My brother, an eighth grader in a school where I am a junior, gave a speech about the genocide in Darfur to his English class. His teacher and classmates chose him to present it to the entire grade. School administrators would not let him speak unless he removed a sentence containing the word "rape," finding it inappropriate for 13-year-olds. Is this censorship, or does the school have a valid point?
Randy Cohen, The Ethicist, responds that it is right for schools to think about what content is appropriate for students to hear but argues that "A discussion of the ghastly events in Darfur must mention rape, lest the audience be significantly misinformed." I agree. Kids younger than eighth grade are exposed to misogyny and violence on television.
As my father says, we cannot sanitize the human experience. The tragedy of Darfur is that thousands of women and girls, many even younger than eighth grade, have been raped. To eliminate the word "rape" from a speech about Darfur does not deny that rape has been and is occurring there, but is does distort the truth. To distort what is happening in Darfur insults the memory and dignity of the victims of Darfur. As activists, my fellow board member Elizabeth Milligan wrote in an earlier post, we have the responsibility to educate others about Darfur in order to combat misinformation. Telling the truth about Darfur is our moral obligation.
