Thursday, May 25, 2006
Porn/Violent Books at High School?
Arlington Heights School Board member Leslie Pinney has created quite a fuss at the second largest high school district in Illinois.
She has targeted a list of nine books listed in the Tribune article:
One email I received contained some pretty descriptions of both. Here’s what I saw
In fact, I’ll bet a school board member would object if someone tried to read the excerpts at a school board meeting. And, if a high schooler had any of what is described in the excerpts I read on a video game, a parent would object to having it in the house.
I filed a Freedom of Information request with Crystal Lake High School District 155 asking about the five that seemed to have some of the most explicit language and here’s what I found:
Cary-Grove High School
She has targeted a list of nine books listed in the Tribune article:
"Beloved" by Toni Morrison,But no samples of what is objected to is quoted in this family newspaper…nor is it likely that any area newspaper will ever include such descriptions of sexual activity and torture.
"Slaugherhouse Five” by Kurt Vonnegut,
"The Things They Carried" by Tim O'Brien,
"The Awakening" by Kate Chopin,
"Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner,
"The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World" by Michael Pollan,
"The Perks of Being a Wallflower" by Stephen Chbosky,
"Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers and
"How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents" by Julia Alvarez.
One email I received contained some pretty descriptions of both. Here’s what I saw
“soft porn” (“Garcia Girls,” “Wallflower”),In any event, I don’t remember anything like them in the high schools I attended at Middletown, New York, and Crystal Lake.
“excessive violence” in Vietnam (“Fallen Angels” and “The Things They Carried”) (PETA should be complaining about how a baby water buffalo is killed.) and/or
“uses words you won’t hear broadcast over the airwaves or see in the newspaper” (“Slaughterhouse Five”).
In fact, I’ll bet a school board member would object if someone tried to read the excerpts at a school board meeting. And, if a high schooler had any of what is described in the excerpts I read on a video game, a parent would object to having it in the house.
I filed a Freedom of Information request with Crystal Lake High School District 155 asking about the five that seemed to have some of the most explicit language and here’s what I found:
“Slaughter Five” and “The Things They Carried”—the two books about Vietnam--are included as an option in two District 155 English courses. Both of these novels are grouped among other titles that teachers may select from in order to meet the criteria for the course curriculum.Books currently available in district libraries follow. The dates are years when the book was purchased.
Cary-Grove High School
· Slaughterhouse Five (1995 and 1996)Crystal Lake Central High School
· How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent (1998)Prairie Ridge High School
· The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2000)
· Fallen Angels (2001)
· The Things They Carried (1992)
· Slaughterhouse Five (2001)
· How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent (1998)Crystal Lake South High School
· The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2000)
· Fallen Angels (2003)
· The Things They Carried (1997)
· Slaughterhouse Five (1997)
· The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2000)The next Arlington Heights School Board meeting is Thursday, May 25th, 7:30 p.m. sharp at the Forest View Educational Center, 2121 South Goebbert in Arlington Heights.
· Fallen Angels (1994)
· Slaughterhouse Five (2002)
Comments:
<< Home
Re: The Current Book Controversy
The copy and paste below is direct from a large, local school district's policy on line. My focus here would be on the terms "Controversial Issues", "age-appropriate", and "balanced view"
"Page 1 of 1
Instruction
Teaching About Controversial Issues
Discussion of controversial issues should be age-appropriate, serve an educational purpose, be
consistent within the scope of the course’s curriculum, and present a balanced view.
CROSS REF.: 6:40
ADOPTED: May 17, 2001"
------------------------
Maybe this is "supposed" to deal with basic sex education, or the Holocaust, or "?", however, I would certainly think the books in question involve controversial content, whether or not it is or isn't age-appropriate, and a balanced view.
---------------------------
One person's art and great literature is another's version of filth. While the local major paper may not be printing the excerpts and polices its expletives - one had no trouble printing the photo of a child squatting in (ex.), a bird bath type thing, to all appearances nude. Someone decided this was art. A known local's name was attached to it. As far as I know, no one complained. Probably decided it was a cute, innocent artistic photo. In a perfect world, it would be. In a pedophile's world, it's "candy".
So, now what? The papers defend freedom from censorship even as many of the staff wouldn't let their kids near this stuff until a later age. The papers rant and rave about Freedom of Speech and yet applaud a teen's editorial that tries to stifle an adult's Freedom of Speech.
Reading a couple excerpts, I was reminded of the tackily written "True Confestions of xxxx" type "Women's" magazines my aunt hid on the refigerator thinking I wouldn't find them. Or read them. Or the "Girly" mags teen boys hid from parents, in the places no mom would ever, ever think to look - (shh - between the mattresses).
So, assuming teens already have access to this information - passing it around school, from older brothers and sisters, etc. - exactly why is the school industry formally allowed to interfere with a parent's right to decide when THEIR PARTICULAR CHILD is "ready" for this type of content?
(NOTE: I'm not passing judgment on any specific book mentioned. I am not addressing any religous beliefs. I am addressing the technicalities of the material versus the school industry versus the parents, etc.)
The difference between censorship and common sense and stepping over boundaries of responsibility????
I think it rests in the words "age-appropriate".
And, until a child legally becomes an adult, perhaps school children (yes, we still call them "children") in high school and below, should concentrate more on basic reading skills instead of an educator's personal/political agendas, and "free spirit" thinking. When a child or his/her parents are totally "paying the freight" in college, freedom to pursue different types of writing and artwork becomes a matter of choice - not force.
Drinking wine is acceptable at a young age in some countries. Here it's frowned on. Why aren't schools pushing wine?
Some people on the planet grow up ingesting or using plant materials that we consider drugs and we frown on that use. Again, the decision is left to those in power.
In the Old West, children married and it was the norm. Now, we want our kids to be in their 20s before they take that step.
Erring on the side of caution - I suggest the school industry get out of the business of making these types of decisions for our kids.
The copy and paste below is direct from a large, local school district's policy on line. My focus here would be on the terms "Controversial Issues", "age-appropriate", and "balanced view"
"Page 1 of 1
Instruction
Teaching About Controversial Issues
Discussion of controversial issues should be age-appropriate, serve an educational purpose, be
consistent within the scope of the course’s curriculum, and present a balanced view.
CROSS REF.: 6:40
ADOPTED: May 17, 2001"
------------------------
Maybe this is "supposed" to deal with basic sex education, or the Holocaust, or "?", however, I would certainly think the books in question involve controversial content, whether or not it is or isn't age-appropriate, and a balanced view.
---------------------------
One person's art and great literature is another's version of filth. While the local major paper may not be printing the excerpts and polices its expletives - one had no trouble printing the photo of a child squatting in (ex.), a bird bath type thing, to all appearances nude. Someone decided this was art. A known local's name was attached to it. As far as I know, no one complained. Probably decided it was a cute, innocent artistic photo. In a perfect world, it would be. In a pedophile's world, it's "candy".
So, now what? The papers defend freedom from censorship even as many of the staff wouldn't let their kids near this stuff until a later age. The papers rant and rave about Freedom of Speech and yet applaud a teen's editorial that tries to stifle an adult's Freedom of Speech.
Reading a couple excerpts, I was reminded of the tackily written "True Confestions of xxxx" type "Women's" magazines my aunt hid on the refigerator thinking I wouldn't find them. Or read them. Or the "Girly" mags teen boys hid from parents, in the places no mom would ever, ever think to look - (shh - between the mattresses).
So, assuming teens already have access to this information - passing it around school, from older brothers and sisters, etc. - exactly why is the school industry formally allowed to interfere with a parent's right to decide when THEIR PARTICULAR CHILD is "ready" for this type of content?
(NOTE: I'm not passing judgment on any specific book mentioned. I am not addressing any religous beliefs. I am addressing the technicalities of the material versus the school industry versus the parents, etc.)
The difference between censorship and common sense and stepping over boundaries of responsibility????
I think it rests in the words "age-appropriate".
And, until a child legally becomes an adult, perhaps school children (yes, we still call them "children") in high school and below, should concentrate more on basic reading skills instead of an educator's personal/political agendas, and "free spirit" thinking. When a child or his/her parents are totally "paying the freight" in college, freedom to pursue different types of writing and artwork becomes a matter of choice - not force.
Drinking wine is acceptable at a young age in some countries. Here it's frowned on. Why aren't schools pushing wine?
Some people on the planet grow up ingesting or using plant materials that we consider drugs and we frown on that use. Again, the decision is left to those in power.
In the Old West, children married and it was the norm. Now, we want our kids to be in their 20s before they take that step.
Erring on the side of caution - I suggest the school industry get out of the business of making these types of decisions for our kids.
I read the excerpts from all of those books (sent to me by another website). Pretty disturbing. It's the whole sexualization of America. Nothing is taboo anymore, everything is A-OK! Where have morals and decorum gone?
Too many people just don't care anymore. Parents figure kids will find this stuff out anyway, they think kids are old enough to handle it etc., etc. I think if enough parents were to go to that board meeting and demand these books be pulled, or board members would be voted out, maybe something would be done. But there would be too many people on the side of "who cares" and "let our kids be corrupted", that the board wouldn't back down. Look at what happened with the Gay Games controversy. Too many adults have already been corrupted, so they feel they are in no position to judge what others should be doing, or they just don't care. Shame really.
I am so tired of living in the world of "anything goes".
Too many people just don't care anymore. Parents figure kids will find this stuff out anyway, they think kids are old enough to handle it etc., etc. I think if enough parents were to go to that board meeting and demand these books be pulled, or board members would be voted out, maybe something would be done. But there would be too many people on the side of "who cares" and "let our kids be corrupted", that the board wouldn't back down. Look at what happened with the Gay Games controversy. Too many adults have already been corrupted, so they feel they are in no position to judge what others should be doing, or they just don't care. Shame really.
