For the film, see Freakonomics (film). For the podcast, see Freakonomics radio.
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything is the debut non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner. It was published on April 12, 2005, by William Morrow. The book has been described as meldingpop culture with economics. By late 2009, the book had sold over 4 million copies worldwide.
The book is a collection of 'economic' articles written by Levitt, an expert who has already gained a reputation for applying economic theory to diverse subjects not usually covered by "traditional" economists; he does, however, accept the standard neoclassicalmicroeconomic model of rational utility-maximization. In Freakonomics, Levitt and Dubner argue that economics is, at root, the study of incentives. The book's chapters cover:
One example of the authors' use of economic theory involves demonstrating the existence of cheating among sumo wrestlers. In a sumo tournament, all wrestlers in the top division compete in 15 matches and face demotion if they do not win at least eight of them. The sumo community is very close-knit, and the wrestlers at the top levels tend to know each other well. The authors looked at the final match, and considered the case of a wrestler with seven wins, seven losses, and one fight to go, fighting against an 8-6 wrestler. Statistically, the 7-7 wrestler should have a slightly below even chance, since the 8-6 wrestler is slightly better. However, the 7-7 wrestler actually wins around 80% of the time. Levitt uses this statistic and other data gleaned from sumo wrestling matches, along with the effect that allegations of corruption have on match results, to conclude that those who already have 8 wins collude with those who are 7-7 and let them win, since they have already secured their position for the following tournament. Despite condemnation of the claims by the Japan Sumo Association following the book's publication in 2005, the 2011 Grand Tournament in Tokyo was cancelled for the first time since 1946 because of allegations of match fixing.
The authors attempt to demonstrate the power of data mining, as a number of their results emerge from Levitt's analysis of various databases. The authors posit that various incentives encourage teachers to cheat by assisting their students with multiple-choice high-stakes tests. Such cheating in the Chicago school system is inferred from detailed analysis of students' answers to multiple choice questions. But first Levitt asks, "What would the pattern of answers look like if the teacher cheated?" The simple answer: the more difficult questions found at the end of test sections will be answered correctly more frequently than the easy questions at the beginning of test sections.
In Chapter 2 of Freakonomics, the authors wrote of their visit to folklorist Stetson Kennedy's Florida home where the topic of Kennedy's investigations of the Ku Klux Klan were discussed. However, in their January 8, 2006, column in The New York Times Magazine, Dubner and Levitt wrote of questions about Stetson Kennedy's research ("Hoodwinked", pp. 26–28) leading to the conclusion that Kennedy's research was at times embellished for effectiveness.
In the "Revised and Expanded Edition" this embellishment was noted and corrected: "Several months after Freakonomics was first published, it was brought to our attention that this man's portrayal of his crusade, and various other Klan matters, was considerably overstated ... we felt it was important to set straight the historical record."
Freakonomics has been criticized for being a work of sociology or criminology, rather than economics. Israeli economist Ariel Rubinstein criticized the book for making use of dubious statistics and complained that "economists like Levitt ... have swaggered off into other fields", saying that the "connection to economics ... [is] none" and that the book is an example of "academic imperialism".Arnold Kling has suggested the book is an example of "amateur sociology".
The impact of legalized abortion on crime
Further information: Legalized abortion and crime effect
Revisiting a question first studied empirically in the 1960s, Donohue and Levitt argue that the legalization of abortion can account for almost half of the reduction in crime witnessed in the 1990s. This paper has sparked much controversy, to which Levitt has said
- "The numbers we're talking about, in terms of crime, are absolutely trivial when you compare it to the broader debate on abortion. From a pro-life view of the world: If abortion is murder then we have a million murders a year through abortion. And the few thousand homicides that will be prevented according to our analysis are just nothing—they are a pebble in the ocean relative to the tragedy that is abortion. So, my own view, when we [did] the study and it hasn't changed is that: our study shouldn't change anybody's opinion about whether abortion should be legal and easily available or not. It's really a study about crime, not abortion."
In 2003, Theodore Joyce argued that legalized abortion had little impact on crime, contradicting Donohue and Levitt's results ("Did Legalized Abortion Lower Crime?" Journal of Human Resources, 2003, 38(1), pp. 1 –37.). In 2004, the authors published a response, in which they argued that Joyce's argument was flawed due to omitted-variable bias.
