Book Communism: State Mandated Reading Lists

A favorite activity of pundits and the fear-mongering news machine is to lampoon the American educational system. This is a veritable gold mine for attracting viewers; where reporters shout out test scores and restate the same studies over and over, often comparing the United States to Europe and Asia, and finding the United States lacking. One of the differences between our educational system and the “superior” educations that Europeans receive is that they use a standard canon of books that all students must read; while American teachers still maintain the autonomy to choose what books they want to teach. Although many look for holes in this plan, as it is now standard to do, the independence allowed by choosing reading lists allows for the organic evolution of class discussion and a wider availability of reading than a limited and narrow list of standard books. This system repeats a common theme in American education that is favorable – regardless of what the news machine likes to tell the public –a more encompassing system less married to standardized testing model.

            With the ability to create their own reading lists, American teachers can quickly and nimbly adapt their courses to current issues.  Because they do not have to appeal to a central bureaucratic body, the teachers could, for instance, introduce books that relate to modern issues such as the globalization of communication networks and relationships. The study of literature is not supposed to be a boring recitation of texts that no longer relate to modern society; instead it should be a time for students to study human interactions and relationships, a truly valuable activity that is too often lacking in curriculums solely focused on standardized testing. Additionally, this capability for change reflects modern trends of media consumption, where books are often consumed digitally and at a different level of understanding then in the staid world of print sources (Source F). The freedom to adapt their reading lists gives teachers the power to evolve and change.                    

  Not only are diverse and variable reading lists more capable of adapting to modern conditions, they also are more global than the anthologies and standardized reading lists. A photo of a common textbook opens with the title World Masterpieces. But this title is inherently lacking; it is simply impossible for the masterpieces of literature to be held in something so limiting as a textbook (Source D). This image reflects and represents how narrow state mandated reading lists are. With the ability to choose which books they want, teachers can choose “masterpieces” as varied as age-old texts like Beowulf, to modern giants like Cormac McCarthy’s The Road. Not only do anthologies and standard reading canons eliminate a large majority of literature, they are also so widely scrutinized that they often end up being the run of the mill, safe choices, and often cut out crucial but controversial parts of text because of the need to appeal to the country at large. For example, Clayton Eshleman, a professor at Eastern Michigan University teaches the whole of one of Walt Whitman’s poems, even though the specific passage is often axed by editors because of sexual themes (Source C). Although the literary community at large would agree that Walt Whitman is a masterful Romanticist poet, they are all too willing to cut out passages that they deem too “edgy.” Thus, the major problem with required anthologies is that they can in no way represent the vanguard of literature; instead they are relegated to the safe and the accepted.

            At the heart of this issue is the fear that the American educational system is failing. And while there are definitely aspects that need improvement, we cannot eliminate all of what makes the system unique. Because frankly, there is one thing that works. Just because it is different than the European and Asian model does not mean that is wrong. Freedom and variability in reading lists are useful tools for teachers because they allow for a class to be able to evolve and adapt to current issues. They let reading happen on a global scale, without being married to a narrow list of “classics.” This autonomy may not seem important in the overall swamp that is education, but it is a necessary one none-the-less.