I am so tired of living in the world of "anything goes".
4piggybanks2 said: And, until a child legally becomes an adult, perhaps school children (yes, we still call them "children") in high school and below, should concentrate more on basic reading skills instead of an educator's personal/political agendas, and "free spirit" thinking. When a child or his/her parents are totally "paying the freight" in college, freedom to pursue different types of writing and artwork becomes a matter of choice - not force.
I am not a High School teacher, but I'd imagine that HS teachers are tasked with teaching "children" how to think as well as read. There's a gray line between child and adult at that age - when is it appropriate for them to learn about the world? College? You must be joking.
My idea would be to let the book list stand as-is. Allow sensitive readers/parents opt-out of assignments much like students can opt-out of sexual education. Those students might miss the fine-points of an educator's plan, but they will still have their innocence (apparently).
I'm glad to hear that the books will not be banned by district 214, but the fact that this issue was brought-up highlights the need for a plan surrounding controversial books.
I myself have read three of the books (Freakonomics, The Botany of Desire, and Slaughterhouse Five), and understand why the schoolboard member thought they needed to be banned, but I also think that these books have wonderful abilities to teach young adults.
Freakonomics challenges us to look for hidden patterns in life, and use those patterns to explain the inexplicable. The author uses the legalization of abortion as a "possible" explanation for the decrease in crime in the 90's - a controversial topic for sure, but not without context and further explanation.
The Botany of Desire is a book about plants: apples, tulips, potatoes, and marijuana. The author describes the history of each plant and the modern challenges with their cultivation. It's not a pro-marijuana book by any stretch. AND, even if it were, it was published in 2002 - marijuana has been cultivated long before this book was written. It's a non-starter.
Slaughterhouse Five is a book that about the horrors of war - yes, there are a few gruesome scenes, but nothing (in my opinion) too grueseome for a high school reader. These kids are availble for military service at 18 - they will have the chance to witness their own gruesome scenes first-hand, and some are worried about words on a page? C'mon.
So, to get back to Piggybank, High School is a place where our children will learn to think - not only to read. We need to make sure that their teachers have the appropriate tools at their disposal.
Now, to Donna... Donna said: Too many adults have already been corrupted in reference to "what happened with the Gay Games controversy." Well, I can see we're back to the problems with the gays. When are you going to learn that the sin isn't in being gay (something that God has chosen for these people), the sin is in trying to keep these people (humans = your equals) from enjoying a "life" in this country.
I'm also tired of living in a society of "anything goes," except that I'm referring to an "anything" of exclusion, bigotry, and inequality.
I am not a High School teacher, but I'd imagine that HS teachers are tasked with teaching "children" how to think as well as read. There's a gray line between child and adult at that age - when is it appropriate for them to learn about the world? College? You must be joking.
My idea would be to let the book list stand as-is. Allow sensitive readers/parents opt-out of assignments much like students can opt-out of sexual education. Those students might miss the fine-points of an educator's plan, but they will still have their innocence (apparently).
I'm glad to hear that the books will not be banned by district 214, but the fact that this issue was brought-up highlights the need for a plan surrounding controversial books.
I myself have read three of the books (Freakonomics, The Botany of Desire, and Slaughterhouse Five), and understand why the schoolboard member thought they needed to be banned, but I also think that these books have wonderful abilities to teach young adults.
Freakonomics challenges us to look for hidden patterns in life, and use those patterns to explain the inexplicable. The author uses the legalization of abortion as a "possible" explanation for the decrease in crime in the 90's - a controversial topic for sure, but not without context and further explanation.
The Botany of Desire is a book about plants: apples, tulips, potatoes, and marijuana. The author describes the history of each plant and the modern challenges with their cultivation. It's not a pro-marijuana book by any stretch. AND, even if it were, it was published in 2002 - marijuana has been cultivated long before this book was written. It's a non-starter.
Slaughterhouse Five is a book that about the horrors of war - yes, there are a few gruesome scenes, but nothing (in my opinion) too grueseome for a high school reader. These kids are availble for military service at 18 - they will have the chance to witness their own gruesome scenes first-hand, and some are worried about words on a page? C'mon.
So, to get back to Piggybank, High School is a place where our children will learn to think - not only to read. We need to make sure that their teachers have the appropriate tools at their disposal.
Now, to Donna... Donna said: Too many adults have already been corrupted in reference to "what happened with the Gay Games controversy." Well, I can see we're back to the problems with the gays. When are you going to learn that the sin isn't in being gay (something that God has chosen for these people), the sin is in trying to keep these people (humans = your equals) from enjoying a "life" in this country.
I'm also tired of living in a society of "anything goes," except that I'm referring to an "anything" of exclusion, bigotry, and inequality.
Re: The Current Book Controvery
Teens are not allowed to dress the way they want in high school. There is always some "code".
Liquor and smoking materials can't be sold except to adults. And "someone" decides the age that coves.
Many good kids/teens can't remember to take out the garbage or feed the dog.
The media reminds parents and the public that teens don't think of oral sex acts as being "sex" or as being health risking behavior.
Kids are being indoctrinated to believe the political and personal agenda rhetoric of teachers in grade and high schools at a time when students can't tell the difference between fact/opinion/agenda. The authority figure relationship blurs their brains.
We place ratings on movies and video games that would exclude participation by teens because the content is, for whatever reason, deemed inappropriate.
However, when it comes to so-called "optional" reading material - we offer the kids content local newspapers won't print and which basic television won't broadcast?
Actually, I'm not much into censorship. I can almost guarantee that I think outside the box that most people inhabit. However, I'm for (first), doing no harm, and second common sense.
I'm also for telling educators to keep their political, sexual, and other agendas out of the taxpayers classrooms.
If the school industry uses kids to pass tax increases by playing on their emotions and giving them only partial or incorrect "evidence" to base their responses on, you can bet your Bippity Boppity Boo the balanced view theory isn't being played out in other areas too.
"We" can all do battle over what is art/literature or what is garbage/filth. Each person has her/his own opinion or level of tolerance.
If we are to set target ages or limits for so many other things that have the potential to pollute our lives - "junk" food sold in schools, alcohol, gambling, etc. - why is what many consider socially unacceptable or pornographic - above the establishment of a target age?
Teens are not allowed to dress the way they want in high school. There is always some "code".
Liquor and smoking materials can't be sold except to adults. And "someone" decides the age that coves.
Many good kids/teens can't remember to take out the garbage or feed the dog.
The media reminds parents and the public that teens don't think of oral sex acts as being "sex" or as being health risking behavior.
Kids are being indoctrinated to believe the political and personal agenda rhetoric of teachers in grade and high schools at a time when students can't tell the difference between fact/opinion/agenda. The authority figure relationship blurs their brains.
We place ratings on movies and video games that would exclude participation by teens because the content is, for whatever reason, deemed inappropriate.
However, when it comes to so-called "optional" reading material - we offer the kids content local newspapers won't print and which basic television won't broadcast?
Actually, I'm not much into censorship. I can almost guarantee that I think outside the box that most people inhabit. However, I'm for (first), doing no harm, and second common sense.
I'm also for telling educators to keep their political, sexual, and other agendas out of the taxpayers classrooms.
If the school industry uses kids to pass tax increases by playing on their emotions and giving them only partial or incorrect "evidence" to base their responses on, you can bet your Bippity Boppity Boo the balanced view theory isn't being played out in other areas too.
"We" can all do battle over what is art/literature or what is garbage/filth. Each person has her/his own opinion or level of tolerance.
If we are to set target ages or limits for so many other things that have the potential to pollute our lives - "junk" food sold in schools, alcohol, gambling, etc. - why is what many consider socially unacceptable or pornographic - above the establishment of a target age?
rusrus: You stated:
"When are you going to learn that the sin isn't in being gay (something that God has chosen for these people), the sin is in trying to keep these people (humans = your equals) from enjoying a "life" in this country"
First of all, many, many people disagree with your opinion that God has made people gay. I am not going to get into a theological argument with you, but why am I bigot for being against something that goes against everything I have been taught and believe, but you are not a bigot for not allowing me my views? And for bible believing Christians, being gay is a sin. I too am a sinner, so I am not casting stones. Jesus came to set the sinner free, but first the sinner must confess his sin, and in the words of Jesus "Go and sin no more". That seems to be the part no one wants to hear.
I am not against anyone living their life or enjoying life. I just don't want someone's else's agenda being shoved down my throat or being taught to my kids. Do what you need to do to enjoy your own life, but stay out of mine. My children to do not need to learn about free love, homesexuality or graphic violence to have a full life.
I do believe gays are human beings, and my equals, as all people are. (I would have to be quite beastly to believe otherwise). I treat all people fairly and humanely and love all people, as that is something I am commanded to do. When I referred to adults being corrupted, I wasn't only talking about the gay games controversy. Sex before marriage, adultery, alcoholism drug abuse, child abuse, the list goes on and on. People are corrupt. Many adults are so messed up, they are clueless as to what is going on in their children's lives, or what they are reading/learning at school. It is time for adults, especially parents, to grow up and get involved.
As far as being a bigot: Sounds to me like you oppose Christians? Are you a bigot? What else do you oppose? Everyone opposes something, does that make you a bigot? Hate cats? Are you a cat bigot? How about smokers? Smoker bigot. What about President Bush? Are you a Bush bigot? Do you see how riduculous the bigot argument is? Everyone has something they are against, the world must be full of bigots then, huh?
