Writer: Lisa Rizzo

Editor: Valerie Molina

 

Letter to Citizens for Excellence in Education

 

P1

Says: I’m Lisa Rizzo and I am writing this letter because I am concerned with the integrity of your organization and would like to know why you banned these books from schools.

Does: This paragraph explains her purpose immediately and previews her argument..

 

P2

Says: Parents have every right to ban their children from reading certain books. However, your organization has no right to ban books for all children on their website because it is not up to them to make the decision.

Does: This paragraph addresses her concerns over the issue by citing evidence found on the organizations website.

 

P3

Says: Since I went to catholic school, I am well aware of the differing opinions on homosexuality. I am asking for tolerance of other people’s lifestyles.

Does: This paragraph addresses an issue of homosexuality with personal evidence and experience. It also offers a cause and effect of the audience’s point of view.

 

P4

Says: Judy Blume should not have been banned in schools because she is an author who addresses many real-life issues that children face today.

Does: Addresses and comments on a victim of the situation and offers insight as to why the organization should rethink their past judgments.  

 

P5

Says: Banning novels such as Lord of the Flies and Catcher in the Rye will not stop children from harm but it will prevent them from facing reality.

Does: This paragraph offers evidence supporting her claim that censorship harms children more than it helps.

 

P6

Says: The program, Rescue 2010, which requires Christian children to attend Christian schools, will only force them to agree with the beliefs they’ve been taught. They will never form their own opinions or thoughts by such restrictions.

Does: This paragraph addresses the issues that mandated Christian schools would have on children. It also expands her argument by addressing another issue.

 

P7

Says: Christian school taught me about my religion and the ways of Jesus Christ through many of the books I was exposed to in various subjects. 

Does: It reflects the writer’s view on the schooling system from the reader’s perspective, which helps the reader understand that she does agree to a certain extent.

 

P8

Says: Rescue 2010 shield’s children from the real world.

Does: Cites information from the organizations mission statement to support her argument.

 

P9

Says: Instead of preaching what you don’t understand, your organization should read some of the novels I read in high school regarding censorship and its affects on society. Only then, will you be able to make smart decisions.

Does: Concludes the letter on a strong note with a few suggestions for the reader to reinforce the argument. 

 

Editorial Note

Dear Lisa,

 

            Your letter to Citizens for Excellence in Education really moved me because I wasn’t aware of all the censorship that occurs through religious organizations who use their own beliefs as justification to ban literature. In your first paragraph, you clearly state your purpose when you say, “I am not writing in anger over my favorite book. I am concerned with the integrity of your organization and curious to find out why you feel these books must be taken away.” This is a great way to begin your letter to this organization because it is important to clearly state your intent instead of leaving it up to the reader to avoid confusion. The sentence that follows the one that states your purpose also let your reader understand that you are a credible person whose inquiring about the censorship that has occurred involving children’s books. When you say, “I now understand your organization and I have some things to say about your work,” you not only serves to foreshadow what will be discussed in your letter but it also lets him or her know that you know what you’re talking about because you understand the organization. After reading your letter, I realized that your purpose did flow through your supporting paragraphs. However, too many examples caused some parts of the letter to seem more like tangents rather than cohesive supporting examples. There’s no reason to panic though, because you have a lot to work with to make your final draft great.

            You structure your letter beginning with two paragraphs that clearly state your purpose through literal statements as well as rhetorical questions. You then follow with three paragraphs that discuss the novels that have been banned by the organization. Your concluding paragraphs restate your purpose and reinforce you thoughts to the reader. However, the paragraphs that discussed the novels that have been banned were somewhat choppy in that there were too many examples that were being summarized and then explained. If you choose a few examples and really link them to either your own growth as a reader or student, you could easily use them more strongly to support your argument that they shouldn’t be banned by the organization. I think that if you discuss the novels directly and then link them back by quoting either the organizations commentary on their actions or their mission statement, you could easily help your letter flow better. Your reader would also follow your train of thought in a clearer way. Then, in the middle of the paragraphs that discuss the novels that have been banned, you introduce a statistic with no attribution. I think stating where you received the data would help you be more convincing.

            The letter has an accusatory tone, which is appropriate since you are trying to make certain claims. You also had an angry tone in your letter, which seems appropriate since censorship in children’s books is something that you’re very passionate about. Your tone can be traced back to when you state your purpose. Since you’re not writing in anger, instead in concern that in essence displays anger anyway. I think that your tone could cause you audience to take your letter seriously since they might deal with criticism from other places besides your letter. I think your tone makes your argument stronger because it reinforces the seriousness of the issue being discussed.

            You use research or in this case your own experiences with different books to support your claims. However, in one instance you use a statistic to reinforce your claim but you don’t actually name a source. If you named a source, I think your argument would have more weight because it would eliminate confusion for the reader when they ask where this statistic originated. When you use books to support your claim as research, I think it is obvious that you are extremely familiar with many of the novels mentioned. I think this adds to your credibility as a writer who is knowledgable about literature that centers the issue at hand. If you make a few clarifications, I think you could really strengthen your argument.

            It is obvious that your audience is comprised of members of the organization, Citizens for Excellence in Education. Since you address your letter to them, this was a given. If I put myself in their shoes, I think I would definitely acknowledge your concerns over censorship. I sensed your urgency and concern over the issue since you truly do care about the organizations mission to ban books that don’t follow strict Christian practices. The only confusion I could see the audience facing would be when you bombard the reader with talk about all of the books they’ve censored. I think you can make your point without having to summarize every single book on the “banned” list. I also think there should be a smoother transition inserted between your discussion about books and Rescue 2010 because it seems that the second discussion (Rescue 2010) appears out of nowhere. Instead of saying, “now that I have spoken out about your views on censorship I would like to talk to you about Rescue 2010,” you should smoothly discuss how Rescue 2010 has aided in unnecessary censorship of great books.

            I also think that if you make a few corrections in spelling and grammar (see paragraph 2), I think your letter would definitely be improved. Your draft has great qualities and I can’t wait to see how your improve draft appeals to your audience and convinces them to rethink their decisions on censoring novels in schools.