin[35]

Today the major censors of scientific work are governments, corporations and elite scientists. During the scientific revolution, the greatest threat to science came from the church, but those years are long past. Early science was also done mainly by amateurs, alone or in small groups using simple pieces of equipment, and this model of "little science" still prevailed until World War II. Since then, though, science has been "industrialised": it is characteristically done by teams using expensive apparatus. This requires substantial funding, which comes primarily from governments (including militaries) and large corporations. The groups with the greatest stake in this contemporary system are governments and corporations, naturally enough, plus elite scientists whose influence depends on satisfying their patrons, maintaining the flow of funds and protecting their reputations. Anyone who challenges these interest groups is a potential target for censorship or reprisal.

Much scientific research is directly relevant to practical problems, such as studies of terrain mapping for ballistic missiles or genetic engineering for more profitable crops, and it is clear why there might be censorship in these areas. However, so-called "pure science"--knowledge for its own sake rather than for application--is not exempt. Much pure science has a potential application; that, often, is why it is funded. As well, powerful scientists often develop a commitment to and a career investment in particular ideas, and react strongly against challengers.

The traditional image of censorship suggests that the primary processes are the prevention of publication and the editing of texts by censors. These certainly occur in today’s science, but there are other processes at work as well that have a similar effect. To look at the array of techniques used to channel and control scientific research and its dissemination, it is useful to consider three major processes: stopping the message, stopping the messenger, and establishing research priorities.

One method of stopping the message is "old-fashioned" direct censorship. This is commonplace in much government and corporate research. Much military-related research is treated as a matter of national security and covered by laws and regulations to ensure secrecy. The continuing publicity about leaking of nuclear weapons secrets serves as a warning to scientists who might consider revealing details of their research.

Sometimes the military passion for secrecy spills into wider arenas. Because of the importance of putting communications into unbreakable codes, militaries have classified research into cryptography, the mathematical study of codes. In the United States, the national security establishment has also tried to control publication of civilian research in cryptography, as well as banning the export of encryption software. In 1979, the magazine The Progressive planned to publish an article by Howard Morland on "the secret of the H-bomb". The US government acted to stop publication, but eventually gave up after the article was published elsewhere. Ironically, most of the information was already available in public sources. The government action can be interpreted as an attempt to restrict informed public debate over nuclear strategy. In most other countries, military secrecy is even more stringent, so that censorship is less apparent and there is less open debate about it.

Direct censorship is also prevalent in many government departments, where scientists are expected to obtain approval from superiors before publishing official reports or articles in scientific journals. In some places, this is just another round of peer review and censorship is not involved. Sometimes subtle pressures are involved, for example to tone down references to the impact of forestry on spreading of tree diseases. In more blatant cases, entire studies are banned and scientists are prevented from attending conferences and giving talks. Another technique, used especially for policy documents, is selective promotion. Documents that are welcome to powerful groups (governments or corporations) are widely publicised, whereas unwelcome documents are released in limited quantities with little or no notification.

Corporations also exercise direct censorship of research extensively, for example by withholding results that might be damaging to profits or the careers of top managers. This is found in numerous industries, including pharmaceuticals, automobiles and chemicals. Corporate censorship is justified on the basis of commercial confidentiality or trade secrets even when wider public interests are involved.

A different corporate technique of stopping the message is to obtain a patent on a product or process as a means of preventing its development. For example, General Electric used its control of patents to retard the introduction of fluorescent lights, which were more efficient than the incandescent lights it was selling. Although patents and copyrights, as forms of intellectual property, are supposed to foster the creation of new ideas, they can be used to restrain development. Fortunately, then, scientific ideas such as formulas cannot be copyrighted. If copyright, which is valid until 75 years after an author’s death, could have been applied to the theory of evolution or methods for solving equations on a computer, the negative consequences can be imagined.

A common method of stopping the message is peer review and editorial control. To obtain scientific credibility, a viewpoint needs to be published in the scientific literature, preferably in a prestigious journal. In many fields, there is widespread consensus about what is considered to be correct. This can be called a "paradigm," which is a dominant way of thinking about the world and carrying out research within a field. For example, the current paradigm within both physics and psychology excludes the possibility that mental processes can affect physical events such as quantum decays. As a result, it is extremely difficult for parapsychology researchers to publish their findings in mainstream physics or psychology journals, no matter how rigorous their methods or dramatic their results. The same applies to a wide range of areas that are considered to be "fringe" including alternatives to relativity, nonstandard cancer treatments, cold fusion and homoeopathy. The normal operation of peer review does not seem to be a form of censorship, since it is presented as a form of quality control. However, assessments of quality cannot be separated from assessments of what are valid questions and what are valid ways to carry out research. Challenges to the current paradigm are seldom seen as valid. Yet there are plenty of examples of theories, such as continental drift, that were once treated as outlandish and later became accepted wisdom. However, the key thing is not whether a viewpoint is ultimately judged to be correct, but rather whether it is given a fair hearing, even if it turns out to be wrong. The influence of standard ideas is powerful throughout science. Peer rejection of fundamental challenges to received ideas is the way science operates, and in this general sense science could not exist as it does today without censorship.

A second major process for controlling and channelling science is stopping the messenger. A scientist who does research or speaks out and is seen as a threat by vested interests may come under attack. The scientist may be ostracised by colleagues, a potent form of reprisal given the importance of peer opinion to most scientists. Other responses include harassment, formal disapproval from superiors, threats, formal reprimands, denial of grants or other funding, denial of promotion or jobs, punitive transfers, legal actions, dismissal and blacklisting. Some of these responses are direct and open, such as reprimands and dismissal.