"When are you going to learn that the sin isn't in being gay (something that God has chosen for these people), the sin is in trying to keep these people (humans = your equals) from enjoying a "life" in this country"
First of all, many, many people disagree with your opinion that God has made people gay. I am not going to get into a theological argument with you, but why am I bigot for being against something that goes against everything I have been taught and believe, but you are not a bigot for not allowing me my views? And for bible believing Christians, being gay is a sin. I too am a sinner, so I am not casting stones. Jesus came to set the sinner free, but first the sinner must confess his sin, and in the words of Jesus "Go and sin no more". That seems to be the part no one wants to hear.
I am not against anyone living their life or enjoying life. I just don't want someone's else's agenda being shoved down my throat or being taught to my kids. Do what you need to do to enjoy your own life, but stay out of mine. My children to do not need to learn about free love, homesexuality or graphic violence to have a full life.
I do believe gays are human beings, and my equals, as all people are. (I would have to be quite beastly to believe otherwise). I treat all people fairly and humanely and love all people, as that is something I am commanded to do. When I referred to adults being corrupted, I wasn't only talking about the gay games controversy. Sex before marriage, adultery, alcoholism drug abuse, child abuse, the list goes on and on. People are corrupt. Many adults are so messed up, they are clueless as to what is going on in their children's lives, or what they are reading/learning at school. It is time for adults, especially parents, to grow up and get involved.
As far as being a bigot: Sounds to me like you oppose Christians? Are you a bigot? What else do you oppose? Everyone opposes something, does that make you a bigot? Hate cats? Are you a cat bigot? How about smokers? Smoker bigot. What about President Bush? Are you a Bush bigot? Do you see how riduculous the bigot argument is? Everyone has something they are against, the world must be full of bigots then, huh?
4piggybanks2: You stated:
"If we are to set target ages or limits for so many other things that have the potential to pollute our lives - "junk" food sold in schools, alcohol, gambling, etc. - why is what many consider socially unacceptable or pornographic - above the establishment of a target age?"
Well said! It is ridiculous isn't it? "Can't have soda in schools our kids are unhealthy." No one seems to care about the health of the mind or the soul. Pity.
"If we are to set target ages or limits for so many other things that have the potential to pollute our lives - "junk" food sold in schools, alcohol, gambling, etc. - why is what many consider socially unacceptable or pornographic - above the establishment of a target age?"
Well said! It is ridiculous isn't it? "Can't have soda in schools our kids are unhealthy." No one seems to care about the health of the mind or the soul. Pity.
Donna said: I am not against anyone living their life or enjoying life. I just don't want someone's else's agenda being shoved down my throat or being taught to my kids. Do what you need to do to enjoy your own life, but stay out of mine. My children to do not need to learn about free love, homesexuality or graphic violence to have a full life.
Sounds like your problem is with American society. Since we're a country of inclusion, no one will be left-out of the American dream (unless you're breaking our laws). If you can't live with those different from you, you should find a new place to live. The rest of us have come to terms with living among others and their quirks.
Sounds like your problem is with American society. Since we're a country of inclusion, no one will be left-out of the American dream (unless you're breaking our laws). If you can't live with those different from you, you should find a new place to live. The rest of us have come to terms with living among others and their quirks.
rusrus:
I do have a problem with American society because it is going into the sewer and no one seems to care.
As I have said previously, I have no problem with everyone living their lives and trying to achieve the American dream, just don't shove your agenda down my throat. Don't make me have to embrace your lifestyle. Tolerance and acceptance are two entirely different things.
What can't you understand about my wanting as much protection over what I view as my lifestyle, as others want over theirs? It's always about inclusiveness until people disagree with you. If you aren't being inclusive of what I deem important as well, then your whole argument is faulty.
I do have a problem with American society because it is going into the sewer and no one seems to care.
As I have said previously, I have no problem with everyone living their lives and trying to achieve the American dream, just don't shove your agenda down my throat. Don't make me have to embrace your lifestyle. Tolerance and acceptance are two entirely different things.
What can't you understand about my wanting as much protection over what I view as my lifestyle, as others want over theirs? It's always about inclusiveness until people disagree with you. If you aren't being inclusive of what I deem important as well, then your whole argument is faulty.
Donna: Your dream seems to involve people living as YOU SAY, and not as THEY WANT. Otherwise you'll be offended. The best you can hope for is that they don't "be themselves" on your property.
I do support everyone's individual quest for the American dream, but if your dream involves the crushing of others' dreams... I will NEVER support that.
Donna, unfortunately the perfect word to describe your thinking is "bigoted" - you are a bigot. Sorry that there are deeper connotations to the word, but it means: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Isn't that about right?
If you expect people to come-over to your side of things, you might get a few takers. But in the end, most people realize that the bigot's viewpoint is only passing, and as Americans, will search for the common-ground.
I do support everyone's individual quest for the American dream, but if your dream involves the crushing of others' dreams... I will NEVER support that.
Donna, unfortunately the perfect word to describe your thinking is "bigoted" - you are a bigot. Sorry that there are deeper connotations to the word, but it means: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. Isn't that about right?
If you expect people to come-over to your side of things, you might get a few takers. But in the end, most people realize that the bigot's viewpoint is only passing, and as Americans, will search for the common-ground.
rusrus:
I have never said anyone needs to live as I say. That would make me a dictator, and that would be ridiculous. I am a very proud American and proud that the nation is full of a variety of people from very diverse backgrounds.
This nation used to have respect for all viewpoints. Now it seems unless you are a radical leftist, now one else's views are allowed.
I am not intolerant, I am unaccepting. I can put up with anything if I have to,(thus tolerating it) but I will not be forced to accept it as fact. I do not think it is a fact that homosexuals were born that way, or that someone was born a man by mistake and now needs to become a woman, or that God made men who have no choice but to dress up as women. You think you are right, I believe I am, seems we have hit an impasse.
Here is Merriam Websters definition of bigot:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Your definition stated: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
I AM partial to my own group, religion and politics, aren't most people? Couldn't you say the same thing?
Since I just stated I am not intolerant, and I am certainly not prejudiced, it doesn't seem to apply. But I know how much the leftists like to throw big words around, whether or not they apply. Funny how you also won't apply it to yourself, though it seems to fit.
My intention, as once again I have previously stated, is not to crush anyone's American dream. I don't care if someone is gay, do what you want in your own home. But don't come into our schools and say it is ok for Heather to have two mommy's or copulate in public during a parade to make a point. Don't push books that are vile and trash under the guise of literature, to further sway children away from morals and values. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, and to protect them from things they deem hazardous, and the agenda of too many is to take those rights away and I will fight diligently to prevent it.
Why does it bother you so much that parent's want the right to decide what is in the best interest of their children?
I have never said anyone needs to live as I say. That would make me a dictator, and that would be ridiculous. I am a very proud American and proud that the nation is full of a variety of people from very diverse backgrounds.
This nation used to have respect for all viewpoints. Now it seems unless you are a radical leftist, now one else's views are allowed.
I am not intolerant, I am unaccepting. I can put up with anything if I have to,(thus tolerating it) but I will not be forced to accept it as fact. I do not think it is a fact that homosexuals were born that way, or that someone was born a man by mistake and now needs to become a woman, or that God made men who have no choice but to dress up as women. You think you are right, I believe I am, seems we have hit an impasse.
Here is Merriam Websters definition of bigot:
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
Your definition stated: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
I AM partial to my own group, religion and politics, aren't most people? Couldn't you say the same thing?
Since I just stated I am not intolerant, and I am certainly not prejudiced, it doesn't seem to apply. But I know how much the leftists like to throw big words around, whether or not they apply. Funny how you also won't apply it to yourself, though it seems to fit.
My intention, as once again I have previously stated, is not to crush anyone's American dream. I don't care if someone is gay, do what you want in your own home. But don't come into our schools and say it is ok for Heather to have two mommy's or copulate in public during a parade to make a point. Don't push books that are vile and trash under the guise of literature, to further sway children away from morals and values. Parents have a right to raise their children as they see fit, and to protect them from things they deem hazardous, and the agenda of too many is to take those rights away and I will fight diligently to prevent it.
Why does it bother you so much that parent's want the right to decide what is in the best interest of their children?
Somehow, book censorship has reached out and grabbed "gay" - another topic guaranteed to make folks face off.
I looked in the mirror today and told my blue eyes to become a beautiful brown. Nothing changed. I squinted and pouted and my face turned red. Nothing changed. I have blue eyes that I can only change if I want to wear colored contacts. Underneath, my eyes and I both know - they are blue.
I know that there are people who are fascinated with brown eyes and I will never be able to force them to like blue eyes, no matter how much I pout, stomp, or advertise. One person I know thinks blue eyes are hiding something. Go figure.
Medical science keeps discovering why we are what we are physically. Is this difference an accident or did it happen for a survival reason? Lots of questions. Answers many don't like on both sides.
It's not my business to know what goes on in someone's bedroom between consenting adults. By the same token, straight, gay, or bi - I really don't want to watch people sticking their tongues down each others' throats in public parks or on street corners. Body parts don't have to be exposed to the point of posing health hazards.
There are many things for us to like or dislike about each other.
I've met great folks who travel all sides of the sexual street.
And some, also from all sides, were jerks.
One thing I know -
if a person gives their life to save another,
in war by taking a bullet aimed at another or by throwing themselves on a grenade,
by throwing themselves into traffic to push a child away from a speeding car,
or by donating a life saving organ -
the last thoughts that will ever come to my mind will be "Was he/she
straight or gay?" or "Was he/she my religion?", or "What color was his/her skin?" or "Did he/she support himself/herself in a profession that doesn't get you arrested?"
