quote:Gay book ban goal of state lawmaker Wednesday, December 01, 2004
KIM CHANDLER News staff writer
MONTGOMERY - An Alabama lawmaker who sought to ban gay marriages now wants to ban novels with gay characters from public libraries, including university libraries.
A bill by Rep. Gerald Allen, R-Cottondale, would prohibit the use of public funds for "the purchase of textbooks or library materials that recognize or promote homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle." Allen said he filed the bill to protect children from the "homosexual agenda."
"Our culture, how we know it today, is under attack from every angle," Allen said in a press conference Tuesday.
Allen said that if his bill passes, novels with gay protagonists and college textbooks that suggest homosexuality is natural would have to be removed from library shelves and destroyed.
"I guess we dig a big hole and dump them in and bury them," he said.
A spokesman for the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center called the bill censorship.
"It sounds like Nazi book burning to me," said SPLC spokesman Mark Potok.
Allen pre-filed his bill in advance of the 2005 legislative session, which begins Feb. 1.
If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait and public libraries couldn't offer books with gay or bisexual characters.
When asked about Tennessee Williams' southern classic "Cat On A Hot Tin Roof," Allen said the play probably couldn't be performed by university theater groups.
Fun.
[edit to fix title as per msquared's suggestion]
[ December 02, 2004, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: plaid ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
It's idiots like that who give us Southerners a bad rap.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm with holding judgment until the bill is passed or rejected.
We need to get a volume of civil union legislation on the books.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yep, it is.
Any idea about the chances of this passing? Is it just for show, or does it have support?
Posted by Anti-Chris (Member # 4452) on :
Everything tries to find a way to survive, even ignorance.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
You know, that story puts me in the mood to open a private school in Alabama and teach from every book on the list of 'banned books'. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Why withhold judgement until the bill passes? The bill is just symptomatic of the general dipshittery of this kind of thinking. The disease is this guy and and people like him: they suck.
I would almost be willing to bet he is just a mouthpiece for a larger coalition of conservatives who will try and force their views on bookstores and libraries through other means if the bill doesn't pass--boycotts, letter writing campaigns, protests, lawsuits, etc.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I'm pretty liberal when it comes to which bills hit the floor. I don't take offense until a group of elected adults take it seriously.
The class of people who elected his unfortunate representative should do some soul searching, though.
[ December 02, 2004, 03:17 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
I heard a great quote related to this once... It's from Jeff Dunham, my favorite comedian (He's a ventriloquist, actually, but still...)... "Last week we were in Alabama...We were talking to a man in the front row who for a living was an English teacher. COULD THERE BE a more difficult job than being an English teacher in ALABAMA?! How do you teach the classics there? 'Romeo oh Romeo, where for art thou Romeo?' 'I'm down here in the bushes takin a piss!'"
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sadly, had Jeff Dunham talked with that English teacher a little more, he might have learned that "wherefore art thou" cannot normally be answered with a physical location.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I love how Alabama always does me proud!
This one really doesn't hold a candle, though, to the time when the snake handling preacher died here. He was bitten by a snake during a service, then continued to preach for 15 minutes until he finally succumbed to the venom. Apparently they take the Bible pretty literally when it says
quote: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
(Mark 16;17-18)
Curiously enough, though, the fact that he died of the bite wasn't taken by his congregation as evidence of weak faith.
[ December 02, 2004, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
That was one of the things that I always wondered about with snake-handling religions. It doesn't seem like they appreciate the logic of their own assumptions.
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
I have a problem with the title of this thread. It assumes an action has already happened.
How about "Books containing gay characters may be banned in Alabama." What would be wrong with that title? Oh, it is not as inflamatory.
And before you jump on me, I hate the idea of banning any books. I think it is a stupid idea.
msquared
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
msquared -- thanks, I fixed it, I actually didn't mean the title to be inflammatory, I meant to use something like you suggested. (Anyone ever notice how thread titles have a tendency to get more typos and errors in them than the posts themselves?)
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Ah, Ann Kate, I drove past a church during the 2000 elections who's billboard read, "Jesus votes no on the lottery," and wondered what county he was registered in.
PS: I think the snake handler incident was before my time, but if it happened in Scottsborro, there's a City Confidential that A&E did about it.
[ December 02, 2004, 12:19 PM: Message edited by: celia60 ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
*strangles this guy* Damn, I hate censorship of any kind... Isn't that contrary to the concept of America being a free country? And is it any wonder they have such wrong and warped ideas about gay people if they don't read books with gay themes in them without thinking "EVIL"?
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
There seems to be, in my casual observation, a plethora of restriction-oriented legislation. The ill-concieved constitutional amendment, some stuff in my own state about wind power generators, some new anti-p2p laws, and a few others. Maybe it's just that I've been reading the news a lot more. *shrug*
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
Well, given that the terrorists hate our freedom, taking it away is probably the best way to keep us safe....
