Has cancel culture been taken a step too far with universities banning books from literature syllabuses? How do we differentiate between protection and censorship? 
It seems that 1081 trigger warnings were not enough. During the summer, an investigation found that academic institutions are now excluding ÔÇÿchallengingÔÇÖ books from their literature syllabuses altogether.
The Times issued freedom of information (FOI) requests to 140 UK universities, and these revealed that Essex and Sussex are amongst the first universities to remove texts from study lists.
Essex University permanently removed the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Underground Railroad by Colson Whitehead over concerns about its graphic depiction of violence and abuse of slavery. Sussex University axed the classic play by August Strindberg Miss Julie due to its discussion about suicide after students bemoaned the potential psychological and emotional effects of this material.
Another eight universities, from the prestigious Russell Group and beyond, admitted to making texts optional in case they caused harm to students. Works by Charles Dickens, Shakespeare, and Chaucer have been given alerts by 10 institutions. Novels by Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, and Agatha Christie were also among restrained texts.
Is this censorship or a necessary step to protect studentsÔÇÖ mental health?
I understand that it would be distressing for students who are personally affected by the personal, highly sensitive topics that certain literary works cover to sit amongst peers in a lecture hall or seminar room while discussions are taking place, however, I do not believe that banning the texts completely is the right way to go about the issue.
The decision to axe books about minority experiences obstructs the scope of literary studies. Some of the most plausible, informative, and enjoyable books in the canon are born out of intense, sometimes traumatic, experiences and help shape studentsÔÇÖ understanding of history and humanity. Literature offers an insight into the history of our global and historical heritage and having to access to only a watered-down version of this miscellaneous history is inevitably problematic.
We are encouraged to be understanding of minority groups and their experiences but without being taught about them how are we meant to understand?
From personal experience as an English Literature undergraduate, I can say that studying ÔÇÿgraphicÔÇÖ literary texts from GCSE and A-Level to my undergraduate degree has provided some of the most insightful and engaging lessons I have received throughout my academic studies.
At GCSE level, Heroes by Robert Cormier developed my understanding of PTSD amongst war veterans. At A-Level A House On Fire by Andrea Ashworth and The Color Purple by Alice Walker raised my awareness of the causes and treacherous effects of domestic violence, and remain two of my favourite literary texts to date.
At a time when academia is criticised for its indifference to lessons on practical and personal life skills, I struggle to understand why they are choosing to do away with these topics. As an English student from Cambridge puts it: ÔÇ£censorship of certain texts will inevitably be a censorship of certain aspects of life. Education at its core is about learning about all aspects of life, including those darker and less favourable elements.ÔÇØ
That said, I recognise that this is not entirely the fault of the institutions and am led to question whether, no matter what is covered on syllabuses, our ever-critical society will always have something to say about educational spheres? It seems that if topics are not covered, academia isnÔÇÖt doing enough, but when they are covered, they are condemned for not handling them the ÔÇÿrightÔÇÖ way.
Resolutions
I think the resolution here is content warnings, sensitivity, and understanding. With adequate content warnings, students can take on challenging material at their own discretion. In cases where they feel they cannot address certain topics in a university setting, alternative, equally academically vigorous texts should be available to study and be marked upon. These methods prioritise protection over censorship, ensuring that studentsÔÇÖ grades are not impacted by the emotional intensity of course content.
So, we shouldnÔÇÖt be complaining about content and trigger warnings that do not cause any harm. Removing challenging books from reading lists is the only problem here because if our literary education does not challenge and engage us, why bother at all?
English and humanities students are already (very insultingly and unfairly) slaughtered for not having a ÔÇÿrealÔÇÖ degree, so why should literary degree programmes be pushed further away from real life issues? Books covering significant historical events and personal trauma are part of the history of our world and the society we live in, and I believe that students should at least be given the option to study them.