My only thought will be one of great thanks for the sacrifice that was made.
Perhaps on this Memorial Day weekend, we can, for the moment at least - declare a truce?
---------------------END
-------------------
If any veterans happen to read this - thank you. And to any spouses/family members who "fought" (or "fight") on the homefront during times of war - thank you too.
I looked in the mirror today and told my blue eyes to become a beautiful brown. Nothing changed. I squinted and pouted and my face turned red. Nothing changed. I have blue eyes that I can only change if I want to wear colored contacts. Underneath, my eyes and I both know - they are blue.
I know that there are people who are fascinated with brown eyes and I will never be able to force them to like blue eyes, no matter how much I pout, stomp, or advertise. One person I know thinks blue eyes are hiding something. Go figure.
Medical science keeps discovering why we are what we are physically. Is this difference an accident or did it happen for a survival reason? Lots of questions. Answers many don't like on both sides.
It's not my business to know what goes on in someone's bedroom between consenting adults. By the same token, straight, gay, or bi - I really don't want to watch people sticking their tongues down each others' throats in public parks or on street corners. Body parts don't have to be exposed to the point of posing health hazards.
There are many things for us to like or dislike about each other.
I've met great folks who travel all sides of the sexual street.
And some, also from all sides, were jerks.
One thing I know -
if a person gives their life to save another,
in war by taking a bullet aimed at another or by throwing themselves on a grenade,
by throwing themselves into traffic to push a child away from a speeding car,
or by donating a life saving organ -
the last thoughts that will ever come to my mind will be "Was he/she
straight or gay?" or "Was he/she my religion?", or "What color was his/her skin?" or "Did he/she support himself/herself in a profession that doesn't get you arrested?"
My only thought will be one of great thanks for the sacrifice that was made.
Perhaps on this Memorial Day weekend, we can, for the moment at least - declare a truce?
---------------------END
-------------------
If any veterans happen to read this - thank you. And to any spouses/family members who "fought" (or "fight") on the homefront during times of war - thank you too.
Donna;
#1:
The definition states partial AND intolerant.
#2:
You ARE telling people to live as you say: But don't come into our schools and say it is ok for Heather to have two mommy's (sic) ...Don't push books that are vile and trash under the guise of literature, to further sway children away from morals and values.
You see, it IS ok for Heather to have as many mommies as she has. It is ok for Heather to have a single parent. It IS ok for Heather to be raised by her grandparents. Any of these scenarios are ok. What's not ok, is for YOU to tell people what's ok. Just like I don't define what's ok for you - you don't get to define what's ok for the rest of us (see, I'm not limiting your happiness unless your happiness is gotten by limiting the happiness of others).
Also, what's "vile" is different for all - your opinion hold no dominion here. Allow the teachers to teach (you, as a home-schooler, are a teacher).
You can't say you love God without loving what he has created. God created everyhing: you, me, and "them." Love them and accept who they are. They're not trying to change you - stop trying to change them.
Also, you say "come into our schools" as if YOU lay claim to them. Remember: they're ALL OF OUR SCHOOLS.
#1:
The definition states partial AND intolerant.
#2:
You ARE telling people to live as you say: But don't come into our schools and say it is ok for Heather to have two mommy's (sic) ...Don't push books that are vile and trash under the guise of literature, to further sway children away from morals and values.
You see, it IS ok for Heather to have as many mommies as she has. It is ok for Heather to have a single parent. It IS ok for Heather to be raised by her grandparents. Any of these scenarios are ok. What's not ok, is for YOU to tell people what's ok. Just like I don't define what's ok for you - you don't get to define what's ok for the rest of us (see, I'm not limiting your happiness unless your happiness is gotten by limiting the happiness of others).
Also, what's "vile" is different for all - your opinion hold no dominion here. Allow the teachers to teach (you, as a home-schooler, are a teacher).
You can't say you love God without loving what he has created. God created everyhing: you, me, and "them." Love them and accept who they are. They're not trying to change you - stop trying to change them.
Also, you say "come into our schools" as if YOU lay claim to them. Remember: they're ALL OF OUR SCHOOLS.
rusrus writes, "Just like I don't define what's ok for you - you don't get to define what's ok for the rest of us."
Is it OK with you if the duly elected school board makes a decision about what's appropriate in its district? You apparently have no problem with the school officials making the book selections, but it sounds as if you object to the elected representatives from getting involved. Please correct me if I'm in error.
Is it OK with you if the duly elected school board makes a decision about what's appropriate in its district? You apparently have no problem with the school officials making the book selections, but it sounds as if you object to the elected representatives from getting involved. Please correct me if I'm in error.
Re: Speaking of Censorship and the
Media's bottom line - its profit
Any time the book "censorship" issue (as opposed to the "common sense" issue)rears its head, the media jumps up and down with editorials and opinions shouting about Freedom of Speech, etc.
However, the media - as in (ex.) local Newspapers like the Daily Herald and the Northwest Herald ...never seem to put their money where their mouth is!
While they are jumping into the circus and public lynching of anyone who wants to use common sense - they don't print the excerpts in question or any similar content on the front page of their papers. They don't print it in the warm fuzzy "womens" section. Or on the page where they list the local church services. Or with the realty ads.
Golly,
I wonder why? If the writings in question are good enough to entrust to children who have not yet reached the legal age for an adult in Illinois - who can't drink - smoke - sign a contract, etc. yet......why aren't the papers printing the sexual content for the adult public to decide?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Advertisers would pull ads, community groups would scream and pull ads, consumers with subscriptions would pull them. Hmmm...I see. Less profit.
Not only does the Emperor have no clothes - neither does the media.
The weekend's Sunday paper magazine included a close up photo of a cadaver's head. Breakfast and a Sunday morning read were treated to a surprise from the media - and someone had decided this was appropriate content for me, for us to see without warning.
And the media wants our respect and our trust - oh, please, let's get real. The media is a "profit prostitute" just like the tabloids these so-called legitimate newspapers so loftily denounce.
Hey, Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, and Daily Herald (and any other local "herald" who wants to spout about freedom) - let's get the school/book censorship battle out into the open once and for all.
Yep - Print all the excerpts in question on your front pages and let the "games" begin!
If not, stop with the opinions and editorials that look down the written nose at people who question whether or not content belongs (condoned by educators) in the hands of our children.
And to the educators who back the content - I would suggest that, accordingly, any student who wants to show up at school or prom wearing a T shirt with sexual or violent content on the front - probably should be allowed to. You simply can't expect the students to accept that YOU, the educators, have the all powerful right to talk out of both sides of your mouth..................
Any group or individual pursuing common sense content needs to bring the battle "home" to the school system and to the media and needs to make it "personal".
Media's bottom line - its profit
Any time the book "censorship" issue (as opposed to the "common sense" issue)rears its head, the media jumps up and down with editorials and opinions shouting about Freedom of Speech, etc.
However, the media - as in (ex.) local Newspapers like the Daily Herald and the Northwest Herald ...never seem to put their money where their mouth is!
While they are jumping into the circus and public lynching of anyone who wants to use common sense - they don't print the excerpts in question or any similar content on the front page of their papers. They don't print it in the warm fuzzy "womens" section. Or on the page where they list the local church services. Or with the realty ads.
Golly,
I wonder why? If the writings in question are good enough to entrust to children who have not yet reached the legal age for an adult in Illinois - who can't drink - smoke - sign a contract, etc. yet......why aren't the papers printing the sexual content for the adult public to decide?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Advertisers would pull ads, community groups would scream and pull ads, consumers with subscriptions would pull them. Hmmm...I see. Less profit.
Not only does the Emperor have no clothes - neither does the media.
The weekend's Sunday paper magazine included a close up photo of a cadaver's head. Breakfast and a Sunday morning read were treated to a surprise from the media - and someone had decided this was appropriate content for me, for us to see without warning.
And the media wants our respect and our trust - oh, please, let's get real. The media is a "profit prostitute" just like the tabloids these so-called legitimate newspapers so loftily denounce.
Hey, Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, and Daily Herald (and any other local "herald" who wants to spout about freedom) - let's get the school/book censorship battle out into the open once and for all.
Yep - Print all the excerpts in question on your front pages and let the "games" begin!
If not, stop with the opinions and editorials that look down the written nose at people who question whether or not content belongs (condoned by educators) in the hands of our children.
And to the educators who back the content - I would suggest that, accordingly, any student who wants to show up at school or prom wearing a T shirt with sexual or violent content on the front - probably should be allowed to. You simply can't expect the students to accept that YOU, the educators, have the all powerful right to talk out of both sides of your mouth..................
Any group or individual pursuing common sense content needs to bring the battle "home" to the school system and to the media and needs to make it "personal".
fightforjustice said: "Is it OK with you if the duly elected school board makes a decision about what's appropriate in its district? You apparently have no problem with the school officials making the book selections, but it sounds as if you object to the elected representatives from getting involved. Please correct me if I'm in error."
I believe it IS ok for a duly elected school board to make their own decisions. BUT in this case, by her own admission, this school board memeber did not even read the offending books. She made her knee-jerk decision based-upon excerpts garnered from the internet. Her own analogy, heard on the radio last week, was something like: "It's like eating a beautiful-looking bakery cookie and discovering a cockroach inside - I don't need to eat the rest of the cookie to see if it's ok..." or something like that. That comment, in my opinion, attempts to defend her banning of books based on internet search results.
It's her prerogative to propose bans on whatever books she wants - my view is that the teachers themselves have reasons these books are on the purchase list, and should have been asked a simple question: "why?"