In November 2005, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston economist Christopher Foote and his research assistant Christopher Goetz published a working paper, in which they argued that the results in Donohue and Levitt's abortion and crime paper were due to statistical errors made by the authors: the omission of state-year interactions and the use of the total number of arrests instead of the arrest rate in explaining changes in the murder rate. When the corrections were made, Foote and Goetz argued that abortion actually increased violent crime instead of decreasing it and did not affect property crime. They even concluded that the majority of women who had abortions in the 1970s were middle classwhites rather than low income minorities as Levitt stated; this was, they stated, because white middle class women had the financial means for an abortion. The Economist remarked on the news of the errors that "for someone of Mr Levitt's iconoclasm and ingenuity, technical ineptitude is a much graver charge than moral turpitude. To be politically incorrect is one thing; to be simply incorrect quite another." In January 2006, Donohue and Levitt published a response, in which they admitted the errors in their original paper but also pointed out Foote and Goetz's correction was flawed due to heavy attenuation bias. The authors argued that, after making necessary changes to fix the original errors, the corrected link between abortion and crime was now weaker but still statistically significant, contrary to Foote and Goetz's claims. Foote and Goetz, however, soon produced a rebuttal of their own and said that even after analyzing the data using the methods that Levitt and Donohue recommend, the data does not show a positive correlation between abortion rates and crime rates. They are quick to point out that this does not necessarily disprove Levitt's thesis, however, and emphasize that with data this messy and incomplete, it is in all likelihood not even possible to prove or disprove Donohue and Levitt's conclusion.
Freakonomics commented on the effects of an abortion ban in Romania (Decree 770), stating that "Compared to Romanian children born just a year earlier, the cohort of children born after the abortion ban would do worse in every measurable way: they would test lower in school, they would have less success in the labor market, and they would also prove much more likely to become criminals. (p. 118)". John DiNardo, a professor at the University of Michigan, retorts that the paper cited by Freakonomics states "virtually the opposite of what is actually claimed":
On average, children born in 1967 just after abortions became illegal display better educational and labor market achievements than children born prior to the change. This outcome can be explained by a change in the composition of women having children: urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, so a higher proportion of children were born into urban, educated households. (Pop-Eleches, 2002, p.34).
— John DiNardo, Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling
Levitt responded on the Freakonomics Blog that Freakonomics and Pop-Eleches "are saying the same thing":
Here is the abstract of the version of the Pop-Eleches paper that we cited:
…Children born after the abortion ban attained more years of schooling and greater labor market success. This is because urban, educated women were more likely to have abortions prior to the policy change, and the relative number of children born to this type of woman increased after the ban. However, controlling for composition using observable background variables, children born after the ban on abortions had worse educational and labor market achievements as adults. Additionally, I provide evidence of crowding in the school system and some suggestive evidence that cohorts born after the introduction of the abortion ban had higher infant mortality and increased criminal behavior later in life.
The introduction of the Pop-Eleches paper says:
This finding is consistent with the view that children who were unwanted during pregnancy had worse socio-economic outcomes once they became adults.
Freakonomics claimed that it was possible to "tease out" the effect of extra police on crime by analysing electoral cycles. The evidence behind these claims was shown to be due partly to a programming error. McCrary stated "While municipal police force size does appear to vary over state and local electoral cycles ... elections do not induce enough variation in police hiring to generate informative estimates of the effect of police on crime."
On April 10, 2006, John Lott filed suit for defamation against Steven Levitt and HarperCollins Publishers over the book and against Levitt over a series of emails to retired economist John B. McCall. In the book Freakonomics, Levitt and coauthor Stephen J. Dubner claimed that the results of Lott's research in More Guns, Less Crime had not been replicated by other academics. In the emails to McCall, who had pointed to a number of papers in different academic publications that had replicated Lott's work, Levitt wrote that the work by authors supporting Lott in a special 2001 issue of The Journal of Law and Economics had not been peer reviewed, alleged that Lott had paid the University of Chicago Press to publish the papers, and that papers with results opposite of Lott's had been blocked from publication in that issue.
A federal judge found that Levitt's replication claim in Freakonomics was not defamation but found merit in Lott's complaint over the email claims.
