“For me, reading has always been a path toward liberation and fulfillment. To learn to read is to start down the road of liberation.”

Anaya believes that being able to read, and to have access to diverse books, is a type of freedom because it comes with new points of view and experiences. This quote links knowledge to liberation, ideas that the essay continually juxtaposes with the dangers of censorship. The analogy and juxtaposition are rhetorically intended to persuade the reader to disavow censorship.

“I was dismayed by my friend’s conclusion. How he coped with the problem has tremendous cultural implications. It has implications that we may call self-imposed censorship. My friend was censoring his creativity in order to fit the imposed criteria.”

With this anecdote about his friend, a Chicano poet who no longer submits poetry that incorporates Spanish, Anaya illustrates a form of self-censorship: The poet no longer embraces authentic self-expression, censoring himself to fit the pressures of the status quo. Anaya’s larger concern is that self-censorship does not only affect one person; it can affect an entire community if cultural values are lost. However, Anaya’s tone toward his friend is less condemnatory than dismayed; the self-censorship is a method of survival in a prejudiced society.

“I do not believe we should have to leave out the crucial elements of our language and culture to contribute to American literature, but unfortunately, this is a conclusion I am forced to reach.”

Anaya wants Chicano writers to express themselves as they wish. This might mean including the Spanish language or Chicano history or folklore in their work. However, the author worries that the publishing industry is forcing them to remove such cultural aspects from their writing for mainstream audiences.