During the fall semester, the FC Library promoted the 2024 Fullerton College Banned Books Essay Contest to celebrate and promote Banned Books Week. Banned Books Week is an annual awareness campaign spearheaded by the American Library Association to celebrate the freedom to read. Throughout human history and across many countries and cultures, many books have been banned, confiscated, censored, destroyed in bonfires, had content edited out, and challenged in schools. Also, many authors and their readers have been fined, imprisoned, threatened, assaulted, and even executed for their association with banned books that were disapproved by some authorities and governments.
As such, Fullerton College students took up the challenge of picking up a banned book, reading it, and writing an essay about it to win cash prizes. The contest started early in September to coincide with the official start of Banned Books Week. The contest ended on October 14, and students who submitted their essays to the library before the deadline were anonymously evaluated by a team of campus faculty from various disciplines.
The faculty has spoken, and the following finalists were selected:
From left to right: Val Macias, Student Programming Librarian; Misha Garcia, Runner-Up Finalist; Gabrielle Smith, Grand Prize Finalist; Lillian Steele, Second Runner-Up Finalist; Dr. Dani Wilson, Dean of the FC Library
1st Place: Gabrielle Smith’s essay, “Blue Eyes, Black Skin,” vividly captures the profound struggles at the intersections of identity and highlights the liberating power of banned books, drawing on the themes in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye. This powerful, evocative, and thought-provoking work earned her a $200 award.
2nd Place: In “Close the Book,” Misha Garcia explores the trauma of domestic violence and the impact of shielding young people from harsh realities, as portrayed in Sandra Cisneros’s The House on Mango Street. This thoughtful analysis earned her a $100 award.
3rd Place: Lillian Steele’s essay, “The Liberation I Found in Mexican Whiteboy,” presents a compelling analysis of the anxiety of growing up biracial and the importance of including banned books like Matt de la Peña’s Mexican Whiteboy in the curriculum for these reasons. Her insightful work earned her a $50 award.
Honorable Mention awards went to Katelyn Wilson for a thoughtful analysis of Alejandro Saenz’s Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe, and Madelyn Le, for an amazing analysis of Ocean Vuong’s On Earth We’re Briefly Gorgeous. Each was awarded a Banned Books premium two-toned canvas tote filled with goodies, generously sponsored by Fullerton College’s Ethnic Studies Department.
First, Second, and Third place winners will also have their names engraved on the Banned Books Writing Contest perpetual trophies, which will be displayed in the library’s display case. Congratulations to our winning students!
Please join us again in Fall 2025 when the contest runs again!
Prizes: Three winners (first, second, and third place) will be announced at the end of October. The prizes are as follows:
$200 = 1st
$100 = 2nd
$50 = 3rd
Due:: OCTOBER 14, 2024, 11:59 p.m
All currently enrolled Fullerton College students are eligible to participate.
Steps:
Choose, Read, Write+Support, Proof, Submit:
For your convenience, the rubric used to judge the essays is available further down the page.
Include your first name, last name and Banner ID number on the essay.
One essay submission per student. No hand-delivered paper submissions, please. Submissions sent after the posted date and time will generally not be eligible.
Contact
For questions or concerns, contact Student Programming Librarian Val Macias at vmacias@fullcoll.edu.
For more information on Banned Books Week, please visit the American Library Association page: http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/banned.
The Banned Books Essay Contest is fully funded through a generous grant from the Fullerton College Friends of the Library.
Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools: AI tools are generally discouraged when creating essays. Evidence of AI-assisted essay creation will prevent the essay from being considered further.
Academic Honesty Statement: Fullerton College’s policy on plagiarism fully applies (NOCCCD BP 5500 1.3). Participating students who submit essays are responsible for submitting academically honest work by submitting original written work, with credit given to any sources where required, which includes the full, proper, and complete use of citations and Works Cited pages. Essays with suspected plagiarism will be disqualified.