Levitt settled the second defamation claim by admitting in a letter to John B. McCall that he himself was a peer reviewer in the 2001 issue of The Journal of Law and Economics, that Lott had not engaged in bribery (paying for extra costs of printing and postage for a conference issue is customary), and that he knew that "scholars with varying opinions" (including Levitt himself) had been invited to participate. The Chronicle of Higher Education characterized Levitt's letter as offering "a doozy of a concession".
The dismissal of the first half of Lott's suit was unanimously upheld by The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on February 11, 2009.
Freakonomics peaked at number two among nonfiction on The New York Times Best Seller list and was named the 2006 Book Sense Book of the Year in the Adult Nonfiction category. The book received positive reviews from critics. The review aggregator Metacritic reported the book had an average score of 67 out of 100, based on 16 reviews.Freakonomics has a social review score 69/100 on Panjury.
The success of the book has been partly attributed to the blogosphere. In the campaign prior to the release of the book in April 2005, publisher (William Morrow and Company) chose to target bloggers in an unusually strategical way, sending galley copies to over a hundred of them, as well as contracting two specialized buzz marketing agencies.
In 2006, the Revised and Expanded Edition of the book was published, with the most significant corrections in the second chapter.
Restrictions on distribution
The book has been banned from Texas prisons.
The authors started their own Freakonomics blog, which is "meant to keep the conversation going", in 2005.
In May 2007, writer and blogger Melissa Lafsky was hired as the full-time editor of the site. In August 2007, the blog was incorporated into The New York Times' web site – the authors had been writing joint columns for The New York Times Magazine since 2004 – and the domain Freakonomics.com became a redirect there. In March 2008, Annika Mengisen replaced Lafsky as the blog editor. The Freakonomics blog ended its association with the New York Times on March 1, 2011.
Among the recurrent guest bloggers on the Freakonomics blog are Ian Ayres,Daniel Hamermesh,Eric A. Morris,Sudhir Venkatesh,Justin Wolfers and others.
In 2008, Stephen Dubner asked for questions from the site's readers and then featured them in an extended Q&A on "Best Places to Live" with demographics expert Bert Sperling.
Main article: SuperFreakonomics
In April 2007, co-author Stephen Dubner announced that there would be a sequel to Freakonomics, and that it would contain further writings about street gang culture from Sudhir Venkatesh, as well as a study of the use of money by capuchin monkeys. Dubner said the title would be SuperFreakonomics, and that one topic would be what makes people good at what they do. The book was released in Europe in early October 2009 and in the United States on October 20, 2009.
Main article: Freakonomics radio
In September 2010, Marketplace radio announced the creation of a Freakonomics podcast hosted by Dubner and Levitt. It is available on iTunes and is aired bi-weekly on NPR.
Main article: Freakonomics (film)
In 2010, Chad Troutwine, Chris Romano, and Dan O'Meara produced a documentary filmadaptation with a budget of nearly US$3 million in an omnibus format by directors Seth Gordon, Morgan Spurlock, Alex Gibney, Eugene Jarecki, Rachel Grady, and Heidi Ewing. It was the Closing Night Gala premiere film at the Tribeca Film Festival on April 30, 2010. It was also the Opening Night film at the AFI/Discovery SilverDocs film festival on June 21, 2010. Magnolia Pictures acquired distribution rights for a Fall 2010 release.
Freakonomics: The Movie was released in major cities with a pay what you want pricing offer for selected preview showings. No report of the results has yet been published.
Freakonomics Consulting Group
In 2009, Steven Levitt co-founded Freakonomics Consulting Group, a business and philanthropy consulting company which became The Greatest Good and is now known as TGG Group. Founding partners include Nobel laureates Daniel Kahneman and Gary Becker, as well as several other prominent economists.
- ^ abDeahl, Rachel (6 May 2005). "Getting a Buzz On: How Publishers Are Turning Online to Market Books". The Book Standard.
- ^Fox, Justin (26 October 2009). "Is the World Ready for Freakonomics Again?". Time.com. Retrieved 7 June 2011. (subscription required)
- ^"Sumo tournament cancelled amid match-fixing scandal". BBC. 2011-02-06.
- ^Levitt, Steven D.; Dubner, Stephen J. (5 October 2006). Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything (Revised and Expanded Edition). William Morrow. p. xiv. ISBN 0-06-123400-1.