Luckily for everyone, her proposal was denied: the books will remain. But had it been approved, the book ban would have been in effect - regardless of the quality of the decision.
When someone wants to enter in to the "book banning" foray, I expect them to have a little more in ther corner than offensive passages gathered from the internet - at least if they want to be taken seriously.
I believe it IS ok for a duly elected school board to make their own decisions. BUT in this case, by her own admission, this school board memeber did not even read the offending books. She made her knee-jerk decision based-upon excerpts garnered from the internet. Her own analogy, heard on the radio last week, was something like: "It's like eating a beautiful-looking bakery cookie and discovering a cockroach inside - I don't need to eat the rest of the cookie to see if it's ok..." or something like that. That comment, in my opinion, attempts to defend her banning of books based on internet search results.
It's her prerogative to propose bans on whatever books she wants - my view is that the teachers themselves have reasons these books are on the purchase list, and should have been asked a simple question: "why?"
Luckily for everyone, her proposal was denied: the books will remain. But had it been approved, the book ban would have been in effect - regardless of the quality of the decision.
When someone wants to enter in to the "book banning" foray, I expect them to have a little more in ther corner than offensive passages gathered from the internet - at least if they want to be taken seriously.
Here's a gentleman's point that should make a few idiot board members and some school districts sit up and pay attention! Forget censorship...or freedom of speech...he's waving state law in their faces....GOOOOOD FOR HIM!!
This is from a dist. 214 taxpayer:
Subject: FW: May 25 District 214 Board Meeting
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:38:48 -0500
-----Original Message-----
Subject: May 25 District 214 Board Meeting
Dear District 214 Board of Education members,
I am writing in regards to the upcoming agenda item for May 25, 2006, action item 2006-105 - Instructional Materials and Media.
I would like to point out that making some of these books required reading may very well put Board of Education members, school librarians, and teachers in violation of Illinois Criminal Code: 720 ILCS 5/11/21, which was last amended and enrolled by Public Act 094-0315 on 7/25/2005, and is effective as of 1/1/2006.
Briefly stated:
A person is guilty of distributing harmful material to a minor when he or she: knowingly sells, lends, distributes, or gives away to a minor, any material which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, or which contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which taken as a whole is harmful to minors;
According to 720 ILCS 5/11/21: "Material" includes any book, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or recorded audio of any sort.
According to 720 ILCS 5/11/21: "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
Distribution of harmful material in violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a Class 4 felony.
The books that could legally fall under the above stated law are:
How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Fallen Angels
The Things They Carried
Slaughterhouse Five
Beloved
I wanted to make you aware of the possibility of these books putting you and school employees in a position of violating Illinois law.
Respectfully,
Andy H. J. Osvath
SO...DOES THIS MEAN THAT ALL THESE TEACHERS WHO STUPIDLY BELIEVE THAT TEACHING SMUT ARE NOW GUILTY OF BREAKING THIS LAW...AND WITH EACH STUDENT COMES ANOTHER COUNT...IE...25 STUDENTS...25 COUNTS...IF IT HAPPENS TWO YEARS RUNNING...IT BECOMES A FELONY!! WELL WELL WELL...GUESS THEY BETTER GET THEIR HIGH POWERED ATTORNEYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO COVER UP THIS LITTLE "PACKAGE" IN THE LITTER BOX! AHEM.
This is from a dist. 214 taxpayer:
Subject: FW: May 25 District 214 Board Meeting
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 10:38:48 -0500
-----Original Message-----
Subject: May 25 District 214 Board Meeting
Dear District 214 Board of Education members,
I am writing in regards to the upcoming agenda item for May 25, 2006, action item 2006-105 - Instructional Materials and Media.
I would like to point out that making some of these books required reading may very well put Board of Education members, school librarians, and teachers in violation of Illinois Criminal Code: 720 ILCS 5/11/21, which was last amended and enrolled by Public Act 094-0315 on 7/25/2005, and is effective as of 1/1/2006.
Briefly stated:
A person is guilty of distributing harmful material to a minor when he or she: knowingly sells, lends, distributes, or gives away to a minor, any material which depicts nudity, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, or which contains explicit and detailed verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexual excitement, sexual conduct or sado-masochistic abuse, and which taken as a whole is harmful to minors;
According to 720 ILCS 5/11/21: "Material" includes any book, magazine, printed matter however reproduced, or recorded audio of any sort.
According to 720 ILCS 5/11/21: "Sexual conduct" means acts of masturbation, sexual intercourse, or physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks or, if such person be a female, breast.
Distribution of harmful material in violation of this Section is a Class A misdemeanor. A second or subsequent offense is a Class 4 felony.
The books that could legally fall under the above stated law are:
How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accent
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Fallen Angels
The Things They Carried
Slaughterhouse Five
Beloved
I wanted to make you aware of the possibility of these books putting you and school employees in a position of violating Illinois law.
Respectfully,
Andy H. J. Osvath
SO...DOES THIS MEAN THAT ALL THESE TEACHERS WHO STUPIDLY BELIEVE THAT TEACHING SMUT ARE NOW GUILTY OF BREAKING THIS LAW...AND WITH EACH STUDENT COMES ANOTHER COUNT...IE...25 STUDENTS...25 COUNTS...IF IT HAPPENS TWO YEARS RUNNING...IT BECOMES A FELONY!! WELL WELL WELL...GUESS THEY BETTER GET THEIR HIGH POWERED ATTORNEYS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO COVER UP THIS LITTLE "PACKAGE" IN THE LITTER BOX! AHEM.
Go get those books!! As to the legality point, unfortunately other books also would fall under your interpretation, including the Bible, and many Pulitzer Prize winners over the last 50 years or so. I guess your kids will need to be satisfied with a limited reading list; maybe "Look, Jane. See Spot run". Although, I was always a little suspicious about how close those two kids were, and especially worried about their relationship with that dog, which I don't recall ever seeing really clarified in those books.
From what I remember, it wasn't a "required reading list," it was a "book purchase list." I think it was just a list of books being bought by the district.
To Rusrus: The books ARE REQUIRED READING, PLEASE SEE CORRESPONDING THREAD ON THE BLOG "MAKING SCHOOLS BETTER". These are required reading books...not choice, not opt out...but books kids will be participating in class discussion with and graded on.
To Steve: your comment of trying to equate the Bible or other literature to porn is pathetic and lacks merit. Obviously, you have the stance that fourth grade level smut is literature that should be taught to juniors and seniors in high school simply because it keeps them from being sheltered??
Give me a break! The law is pretty explicit in it's definition of what is LEWD! Please tell me why anyone in the 15 year to 17 year old crowd needs to read about a person having sex with a cat in order to accomplish a literature credit in high school? Have we become so debased that this is considered "tolerant"? This issue isn't about sheltering, censoring, or controlling what is taught in school! This issue is plain and simple, Steve. Illinois spends the second highest to "educate" their kids in the nation....and yet Illinois students are NOT AT THE TOP OF THE CAPABILITY LIST IN READING OR MATH.....obviously, even 4th grade level smut doesn't even work!! If the teacher wants to illicit some disccusion on "real human issues", why isn't there more Shakespeare? He wrote about alot of sex, death, romance, liasons, murder...etc. Could it be that the teachers themselves are not smart enough to read Shakespeare? How about a little Chaucer? What about great literary poets? Dante, Hawthorne, Longfellow? What I see is a generation of students who go through $200K of education in public school, and at the end of the day, they can't read a complete paragraph in a book at their supposed grade level, they cannot complete a math equation, and they cannot tell you where Africa is, nor do they have a clue who wrote the Gettysburg Address! THAT IS THE ISSUE....AND WHEN TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS INTRODUCE JUNK FOOD, ie smut, INTO OUR KIDS' BRAINS INSTEAD OF A HEALTHY DIET OF KNOWLEDGE, I, AS A TAXPAYER HAVE A RIGHT AND DUTY TO COMPLAIN!! I am really tired of people who whine that this is stepping on the rights of others, or that it is censorship, or that it is sheltering kids too much! What a load of horse manure that argument is! Kids today know more about sex, than you or I ever did when we were kids, I guarantee you! Why do they need a steady diet of the same old same old? Anyone with half a brain tied behind their back knows that a diet that never varies produces disease! It is obvious that many teachers are not only lacking in their skills in teaching literature at 11 and 12 grade level, but they are more inclined to teach something that is "easy"....something that kids won't whine and say is "too boring, or too hard". Well, TOUGH TOE NAILS! If the arguement is to get kids of the future to compete in the global market, please, Steve, tell me how fourth grade smut prepares them for this collosal achievment?
To Steve: your comment of trying to equate the Bible or other literature to porn is pathetic and lacks merit. Obviously, you have the stance that fourth grade level smut is literature that should be taught to juniors and seniors in high school simply because it keeps them from being sheltered??