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
*sputters incoherently* Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
I don't think anybody is taking this guy seriously, but we'll just have to see.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
So, this guy thinks that not mentioning homoseuxality will make it go away? How stupid is that?
But I think this bothers me just as much as the book censorship:
quote:If the bill became law, public school textbooks could not present homosexuality as a genetic trait....
I really have a huge problem with trying to legislate science. Isn't that what they used to do in the old Soviet Union? Now, I understand that there is still debate over whether gayness is partly or wholly genetic but this bill, if passed, would ban teaching that it is genetic even if that were determined to be the case.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Olivetta, I'd be very surprised if no one takes the bill seriously. After all, many people feel their money should not be used for puroses they find to be objectionable. A lot of people find homosexuality objectionable. It only follows that they wouldn't want their tax dollars to support anything that makes being gay mainstream.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
I heard about this yesterday on Air America radio. I thought it was a stupid idea than and I still do. Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Avid Reader, this is why I don't think he'll be taken very seriously -
quote: Allen has sponsored legislation to make a gay marriage ban part of the Alabama Constitution, but it was not approved by the Legislature.
Dude, it's freaking Alabama and he couldn't get a proposed gay marriage ban through the legislature. Tht leads me to believe he's the sort of lawmaker that other lawmakers back away from slowly. It's too extreme. Heck, there are OSC stories that could be banned under that wording, and HE'S a devout Mormon!
I reall hope this is too extreme. It would even ban books that depict heterosexual characters who violate the state sodomy laws, which I think would restrict romance novels and stuff, too.
I can hardly wait to see what the Daily Show does with this. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
His attempt to sponsor that legislation before was in a different political atmosphere.
I'm making no assumptions anymore about what politicians and voters will and won't do.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Oooh! Good call! (edit: response to Daily Show comment)
[ December 02, 2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
True, Chris. I had assumed it was recent, since it seems to be the 'in thing' lately (Georgia passed its gay marriage ban this past election).
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:"Half the books in the library could end up being banned. It's all based on how one interprets the material," Owes said.
Here's the problem I have with what he's proposing. It's too broad and includes limitation of what's available to adults capable and responsible for discerning right from wrong. Regardless of whether you think homosexual expression is right or wrong, public libraries and university libraries should not be forced to limit their selections based on protecting adults from themselves. These are decisions to be left to adults.
I am, however, in agreement that books with homosexual expression, whether for or against, should stay out of public elementary schools, whether in the classroom or in the library. They have no place there. At that age level, kids are *not* thinking about sex except in a "Ew, yuck" sense. It would take some work to convince me that discussion and/or reading material about homosexuality has a place in elementary schools.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you tweaked that slightly to state that discussion and/or reading materials about sexuality, of any kind, have no place in elementary schools I might throw in with you. I don't particularly want promotion of any sexual activity in elementary school libraries.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I heard about this last night - someone has this comment to make:
quote: We don't like What we don't understand In fact it scares us And this monster is mysterious at least Bring your guns Bring your knives Save your children and your wives We'll save our village and our lives We'll kill the Beast!
-Trevor
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
By that reasoning, jeniwren, it should be reasonable to ban books that show opposite sex couples in any fashion as well.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
fugu, if it was explicitely sexual, then yep, I'd be for throwing those out too. They don't have a place in an elementary school, IMO. A married couple ala Cheaper by the Dozen, however doesn't discuss having sex to produce all those kids.
By the same token, an age appropriate book where two people live together, but there is no discussion or intimation that they have sex together (like, say, the Anne of Green Gables series, where you'd have to be pretty perverted to think that Marilla and Matthew were having incestuous sex) is not objectionable at all.
I guess my point is that elementary schools are not the grounds to be pressing for social change.
Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
I disagree. I think elementary schools are exactly the grounds to be pressing for social change, because when children are in elementary school they have yet to cement what they know about the world. When people wanted to "reprogram" the violent racism that existed in the south, it's no accident that the issue that brought the whole mess to a head was the segregation of schools. If you try to change someone's mind to fight prejudice once they've reached adulthood, you may as well try to climb Mount Everest in a pair of house slippers. Now, I'm certainly not advocating gay porn distributed to first graders here, but relationships are a lot more than sex. Children are taught a great deal about heterosexual relationships through media in schools, whether it be reading books that contain married couples with children, or those inane little social studies lessons. My point is, people are afraid of what they do not know. If you keep them ignorant of something, they will continue to resist it based only on its difference. Books and stories hold the norms and mores of our culture in them. Like it or not, homosexuality isn't going away, and keeping people ignorant of it is only going to increase hostility toward gays.
As far as public libraries, I think everybody agrees that that is sufficiently ridiculous as to need no further comment.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But she just said, specifically, that she had no problem with books depicting couples of either sex. It's the depiction of sexual intimacy that was the problem, or at least that's how I read it.