- ^Rubinstein, Ariel. "Freak-Freakonomics"(PDF). The Economists' Voice. 3 (9). doi:10.2202/1553-3832.1226.
- ^Kling, Arnold (5 July 2005). "Freakonomics or Amateur Sociology?". Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^"'Freakonomics': Musings of a 'Rogue Economist' : NPR".
- ^John J. Donohue III & Stephen D. Levitt (2004). "Further Evidence that Legalized Abortion Lowered Crime: A Reply to Joyce"(pdf). The Journal of Human Resources. Retrieved 2008-12-03.
- ^Christopher L. Foote & Christopher F. Goetz (2008-01-31). "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime: Comment"(pdf). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
- ^"Abortion, Crime, and Econometrics". The Economist. 2005-12-01. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
- ^John J. Donohue III & Stephen D. Levitt (January 2006). "Measurement Error, Legalized Abortion, the Decline in Crime: A Response to Foote and Goetz"(pdf). Retrieved 2008-12-03.
- ^Christopher L. Foote & Christopher F. Goetz (2008-01-31). "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime: Comment"(pdf). Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Retrieved 2008-05-12.
- ^ abDiNardo, John. "Freakonomics: Scholarship in the Service of Storytelling"(PDF). American Law and Economics Review. Oxford Journals. 8 (3): 615–626. doi:10.1093/aler/ahl014.
- ^PDF of Lott's complaint v. Levitt
- ^Law, George Mason. "Parker Argues in Defamation Lawsuit - George Mason Law". www.law.gmu.edu. Retrieved 2015-08-10.
- ^Higgins, Michael (2006-04-11). "Best-seller leads scholar to file lawsuit; Defamation allegation targets U. of C. author". Chicago Tribune. p. 3.
- ^"Judge Castillo issues decision on Lott v. Levitt" on John Lott's website
- ^Glenn, David (2007-08-10). "Dueling Economists Reach Settlement in Defamation Lawsuit". Chronicle of Higher Education. 53 (49): 10.
- ^ ab"Unusual Agreement Means Settlement May Be Near in 'Lott v. Levitt'". 27 July 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2016 – via The Chronicle of Higher Education.
- ^"7th Circuit Affirmation of District Court Dismissal of Defamation LawsuitArchived 2009-02-16 at the Wayback Machine."
- ^"Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner: Reviews". Metacritic. Archived from the original on 18 February 2008. Retrieved 11 March 2008.
- ^"Freakonomics - Panjury, A Social Review Site". panjury.com. Retrieved 5 June 2015.
- ^Dubner, Stephen J. (20 September 2006). "Freakonomics 2.0". Freakonomics (blog). Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^Dubner, Stephen J. (4 May 2007). "Please Welcome the First Editor of Freakonomics.com". Freakonomics (blog). Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^Dubner, Stephen J. (7 August 2007). "Moving Day". Freakonomics (blog). Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^Dubner, Stephen J. (17 March 2008). "Please welcome..."Freakonomics (blog). Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^Dubner, Stephen J. (18 January 2011). "Yes, This Blog Is Leaving NYTimes.com". Freakonomics (blog). Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^"Posts published by Ian Ayres". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^"Posts published by Daniel Hamermesh". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^"Posts published by Eric A. Morris". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^"Posts published by Sudhir Venkatesh". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^"Posts published by Justin Wolfers". The New York Times. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^Dubner, Stephen. "Bert Sperling Answers Your "Best Places to Live" Questions". Retrieved 3 August 2012.
- ^Lombardi, Candace (19 April 2007). "Freakonomics writer talks monkey business". CNET News. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^Conley, Lucas (1 November 2005). "Freakonomics, economic hit men, undercover economists. This ain't Adam Smith". Fast Company. Retrieved 7 June 2011.
- ^"Here Is What SuperFreakonomics Will Look Like". The New York Times. 7 August 2009. Retrieved 2 May 2010.
- ^"Freakonomics". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved 20 July 2009.
- ^Kohn, Eric (1 May 2010). "TRIBECA REVIEW — Movies Within a Movie: The Anthology Documentary "Freakonomics"". indieWIRE. Retrieved 17 November 2010.
- ^"Magnolia Picks Up 'Freakonomics' Documentary". News in Film. Retrieved 5 April 2010.