Give me a break! The law is pretty explicit in it's definition of what is LEWD! Please tell me why anyone in the 15 year to 17 year old crowd needs to read about a person having sex with a cat in order to accomplish a literature credit in high school? Have we become so debased that this is considered "tolerant"? This issue isn't about sheltering, censoring, or controlling what is taught in school! This issue is plain and simple, Steve. Illinois spends the second highest to "educate" their kids in the nation....and yet Illinois students are NOT AT THE TOP OF THE CAPABILITY LIST IN READING OR MATH.....obviously, even 4th grade level smut doesn't even work!! If the teacher wants to illicit some disccusion on "real human issues", why isn't there more Shakespeare? He wrote about alot of sex, death, romance, liasons, murder...etc. Could it be that the teachers themselves are not smart enough to read Shakespeare? How about a little Chaucer? What about great literary poets? Dante, Hawthorne, Longfellow? What I see is a generation of students who go through $200K of education in public school, and at the end of the day, they can't read a complete paragraph in a book at their supposed grade level, they cannot complete a math equation, and they cannot tell you where Africa is, nor do they have a clue who wrote the Gettysburg Address! THAT IS THE ISSUE....AND WHEN TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS INTRODUCE JUNK FOOD, ie smut, INTO OUR KIDS' BRAINS INSTEAD OF A HEALTHY DIET OF KNOWLEDGE, I, AS A TAXPAYER HAVE A RIGHT AND DUTY TO COMPLAIN!! I am really tired of people who whine that this is stepping on the rights of others, or that it is censorship, or that it is sheltering kids too much! What a load of horse manure that argument is! Kids today know more about sex, than you or I ever did when we were kids, I guarantee you! Why do they need a steady diet of the same old same old? Anyone with half a brain tied behind their back knows that a diet that never varies produces disease! It is obvious that many teachers are not only lacking in their skills in teaching literature at 11 and 12 grade level, but they are more inclined to teach something that is "easy"....something that kids won't whine and say is "too boring, or too hard". Well, TOUGH TOE NAILS! If the arguement is to get kids of the future to compete in the global market, please, Steve, tell me how fourth grade smut prepares them for this collosal achievment?
I'm sure if we can just keep them away from those dirty books, it will solve all the problems you complain about, and perhaps cure cancer and bring peace in our time.
I read Chaucer, and Hawthorne, and Longfellow and others in high school, and "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and "Tropic of Cancer". I think I just don't feel as threatened as you do about what kids read. To try to bar Vonnegut and others from school reading lists seems almost unAmerican to me. If you don't want your kids to read him, ask the teacher to assign something different for him/her.
By the way, you appear to be missing "Catcher in the Rye". It's probably lurking around 214 somewhere, and we certainly don't want 13 and 14 year olds to hear about masturbation; they might try it and go blind, and then not be able to read at all. Hmmmm? Maybe I see why you aren't complaining about "Catcher".
I read Chaucer, and Hawthorne, and Longfellow and others in high school, and "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and "Tropic of Cancer". I think I just don't feel as threatened as you do about what kids read. To try to bar Vonnegut and others from school reading lists seems almost unAmerican to me. If you don't want your kids to read him, ask the teacher to assign something different for him/her.
By the way, you appear to be missing "Catcher in the Rye". It's probably lurking around 214 somewhere, and we certainly don't want 13 and 14 year olds to hear about masturbation; they might try it and go blind, and then not be able to read at all. Hmmmm? Maybe I see why you aren't complaining about "Catcher".
Sunegirl: have you read any of these books?
"Smut" is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not defending these books as teaching aids - that's the teacher's job, I'm just saying that "book banning" is a slippery slope. If you begin with banning these books, then you shouldn't stop until all the "offensive" books are banned. And after you're done with that, you can move-on to the offensive music.
"Smut" is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm not defending these books as teaching aids - that's the teacher's job, I'm just saying that "book banning" is a slippery slope. If you begin with banning these books, then you shouldn't stop until all the "offensive" books are banned. And after you're done with that, you can move-on to the offensive music.
OKAY...TO STEVE AND RUSRUS....I WILL TYPE THIS SLOWLY SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON MY POINT, AND STOP PUTTING A SPIN ON THIS THAT WAS NEVER IN ANYTHING I WROTE....I AM NOT AGAINST THE BOOKS....THE ISSUE THAT I AM AGAINST IS USING LOW GRADE LOW BROW FOURTH GRADE READING MATERIAL TO TEACH HIGH SCHOOL PREPARATORY LITERATURE...WHICH IF YOU READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE, IT SAYS THAT THIS IS REQUIRED READING...NOT AN OPT OUT TYPE OF READING...IN OTHER WORDS PART OF THE CURRICULUM...THE POINT YOU MISSED SO ROYALLY IS THAT THERE REALLY IS NO EXCUSE FOR TEACHING KIDS 4TH GRADE ANYTHING AT SENIOR HIGH LEVEL....WHY ARE SCHOOLS RESORTING TO THIS....GO BACK AND RE-READ WHAT I ACTUALLY SAID...AND THEN STOP WITH THE BOOK BANNING TANGENT...I NEVER SAID THAT AND I DON'T SUPPORT BOOK BANNING...WHAT I DO SUPPORT IS INTELLIGENT AND APPROPRIATE READING THAT PROVIDES BOTH EDUCATION AND CHALLENGE TO THE READER...TEACHING A FOURTH GRADE LEVEL OF READING TO A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT HARDLY PREPARES THEM TO COMPETE IN ANY MARKET, LET ALONE THE GLOBAL ONE! TO ME, IT IS ALMOST A FORM OF CHILD ABUSE TO ALLOW ANYONE TO GRADUATE OUT OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS COUNTRY FUNCTIONALLY ILLITERATE...AND YET, IF YOU LOOK AT THE READING AND MATH SCORES IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS IN THIS COUNTRY, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE! NOW...EVER SINCE SCHOOLS STARTED PUSHING THE DUMBED DOWN CURRICULUM WHICH INCLUDES USELESS LITERATURE LIKE THIS, THERE IS DIRECT CORRELATION IN READING SKILL AND COMPREHENSION. SINCE YOU READ ALL THE AUTHORS AFOREMENTIONED, YOU SEEM TO HAVE GRASPED SOME OF THE SKILLS AND COMPREHENSION NEEDED TO NAVIGATE IN THIS WORLD; THE CURRENT HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS AS WELL AS TEN YEARS BEFORE, DO NOT POSSESS THAT CAPABILITY. WOULD I RECOMMEND BANNING BOOKS LIKE THIS BASED ON CONTENT? NO! WOULD I RECCOMMEND BANNING BOOKS LIKE THIS BASED ON EDUCATIONAL MERIT, YOU BETCHA!! BOTH OF YOU ARE LIVING EXAMPLES OF HOW IN YOUR OWN DAY, YOU WERE GIVEN READING THAT CHALLENGED YOU. I HAVE READ SLAUGHTER HOUSE FIVE, AND SOME OF THE OTHER BOOKS, AND THEY ARE DEFINITELY LIGHT WEIGHT FLUFF...THEY DO NOT PUSH A STUDENT TO EVEN HAVE TO STRETCH THEIR VOCABULARY..IT IS PRETTY MUCH MINDLESS AND MATERIAL THAT ANYONE WITH A DULLARD IMAGINATION AND WORDPERFECT COULD WRITE...SO MY POINT IS THAT SCHOOLS ARE NEVER GOING TO CHANGE THIS SLIDE INTO STUPID UNTIL PARENTS AND TAXPAYERS FORCE THEM TO ACCOUNT NOT ONLY FOR THEIR CURRICULUM, BUT ALSO THEIR METHODS...AND BY THE WAY.....I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH CATCHER IN THE RYE...EVENTHOUGH THE CONTENT IS SEXUAL AND SOMEWHAT GRAPHIC, AT LEAST IT HAS A HIGHER DEGREE OF READING SKILL...
A STUDENT AT 12 GRADE LEVEL SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ AT THEIR GRADE LEVEL AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ WHEN THEY LEAVE THE BUILDING, DON'T YOU THINK? now what part of that don't you understand??
A STUDENT AT 12 GRADE LEVEL SHOULD BE ABLE TO READ AT THEIR GRADE LEVEL AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY READ WHEN THEY LEAVE THE BUILDING, DON'T YOU THINK? now what part of that don't you understand??
Sunegirl;
and perhaps I should have used your words, "smut" and "LEWD", instead of dirty books. That would clear up the reason for your objections. You don't mind that it is smut, you mind that it is 4th grade smut?
and perhaps I should have used your words, "smut" and "LEWD", instead of dirty books. That would clear up the reason for your objections. You don't mind that it is smut, you mind that it is 4th grade smut?
Sunegirl:
If you read any of these books, you would notice that they weren't "4th grade books."
Now, I suppose that readers weren't challenged with words like "forsooth" and "wherefore," but is that the only hurdle that needs to be reached to qualify as age-appropriate to you?
At some point, a student reading a book becomes more about the subject than the individual words. I myself have read three of the books (Botany of Desire, Slaughterhouse Five, and Freakonomics) - each of them made me think about things in a new way. I would only hope that our children can have the opportunity to think of things in new ways as well.
Fine, you don't agree with the book banning - congratulations? But, before you cast judgment on these books, be sure to read one. If you don't like smut, start with Botany of Desire - the "offending" subject is marijuana, but you'll learn a lot about apples, tulips, and potatoes as well. Then move-on to Freakonomics - the "problem" with this book is a correlation to the legalization of abortion to the decline in crime rates in the 90's - again, you'll learn a lot about how to explain trends in our world. Slaughterhouse Five as basically an anti-war book - there are a few "gory" scenes, but nothing too graphic (I don't know why this book is even on this list). You'll learn that war is hell (or you'll be reminded - we could ALL stand for a few more reminders).
As far as the others are concerned, I can't speak for them. Some may be smutty 4th-grade books. Maybe we should take the teacher at his word: there IS some value to these books being taught to high-schoolers.
If you read any of these books, you would notice that they weren't "4th grade books."
Now, I suppose that readers weren't challenged with words like "forsooth" and "wherefore," but is that the only hurdle that needs to be reached to qualify as age-appropriate to you?