EVALUATING RUBRIC for 2024 BANNED BOOKS ESSAY CONTEST
| NONE (0) | NEEDS WORK (1) | ADEQUATE (2) | GOOD (3) | EXCELLENT (4) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
STRENGTH of ARGUMENT Does the entire essay focus well on their chosen prompt? |
There is no attempt to focus on any prompt. | There appears to be a thesis, but the paper contains facts and information. It may also read mostly like a plot summary. | The essay thesis may not be obvious; uneven details may hamper it. | The essay is largely focused on the central argument of their chosen prompt, but the effects of the reasons, details, and evidence may not be as compelling because the thesis statement may be broad. | A tight and compelling central idea in which all the reasons, details, and evidence support the central thesis of the prompt. |
|
PERSONALIZATION Does the essay connect the book content and its controversy in a personal or relatable way? |
No attempt was made to personalize the essay or make it relatable, so it may sound like there is no person behind the writing. | Little attempt to personalize an essay may read as a series of general and broad statements about the book or on book bans. | Some attempts to personalize the essay could have benefited from more clarity in one or more places. | A solid effort to personalize the essay in meaningful and relevant ways. Examples from their lived experience(s), culture, and personal observations may be offered. | A thorough effort to personalize the essay in meaningful and relevant ways is seen throughout. Creative, evocative, and powerful examples from their lived experience, culture, identity, and personal observation are masterfully utilized. |
|
EVIDENCE OF RESEARCH / SUPPORTING DETAILS Are the supporting details logically consistent? Does the evidence provided support this well? Are the sources credible? |
No attempt to support the central idea in the essay. | There may be a serious lack of supporting details / evidence to strengthen the argument of the essay. Little evidence of research, even from the book itself. | The supporting details do a fair job to support the thesis, but they may appear to point to the obvious or the predictable. Used only the book as a source. | The supporting details do a great job overall to support the thesis, but one of the key points may be underdeveloped. Used one or more additional sources in addition to the book. | Details strongly support the central thesis of the essay. The evidence strengthens the argument of the essay. A variety of credible sources are used to support. |
|
ORGANIZATION Are the paragraphs structured, and do they flow well? (Intro, body, conclusion, transitions, etc.)? |
There is no clear attempt at organization. | There doesn’t appear to be a cohesive paragraph structure. The essay may appear to be one long paragraph. Some fundamental paragraph structures, like the concluding paragraph, may be missing. | The essay may have a structure, but some paragraphs may appear excessively long or underdeveloped. Some paragraphs may not have a clear purpose or transitions. | The essay has a clear structure, but one area could have been more developed (e.g., the concluding paragraph reads like it was hastily put together). | Clear organization and purpose, clear transitions, and signal words may be apparent to make the essay flow well. |
|
LANGUAGE MECHANICS Are the paragraphs largely free of errors related to grammar, syntax, punctuation, and spelling? |
No command of language mechanics. | The essay appears to have been neglectfully done, or the writer needs a better command of language mechanics, as there are many errors throughout. As a result, it may be difficult to read. | Adequate command of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax; the paper appears to be of first-draft quality and could have been improved with solid proofreading. | Overall good command of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax. Some errors were found but did not seriously distract from the reading experience. | Excellent command of grammar, spelling, punctuation, and syntax. Few to no “typo” errors were found. |
|
FORMAT** Is the essay largely free of formatting errors (fonts, margins, line spacing, etc.), and is the MLA ** format utilized well? |
No evidence of formatting is apparent. | There appears to be some formatting, but serious neglect with respect to MLA ** is apparent, including a missing Works Cited page. | Good format. Adequate use of MLA ** format. Some significant errors, such as margins or missing citations on the Works Cited page, are apparent. | Good use of format overall, and a solid Works Cited page with some minor apparent difficulties with MLA ** | Excellent paper format and MLA ** format, including consistent citations and a clear Works Cited page. |
** MLA is the preferred documentation style. Other documentation formats, such as APA, Turabian, Chicago, etc. are acceptable provided that the writer is correct and consistent with the requirements of their chosen documentation style.