Wherever there is a controversial subject to discuss, the Saint Anselm Debate Team will not be far behind.

The Debate Team held an open debate on September 27 in the Academic Resource Center of the Student Center at 6 p.m. The topic of banning books was inspired by this year’s Banned Book Week, which lasted from Sept. 23 to Sept. 29.

Banned Books Week is an annual awareness campaign always held during the last week of September. Started in 1982, the campaign has since become an international event, with many colleges taking part.

The student body at Saint Anselm College added their voices to the discourse by participating in events such as discussions, read-outs, and debates.

Four members of the SAC Debate Team came together to dispute the resolution: “The banning of books should be abolished.” Arguing in favor of this resolution were seniors Katelyn Shaughnessy and Joshua Caruso, while sophomores Jacob Halterman and Zachary Covelle argued against this claim.

Because book banning can often become a nebulous topic, the debaters limited the scope of their discussion to book banning in schools. The side arguing for the abolishment of banning books opened the debate, starting out by outlining the negligible effects of this practice. Because books are crucial in the recording, maintaining, and spreading of knowledge, the debaters reminded the audience of the importance of accessible knowledge.

This argument is especially pertinent in regards to teenagers, because they are at the stage where people become more conscious of societal issues. By preventing adolescents from contemplating or even acknowledging specific issues, book banning is actually doing more harm than good.

However, the negative side of the resolution questioned whether students should have free reign over the material they read. Specifically looking at kids aged 13 to 18, students are at a very impressionable age, and Halterman and Covelle questioned whether this demographic is fully equipped to handle sensitive material.

Furthermore, they argued that forcing classes to read certain books with problematic subject matter could be seen as a form of indoctrination.

The affirmative side of the resolution claimed that shielding kids from certain books was its own kind of indoctrination.

For example, two schools may have vastly different ideas on what is “appropriate” content to cover in class. This argument raises the question about who gets to decide which books are censored. Shaughnessy and Caruso doubted the effectiveness of such a system, as there is no standard in place for what gets censored and what doesn’t.

The negative side ended the debate by reminding the audience that books are powerful – perhaps even powerful enough to inspire malevolent thoughts or actions. After all, most parents would not want their children reading something along the lines of Mein Kampf.

What’s more, students are still allowed to seek out books in their free time – their school just might not be a resource through which they can find certain books.

Both sides raised strong, reasonable points. The debate went beyond each team’s arguments by creating a dialogue about a controversial topic. Book banning exists in many forms throughout the world – from censoring content in schools to censoring content in entire countries – and it is crucial that more awareness is brought to the subject.

On the subject, Erica Davis, the co-captain of the IPDA Debate Team, says, “I believe that doing debates on controversial topics is very important. Especially since spectators are able to learn a lot about each side of the debate and can gain a lot of valuable knowledge through that.”

The only way to form an educated opinion on the practice of book banning is to examine both sides of the argument, which is exactly what the Debate Team set out to do.