At some point, a student reading a book becomes more about the subject than the individual words. I myself have read three of the books (Botany of Desire, Slaughterhouse Five, and Freakonomics) - each of them made me think about things in a new way. I would only hope that our children can have the opportunity to think of things in new ways as well.
Fine, you don't agree with the book banning - congratulations? But, before you cast judgment on these books, be sure to read one. If you don't like smut, start with Botany of Desire - the "offending" subject is marijuana, but you'll learn a lot about apples, tulips, and potatoes as well. Then move-on to Freakonomics - the "problem" with this book is a correlation to the legalization of abortion to the decline in crime rates in the 90's - again, you'll learn a lot about how to explain trends in our world. Slaughterhouse Five as basically an anti-war book - there are a few "gory" scenes, but nothing too graphic (I don't know why this book is even on this list). You'll learn that war is hell (or you'll be reminded - we could ALL stand for a few more reminders).
As far as the others are concerned, I can't speak for them. Some may be smutty 4th-grade books. Maybe we should take the teacher at his word: there IS some value to these books being taught to high-schoolers.
To Steve and Rusrus,
Neither of you answered my question, but in fact, ignored the question in favor of using sarcasm and blatant personal attack (the inference that I must be blind?? ) simply because I express my own opinion which does not mesh with yours. What does that say about your censorship? What does that say about your ability to "see other ideas, views" that you wax so poetically about? The facts are these: this direction of curriculum does not teach anything but fluffy ideas....it doesn't teach basic reading skills...which is so sorely needed in our schools...the fact is Illinois is spending more than $17k a year on the average high school student, yet that same high school student is not proficient in English language comprehension or pronunciation, or spelling, or grammar, or sentence structure. Why do you think the SAT tests now include actual writing as part of examination? It is because, college professors all over this country could not even begin to read entry level papers written by freshman students because they were so lacking! One common tactic used by people who often prefer denial and fantasy to reality, is to personally attack or attempt to devalue the messenger, so as to divert, sway, or otherwise smokescreen the real issue. Since neither of you supposed well read individuals could not address my question regarding the current status of low reading scores among Illinois students vs. the dollar amount being spent, I can only surmise that either you do not understand the question, or you are unable to comment intelligently; thus, resorting to sarcasm (Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.].
When adults walk off on a tangent such as this, there is no meeting of the minds...because clearly, when I am speaking "poor choice in curriculum" you hear "book banning." And when I opine a book "fourth grade reading material" you hear,"censorship,". You even attributed to me the "interpretation" of state law, which, while I could be flattered, I did not interpret the law at all, but in fact, the law was interpreted by our own elected legislature....they are the ones who defined what lewd material is/was. It is unfortunate that neither of you are able to answer my initial question. You have yet to support your statements with any facts, but you certainly sling plenty of sarcasm, also without merit. It may come as a surprise to you, but these books are not considered 12th grade level reading. The average newspaper in America in this day is written at fourth grade level. In Ben Franklin's time, it was considered common for a newspaper to be written in "farmer's English", not for the educated, in other words....and I can guarantee that no one in a senior literature class in public high school in Illinois would even begin to understand "farmer's English".....now tell me, why do you suppose that is?
Neither of you answered my question, but in fact, ignored the question in favor of using sarcasm and blatant personal attack (the inference that I must be blind?? ) simply because I express my own opinion which does not mesh with yours. What does that say about your censorship? What does that say about your ability to "see other ideas, views" that you wax so poetically about? The facts are these: this direction of curriculum does not teach anything but fluffy ideas....it doesn't teach basic reading skills...which is so sorely needed in our schools...the fact is Illinois is spending more than $17k a year on the average high school student, yet that same high school student is not proficient in English language comprehension or pronunciation, or spelling, or grammar, or sentence structure. Why do you think the SAT tests now include actual writing as part of examination? It is because, college professors all over this country could not even begin to read entry level papers written by freshman students because they were so lacking! One common tactic used by people who often prefer denial and fantasy to reality, is to personally attack or attempt to devalue the messenger, so as to divert, sway, or otherwise smokescreen the real issue. Since neither of you supposed well read individuals could not address my question regarding the current status of low reading scores among Illinois students vs. the dollar amount being spent, I can only surmise that either you do not understand the question, or you are unable to comment intelligently; thus, resorting to sarcasm (Late Latin sarcasmus, from Greek sarkasmos, from sarkazein, to bite the lips in rage, from sarx, sark-, flesh.].
When adults walk off on a tangent such as this, there is no meeting of the minds...because clearly, when I am speaking "poor choice in curriculum" you hear "book banning." And when I opine a book "fourth grade reading material" you hear,"censorship,". You even attributed to me the "interpretation" of state law, which, while I could be flattered, I did not interpret the law at all, but in fact, the law was interpreted by our own elected legislature....they are the ones who defined what lewd material is/was. It is unfortunate that neither of you are able to answer my initial question. You have yet to support your statements with any facts, but you certainly sling plenty of sarcasm, also without merit. It may come as a surprise to you, but these books are not considered 12th grade level reading. The average newspaper in America in this day is written at fourth grade level. In Ben Franklin's time, it was considered common for a newspaper to be written in "farmer's English", not for the educated, in other words....and I can guarantee that no one in a senior literature class in public high school in Illinois would even begin to understand "farmer's English".....now tell me, why do you suppose that is?
Polite Question for:
rusrus and steve schnorf
I am apparently a "tennis ball" between absolute censorship and common sense. "It all depends..." covers the gray zone. (I also have a wide range of interests when it comes to music, art, reading, etc.)
Respectfully -
Without going into debating the literary or teaching value of the books in question - should our public school system be suggesting/requiring/"whatever" books with passages/content the NORTHWEST HERALD, the DAILY HERALD, PIONEER PRESS, and probably the CHICAGO TRIBUNE and SUN TIMES - would NEVER EVER put on the front pages of their papers, or in the religious service section, or in the family section, or probably all sections?
If the passages/content are considered too offensive/controversial/ inappropriate for adult or child readers/subscribers/sidewalk news stand/box displays - why should the public school system be placed as the judge/jury/interpreter for the same material?
Educators have been responsible for a lot of failed plans/ideas that have hurt our children. They read a lot less gory details than crime reporters and editors do. Educators often are living in their own sheltered society - inside or outside their minds - that does not deal with daily reality. They are also more and more often overstepping their bounds into parent territory.
Kids in D158 (whose parents had discussed voting NO on the tax increase) went home in tears after exposure to certain school comments - their parents didn't love them as much as kids whose parents were going to vote YES on a tax increase. So much for educators keeping their personal agendas out of kids heads.
Anyway - returning to the question about newspapers, etc.?
Thanks.
rusrus and steve schnorf
I am apparently a "tennis ball" between absolute censorship and common sense. "It all depends..." covers the gray zone. (I also have a wide range of interests when it comes to music, art, reading, etc.)
Respectfully -
Without going into debating the literary or teaching value of the books in question - should our public school system be suggesting/requiring/"whatever" books with passages/content the NORTHWEST HERALD, the DAILY HERALD, PIONEER PRESS, and probably the CHICAGO TRIBUNE and SUN TIMES - would NEVER EVER put on the front pages of their papers, or in the religious service section, or in the family section, or probably all sections?
If the passages/content are considered too offensive/controversial/ inappropriate for adult or child readers/subscribers/sidewalk news stand/box displays - why should the public school system be placed as the judge/jury/interpreter for the same material?
Educators have been responsible for a lot of failed plans/ideas that have hurt our children. They read a lot less gory details than crime reporters and editors do. Educators often are living in their own sheltered society - inside or outside their minds - that does not deal with daily reality. They are also more and more often overstepping their bounds into parent territory.
Kids in D158 (whose parents had discussed voting NO on the tax increase) went home in tears after exposure to certain school comments - their parents didn't love them as much as kids whose parents were going to vote YES on a tax increase. So much for educators keeping their personal agendas out of kids heads.
Anyway - returning to the question about newspapers, etc.?
Thanks.
Sunegirl:
So, to be sure I have your question right, your problem is that they're teaching 4th grade material in 12th grade? Is that right?
Well, I can only speak (type) to the ones I've read: they are not 4th grade books. There are sentences and words, just like in 4th grade books, but the ideas behind the words are certainly meant for older minds.
There are a number of children who get-out of high school without a fundamental grasp of the basics in reading. But at what point do we stop teaching the basics (Dick and Jane), and begin teaching the next level of reading: the ideas the book attempts to convey using words, grammar, and spelling? You must agree that there is a point at which we expect our young adults to be able to form thoughts beyond reading mechanics.
If that's your only beef, then is rests solely on the assumption that these ARE, in fact, 4th grade books, which, I think, is not accurate.
Maybe if you listed a few age-appropriate books I'd be able to correlate.
4piggybanks2:
As for teaching only what appears in the newspaper...
1) For one, newspapers are a business - they are in it to make money. If people become offended by what they print (graphic comments of any nature) they might lose business. Unless it furthers a story, I wouldn't expect them to go too far - regardless of a reporter's personal feelings.
2) Newsapers are for general distribution. A book being taught in class will have the benefit of context - where a newspaper will not.
3) Just because something "cannot" be printed in the newspaper doesn't mean that it has no educational value - as far as I know, there's no "newspaper printing" test that books must pass before being taught in our schools. There are violent ideas in "A Tale of Two Cities" as well - would you restrict that too?
Clearly there are people that are uncomfortable with these books being taught to THEIR children. I have suggested that there be an "opt-out" program for students who are not interested in a learning environment supported by these books - those kids should have a viable way around "offensive" material. After all, kids are allowed to "opt-out" of health/reproduction classes - some parents want to control the time their kids learn such things.