- ^"Pay what you want to see Freakonomics: The Movie".
- ^"The Greatest Good - Consulting". Retrieved July 14, 2012.
The essays were screened and judged by a panel including: the Chinook staff; Kathy Glassman, president of CSEA; Susan Rottman, local author and teacher; and Independent editor Kathryn Eastburn.
Our thanks to the teachers who encouraged their students to participate and to all students who submitted essays. Winners will be honored at a 5:30 p.m. reception on Friday, Oct. 27, at Chinook. The public is invited.
Junior High School Winners
First Place Brandon Redlinger, Grade 8
Eagleview Middle School
"We don't have to agree with what we read, but we should learn from it."
The freedom to read means we shouldn't allow censorship or book banning due to subject matter, language usage or violent situations. To prevent children from knowing about the world and human nature is unrealistic. "Children are not innocent. They are just inexperienced," said Judy Blume, a veteran of censorship wars. Shielding children from the cruel reality of the world doesn't do them any favors. Instead of shielding children, parents can offer a perspective from personal experiences and help children interpret the world, its realities and flaws. Children, with guidance from parents, should be able to make decisions about what they read and believe. Parents need to take the responsibility, deciding what is appropriate or inappropriate for their children. We shouldn't sacrifice our First Amendment rights to censors just to be protected from what other people consider right and wrong.
The determination about which books should be restricted from children depends on their level of maturity. A person less mature might misinterpret the meaning of subject matter resulting in inappropriate thoughts, beliefs or behavior. Conversely, a person who is mature enough to comprehend what the author is implying will understand the message being emphasized. Again, parents' supervision is indicated, not banning.
Reading is one of our greatest freedoms. Censorship leads to conformity. This limits the range and variety of inquiry and expression on which our culture depends. Creativity, research, and technological advances would be limited. Democracy's responsibility is to make available a diversity of views, popular and unpopular. It's not right to coerce the thought of some and inhibit the efforts of others. All community members should have equal access to the entire range of written resources. Publishers' responsibilities are to give the full meaning to the freedom to read by providing books that enrich the quality and diversity of expression. The freedom to read is of little consequence unless the reader can obtain material to suit his purpose.
Libraries should be allowed to provide information presenting contrasting viewpoints on historical issues. History teaches students the events that shaped the world. Materials shouldn't be removed because of differing partisan or doctrinal views. A person's right to use a library for research should not be denied because of parents' conflicting views either. We don't have to agree with what we read, but we should learn from it.
The First Amendment guarantees our freedom to decide what we choose to read and think. Though someone may be convinced his views are right, that individual is not entitled to impose them on others.
Second Place Grady Castle, Grade 8
Eagleview Middle School
"Controversial writing ... keeps our minds alive."
The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its shame." -- Oscar Wilde.
When books are banned, it illustrates a refusal of the censors to look at the world with open eyes; to close their eyes like they closed the banned book. Banning books divulges more about the censor than the book or the author brought into the limelight.
Freedom to read means that you are able to read freely without the possibility of being stopped because the material is inappropriate according to the challenger's belief system. If the challenger doesn't like the book, maybe he shouldn't read it or let his children read it. But banning books takes the books off the shelves, abolishing even the slightest chance that those condemned books might be able to be read at all. Banning for one bans for all.
"... I say let's get back to the good old First Amendment of the good old-fashioned United States -- and to hell with the censors! Give me knowledge, or give me death!" -- Kurt Vonnegut
The Bill of Rights makes important changes to the Constitution set to establish rules for the United States of America. Obviously, the most important change would be made first. If the First Amendment states that it is okay to write as you wish, then I believe it's okay to write as you wish. And a corollary to that is it's okay to read what you want, too. Depriving others of the chance to read is an unjust thing to do. It doesn't matter if another doesn't want to read a book because the author said something that was offensive, but don't try to control another's value system by limiting their exposure to ideas.
If the privilege of writing something one believes in is taken away, then the privilege of believing has been taken away. Freedom to read is the freedom to read anything. I have read many books I wanted to read even though it was prohibited and that's the way I want it to always be.
I want it to always be this way because my interest jumps a notch when someone tells me a book's controversial. Controversial writing causes sparks and keeps our minds alive.
