I'm writing to address an issue that has created continuous controversy within our campus corridors: the banning of books from school libraries and reading lists.

Classics have been challenged by adults of the community because of their "vulgarity, inappropriateness and racist undertones." Books like these should not be considered offensive and should continue to be taught in the classrooms based on numerous grounds. Some question the moral wholesomeness of works like Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn."

Through in-depth analysis, students are taught of their history: the history of mankind and the history of literature. Therefore certain words, like curse words and the "N" word, shouldn't be considered offensive with respect to the time period and demographics.

I'm not in any way promoting racist or belittling language, but as long as students understand that obscenities are inappropriate through exposure, they can fully appreciate literature as timeless. Mark Twain didn't write to be blasphemous; he wrote to entertain, to express, to educate.

In 1975, several school board members from the Island Trees School District in New York arranged to have books such as Piri Thomas' "Down These Mean Streets" and Bernard Malamud's "The Fixer" "unofficially removed" from their school libraries, labeling these "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy."

Later, the district's superintendent attempted to bring the "banned" books back. Appeals were rejected. The books were once again removed. Then, a 17-year-old high school student, Steven Pico, and others sued the school board because they felt their First Amendment rights were violated.

Here, the school board won, with the court referring to "respect for the traditional values of the community." In a second court case with the U.S. Supreme Court, the verdict fell in favor of the students. Justice William Brennan stated that school officials do not have absolute authority and that the "special characteristics of the school library make that environment especially appropriate for the recognition of the First Amendment rights of the students."

Because our Constitution protects our freedoms, students -- and anyone else for that matter -- shouldn't be obligated to give in. I understand that parents are worried for their children and I acknowledge their good intentions. However, I repeat that exposure to such realities plants awareness and an indispensable sense of right and wrong.

Teachers have administered these classics for decades not to preach "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy" ideals, but to explain specific literary themes. Recently, my English teacher mentioned that we'd be reading Huck Finn. However, she was also disappointed to say that several parents had protested our study of it because of its racist insinuations.

"I really wanted to read that too!" and "I heard it was a good book. Too bad, huh?" were among the class' comments. Academic enthusiasm should always be encouraged, not suppressed, supported, not abandoned. According to Sparknotes.com, Huck Finn demonstrates "the struggle with the aftereffects of slavery and racism, individual maturation and development, and the hypocrisy of 'civilized' society."

Nothing unconstructive and unreal was mentioned. Take into consideration that this was written 20 years after the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. Since teachers have built up their credibility,0 and since students are fervent in their scholastic desires, classic texts should be embraced, not discontinued.

Core novels contribute to the documentation of our heritage. Sharing these with today's youth implants consciousness of America's wrongs and teaches students that times have changed, while providing the promise of the First Amendment.

We want to read. We want to learn. We want to explore -- as students, as readers and as thinkers.

Christine Abayan lives in Murrieta.