A measure of parental control is fine - they're OUR kids after all, but my basic problem is with general "book banning." Once you start, you just can't stop...
So, to be sure I have your question right, your problem is that they're teaching 4th grade material in 12th grade? Is that right?
Well, I can only speak (type) to the ones I've read: they are not 4th grade books. There are sentences and words, just like in 4th grade books, but the ideas behind the words are certainly meant for older minds.
There are a number of children who get-out of high school without a fundamental grasp of the basics in reading. But at what point do we stop teaching the basics (Dick and Jane), and begin teaching the next level of reading: the ideas the book attempts to convey using words, grammar, and spelling? You must agree that there is a point at which we expect our young adults to be able to form thoughts beyond reading mechanics.
If that's your only beef, then is rests solely on the assumption that these ARE, in fact, 4th grade books, which, I think, is not accurate.
Maybe if you listed a few age-appropriate books I'd be able to correlate.
4piggybanks2:
As for teaching only what appears in the newspaper...
1) For one, newspapers are a business - they are in it to make money. If people become offended by what they print (graphic comments of any nature) they might lose business. Unless it furthers a story, I wouldn't expect them to go too far - regardless of a reporter's personal feelings.
2) Newsapers are for general distribution. A book being taught in class will have the benefit of context - where a newspaper will not.
3) Just because something "cannot" be printed in the newspaper doesn't mean that it has no educational value - as far as I know, there's no "newspaper printing" test that books must pass before being taught in our schools. There are violent ideas in "A Tale of Two Cities" as well - would you restrict that too?
Clearly there are people that are uncomfortable with these books being taught to THEIR children. I have suggested that there be an "opt-out" program for students who are not interested in a learning environment supported by these books - those kids should have a viable way around "offensive" material. After all, kids are allowed to "opt-out" of health/reproduction classes - some parents want to control the time their kids learn such things.
A measure of parental control is fine - they're OUR kids after all, but my basic problem is with general "book banning." Once you start, you just can't stop...
Okay, Rusrus, here's what I don't understand: there are hundreds if not thousands of pieces of literature available to educators in our country. Everything from Mark Twain, to Stephen Crane, to Robert Frost, to Elizabeth Barrett Browning, to Laura Ingalls Wilder, and on and on. Many of these writers dealt with "adult themes"...death, death of a parent, loving, loving and losing, civil war, racism, and such....
They were written thoughtfully, and with class. Many of the pieces portrayed human conditions that, although was written in the late 1800's, those same scenarios and situations still exist today.
So, why would any school district have to resort to graphic, low brow, unimaginative writing in order to "introduce adult themes?" Why would a school district incorporate this into curriculum as required reading? If kids wanted to read these books on their own, that would be their choice, but serving this up to our kids daily is obviously some sort of an agenda. When there are so many better choices, both from a literary and content position, there should be no excuse for putting this level of reading material into a class room as required reading. No one is arguing the idea that kids somehow have to be able to have adult themes in order to "better think for themselves." Obviously, you managed to think for yourself without all the beastiality, group sex, rape, homosexual encounters, and violent graphics.....so how is it then, that today's kids are so different, that the school district has decided that the ONLY way to teach literature is via dullard books like these? Freakonomics, for instance, is written by an enconomics professor, who through mostly conjecture and guessing, throws out theories, ie, that when there are more abortions in society, there is less crime. Now, depending on the teacher in the classroom in front of that high school literature class, this exercise in theory could be presented in a slant that would have young, impressionable minds believing that it is fact....just as the theory of evolution is taught as a fact, which, since Darwin's writings, has been proven over and over again by top scientists, ie Steven Hawkings, to name one, is not fact at all...so I wonder, what is the reason a school district would resort to "junk" when they could be teaching classics? In the case of Freakonomics, there is no evidence-based backing of his theories. This hardly makes him an expert, and certainly doesn't "introduce adult themes" based on truth, but rather, it helps him sell more books and improve his own economy! As for the Garcia Girls, this book is straight out of National Enquirer mentality. There is nothing in this book of social or literary value....yet school districts embrace this as "great literary reading". When an author is touted as a book award winner, many teachers run to the fore, and latch on it, much like when Oprah promotes a "good book"....and we all know how she was snookered recently by an author who made up his whole story and passed it off as truth. I agree with Piggybanks who hits the nail on the head with the idea that schools believe that they have to be all things to all families. WRONG! Why? When you were in high school, did the literature class teacher have to teach you with this kind of material in order that you could learn to think for yourself, or is it possible, that thinking for yourself happened via many avenues, and via maturation?
The sad fact is, the education that kids are getting now completely lack the Dick and Jane basics. They cannot spell, because "Whole Language" concepts were introduced into this state years back, and FYI, that was also a doctoral theory written by a student submitting for his doctoral thesis, and was adopted into the California educational system, and they trash canned it after 10 years because it was so lame! DUH! Illinois still uses it.
Everyday Math, is another one. Our kids are being used as test rats in school. They are also being robbed of a decent education. I for one believe that pathetic reading material will produce pathetic results. Good readers make good writers, and vice versa, but not if their view of the world is completely saturated with so called educational material that countries like Japan and Germany would look at and shake their heads. It is anemic. If it is adult themes your going for, get something with some substance to it, so when kids read, they actually have to maybe even go look up a few words in order to comprehend the writer's intent. That is what I mean.
They were written thoughtfully, and with class. Many of the pieces portrayed human conditions that, although was written in the late 1800's, those same scenarios and situations still exist today.
So, why would any school district have to resort to graphic, low brow, unimaginative writing in order to "introduce adult themes?" Why would a school district incorporate this into curriculum as required reading? If kids wanted to read these books on their own, that would be their choice, but serving this up to our kids daily is obviously some sort of an agenda. When there are so many better choices, both from a literary and content position, there should be no excuse for putting this level of reading material into a class room as required reading. No one is arguing the idea that kids somehow have to be able to have adult themes in order to "better think for themselves." Obviously, you managed to think for yourself without all the beastiality, group sex, rape, homosexual encounters, and violent graphics.....so how is it then, that today's kids are so different, that the school district has decided that the ONLY way to teach literature is via dullard books like these? Freakonomics, for instance, is written by an enconomics professor, who through mostly conjecture and guessing, throws out theories, ie, that when there are more abortions in society, there is less crime. Now, depending on the teacher in the classroom in front of that high school literature class, this exercise in theory could be presented in a slant that would have young, impressionable minds believing that it is fact....just as the theory of evolution is taught as a fact, which, since Darwin's writings, has been proven over and over again by top scientists, ie Steven Hawkings, to name one, is not fact at all...so I wonder, what is the reason a school district would resort to "junk" when they could be teaching classics? In the case of Freakonomics, there is no evidence-based backing of his theories. This hardly makes him an expert, and certainly doesn't "introduce adult themes" based on truth, but rather, it helps him sell more books and improve his own economy! As for the Garcia Girls, this book is straight out of National Enquirer mentality. There is nothing in this book of social or literary value....yet school districts embrace this as "great literary reading". When an author is touted as a book award winner, many teachers run to the fore, and latch on it, much like when Oprah promotes a "good book"....and we all know how she was snookered recently by an author who made up his whole story and passed it off as truth. I agree with Piggybanks who hits the nail on the head with the idea that schools believe that they have to be all things to all families. WRONG! Why? When you were in high school, did the literature class teacher have to teach you with this kind of material in order that you could learn to think for yourself, or is it possible, that thinking for yourself happened via many avenues, and via maturation?
The sad fact is, the education that kids are getting now completely lack the Dick and Jane basics. They cannot spell, because "Whole Language" concepts were introduced into this state years back, and FYI, that was also a doctoral theory written by a student submitting for his doctoral thesis, and was adopted into the California educational system, and they trash canned it after 10 years because it was so lame! DUH! Illinois still uses it.
Everyday Math, is another one. Our kids are being used as test rats in school. They are also being robbed of a decent education. I for one believe that pathetic reading material will produce pathetic results. Good readers make good writers, and vice versa, but not if their view of the world is completely saturated with so called educational material that countries like Japan and Germany would look at and shake their heads. It is anemic. If it is adult themes your going for, get something with some substance to it, so when kids read, they actually have to maybe even go look up a few words in order to comprehend the writer's intent. That is what I mean.
piggybanks;
I am not an absolutist by any means on censorship. If some school board or teacher was assigning Larry Flynt magazines to 13 year olds, I would be appalled. But we were talking about Vonnegut, not Larry Flynt. And so, to me the question becomes "Who gets to draw the line on what's acceptable"?
I would say the same thing to you I would say to Sunegirl. I don't think you might want me deciding what your children should read, and I might well not want you deciding what mine should.
To the extent those decisions need to be made in a school setting, it seems to me the democratically elected school board would (by definition, popularly elected) be the best vehicle available. I do believe there should be opt-out provisions made for parents (or children) who are uncomfortable with the material.
Post a Comment
I am not an absolutist by any means on censorship. If some school board or teacher was assigning Larry Flynt magazines to 13 year olds, I would be appalled. But we were talking about Vonnegut, not Larry Flynt. And so, to me the question becomes "Who gets to draw the line on what's acceptable"?
I would say the same thing to you I would say to Sunegirl. I don't think you might want me deciding what your children should read, and I might well not want you deciding what mine should.
To the extent those decisions need to be made in a school setting, it seems to me the democratically elected school board would (by definition, popularly elected) be the best vehicle available. I do believe there should be opt-out provisions made for parents (or children) who are uncomfortable with the material.
<< Home
