We are thrilled to share the results of our recent essay contest celebrating the power of ideas and voices in literature. After careful review by our multidisciplinary faculty judges, we are proud to announce the winners:
THEA ASISTIO
Essay: "My Real Home in a Brand New Sea"
Reason: Thea explores the intersections of identity, mental health, and social acceptance as powerful validation in TJ Klune's The House in the Cerulean Sea. This robust analysis and deeply personal reflection earned her a $200 award
GABRIELLE JAMAN
Essay: “What Is the Cost of Freedom?”
Reason: Gabrielle explores the theme of freedom as an ironically isolating experience in V.E. Schwab's The Invisible Life of Addie LaRue. This compelling and personal analysis earned her a $100 award.
NICOLE THACH
Essay: "'Without Literature, We Could Never Be Infinite"
Reason: Nicole explores the personal relatability of Stephen Chbosky's The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and the importance of keeping works like these free for all to read. This thoughtfully written reflective analysis earned them a $50 award.
Flanking each winner, on the left is Librarian Val Macias and FC Library Dean, Dr. Dani Wilson. In addition to their cash prizes, each of the winners will have their names displayed in our perpetual trophies on the library display case on the first floor.
We also want to recognize two outstanding submissions that earned Honorable Mention awards. These winners will receive Banned Books Swag Bags, generously funded by the FC Ethnic Studies Department:
Thank you to everyone who participated and shared their voices with us. Your essays inspire dialogue and celebrate the importance of diverse perspectives in controversial literature. Stay tuned for future contests and events!
READ ABOUT LAST YEAR'S CONTEST AND WINNERS HERE!
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: MONDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2025, 11:59 p.m
All currently enrolled Fullerton College students are eligible to participate. Winners also will have their names engraved on the Library's Banned Books perpetual trophies display.
Steps:
Choose+Read, Write+Support, Proof, Submit:
For your convenience, the rubric used to judge the essays is available further down the page.
Please include your first name, last name, and Banner ID number on the essay.
One essay file submission per student. No links or 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 Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools: We recognize that AI tools can leverage the types of learning and productivity students engage with, presenting us with new ways to adapt, engage with digital literacy, and express ourselves. However, the unethical use of generative AI tools to uncritically create entire written works from nothing is generally discouraged, as they are prone to factual errors, algorithmic bias, uninteresting prose, and AI bloat. Evidence of AI-generated essay creation will prevent the essay from further consideration in the writing contest.
Academic Honesty Statement: Fullerton College’s policy on plagiarism fully applies (NOCCCD BP 55001.3). Participating students who submit essays are responsible for submitting academically honest work, which includes original written work and proper credit to any sources, as well as the full, complete, and accurate use of citations and Works Cited pages. Essays with suspected plagiarism will be disqualified.
EVALUATING RUBRIC for 2025 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.