"Free societies ... are societies in motion, and with motion comes tension, dissent, friction. Free people strike sparks, and those sparks are the best evidence of freedom's existence." -- Salmon Rushdie
High School Winners
First Place Kendall Anderson, Grade 11
Manitou Springs High School
"Books that break the mold are what we need."
Stripping books that some people deem inappropriate from high school libraries underrates youthful intelligence, clouds history and dilutes our culture to fit a mold of conformity. Oftentimes books are quite literally judged by their covers. There is much more to most frequently challenged books than a controversial topic. What lies between the covers are breakthroughs in expression, timeless plots, and new perspectives for readers. Books that break the mold are what we need. High school libraries should foster open expression without limitations by censors.
The dull reaction and sarcastic tone Kurt Vonnegut takes when describing war and massacre cause his books to be challenged in several communities. Misunderstanding provokes this ridicule. Vonnegut uses the phrase "So it goes" to describe numerous senseless deaths in his book Slaughterhouse Five. Vonnegut doesn't mean to devalue the importance of life, but rather, he emphasizes with the repeated phrase the horrible reality of lives lost. By assuming that high school readers can't understand and appreciate this, censors misjudge student intelligence and swindle teens out of experiencing groundbreaking literature.
Rape is not a tasteful subject for anyone. However, a novel can deal with this delicate subject with more empathy than the evening news. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings confronts this touchy subject. Yet while rape may not be a comfortable topic, the problem is not alien to many young women. By pulling these books off shelves, censors close our eyes to the world around us. Such books can teach the confused or comfort the suffering. If ideas in books are too taboo for some readers, no one is forced to read them. Someone who thirsts for that information, however, shouldn't be deprived of the opportunity to find it.
In Mark Twain's novels, TheAdventures of Huckleberry Finn and TheAdventures of Tom Sawyer, many people confront uncomfortable language. These books offer the reader a peek into another time period when a different set of values reigned. We should be trying to reclaim the innocence of that era, not censoring the slang of the time. Censoring regional books such as these distorts history.
We should not underestimate our youth, disguise our culture, or sweep the past under the rug. A high school student can't be sheltered from what is true or from ideas that can change their lives. Everyone deserves an opportunity to be touched by literature. Censoring books in a high school library is not acceptable.
Second Place Annabell Woods, Grade 11
Manitou Springs High School
"Some believe they can hoodwink today's youth."
My generation, probably more aware of the world than our predecessors, faces challenges on all levels as capable adults, and we cannot allow ourselves to be swaddled when we are not infants. Censoring challenged books in high schools distorts constitutional freedom and robs young adults of potentially enriching literature. Some believe they can hoodwink today's youth. With some initiative and persistence, these people often succeed. While they preach purity, censors pervert and destroy many authors' ideas and stop our right to judge for ourselves what we can view.
As a child, the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, the Oz books by Frank L. Baum, and similar stories ignited my imagination with adventure and images of wizards, witches, and talking animals. The same reasons these stories stay alive and vivid in my memory are some of the same reasons that censors ban books today. When children today read the widely scrutinized Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling, I am certain that Rowling's words excite them as Lewis's and Baum's words excited me.
I gravitate toward literature that depicts reality. TheAdventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain, criticized for displaying disobedient behavior and racial slurs, accurately portray the author's era. The artful precision that acclaimed poet Maya Angelou paints her personal experiences in I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is censored because it discusses rape. A Separate Peace by John Knowles let me peer into our world at a different time. These books open the minds of high school students, rather than pervert them.
Regardless of what I believe is appropriate, others have the freedom to judge differently. If I believe a work is unsuitable, I can choose not to read it. I can even one day restrict what my own children read. When I tell others that they cannot read something, I impose my own values on others. In forbidding others from reading a book I do not own or have any grounds to regulate, I rob them of their freedom and, more importantly, their desire to learn. Today, the boundaries of purity and pornography, art and anarchy are faintly drawn. We live in a gray world where light and shadows mingle, making it impossible for a few individuals to make universal judgements over all people. By judging issues for ourselves, we excel beyond false logic, ignorance, and an imposed idea of purity.
Phillip D. Dressen, Grade 12
Centennial High School, Pueblo
Regina Caputo, Grade 11
Centennial High School, Pueblo