Jenniwren - What about books where same-sex couples are not obviously intimate, but are acting as parents?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
demosthenes, you, in a nutshell, have expressed precisely the thing that many (dare I say, most?) parents fear. What right has the government to promote a debatable value contrary to my family's moral beliefs to my children who don't know any better and trust adults to be wise instructors? If they cannot promote religion, they cannot promote sexual practices either. To do so deliberately and with corporate intention is a violation of the public trust.
Elementary schools are NOT the battleground for social change.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I disagree. I think elementary schools are exactly the grounds to be pressing for social change, because when children are in elementary school they have yet to cement what they know about the world.
That's the exact same reasoning being used by the sponsor of this bill.
Dagonee
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Chris, if it was two adults raising one child in one household and if it was clear that there was no sexual bond intimated, I might have a personal problem with it, but not enough to be really object on a social level.
When I was a kid, my dad had a secretary who was raising two sons. She had a female roommate who acted as co-parent. I don't know if they were a lesbian couple, and it never occurred to me to wonder until I was an adult. I don't know if they shared a bedroom. It didn't matter. Those two boys had one Mom, but they also had Chris who lived with them.
I think it's pushing it a bit to put a book in the library called "Cutter and Rabbit Have Two Mommies", largely because it is clearly a push for acceptance of a homosexual partnership raising two children. Mommy is a very powerful word. A book called "Cutter and Rabbit's Family" where there is one Mom and a female person in the home named Chris isn't nearly a problem.
The point here is that there is a general push for social change, namely the common acceptance of homosexual relationships. I object to this push occurring in elementary schools where the audience cannot possibly make discerning, informed, mature choices of their own. It's shooting fish in a barrel and not only is it not sporting, it's dishonorable.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Careful Wyrm - there are still some that would say yes.
-Trevor
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
ah, yes, this ranks right up there with equivilating the senator with the Nazis. Ever so helpful.
Obviously promoting certain sexual practices to children and allowing black children to go to the same school as whites are the exact same thing. Please.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:What right has the government to promote a debatable value contrary to my family's moral beliefs to my children who don't know any better and trust adults to be wise instructors?
...and here is the main reason for the growing ranks of homeschooled children in this nation. No one really can agree upon a common "moral belief" system in this nation. While some consider homosexual relationships a "debatable value" many do not. I consider war to be a "debatable value" but how much of our history texts are filled with it? Some find organized religion of debatable value in this nation so should books that include religious folks be removed? We will be left with no books to read if we take books out that offend someone. The mere presense of a homosexual character in a book doesn't mean the library containing promotes that value. If it does, then my public library promotes Hitler because I can check out "Mein Kampf" there. Or it promotes Communism because Karl Marx has a certain tome to his name there.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Everyone picked on Political Correctness in the 90's.
I think Moral Correctness is the new PC.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:While some consider homosexual relationships a "debatable value" many do not.
When some people consider homosexual relationships debatable and some do not, it is by definition, debatable.
[ December 02, 2004, 09:57 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But, it's not just a sexual practice though. It's more complicated than that. No one is advocating a description of certain *cough* acts, but it would be nice for kids NOT to throw the word "fag" around like it's a dodge ball or something. It's so dehumanizing!
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
By that definition, Irami, EVERYTHING is debatable. There isn't a topic in a school library safe from someone having an issue with it.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
For the record, I think whether the school is promoting any practices is different than whether the books ought to be in the school library.
That's philosophy, fil. Everything is on the table. It doesn't mean it's arbitrary. It doesn't mean up to opinion. But everything is on the table.
[ December 03, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:*strangles this guy* Damn, I hate censorship of any kind...
Censorship is a tool. There are proper ways to use it.
This isn't one of them.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
quote: I would almost be willing to bet he is just a mouthpiece for a larger coalition of conservatives who will try and force their own views on bookstores and libraries through other means of the bill doesn't pass-- boycotts, letter writing campaigns, protests, lawsuits ect.
So conservatives shouldn't be allowed the same freedoms allowed to others to express their social agenda?
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I'm with jeniwren on this one - I don't want explicitly sexual books of any nature, whether hetero or homosexual, in an elementary school library.
Public libraries are a different story, obviously. To tell you how serious this is being taken in Alabama - this is the first I've heard of it.
Please, stop with the insulting of southerners in general and Alabamians in particular. It gets old. Every state has its share of religious fanatics, bigots, and just plain idiots.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
There goes Perks Of Being a Wallflower...sigh...
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
One thing to keep in mind is that if a book has gay characters in it, there is some mention of sex or sexuality. For instance, "Dick saw Jane run" might have a gay character (Dick, or if you want general homosexuality, Jane), but it's kind of tough to tell, eh? I'm not sure I'm at all comfortable keeping books out of an elementary library just because there's homosexuals in it, but I would be wary of any book that did have homosexuals in it because the only way to know is if it was brought up, and since homosexuality is entirley defined by sexual attraction and/ sex, I don't think it's totally absurd to want to keep that out of an elementar school.
And even if the entire homosexual part is: "John was gay" then whatever kid reads that all of a sudden has a whole lot of questions a lot of parents might not want their children asking at that age.
Hobbes Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Hobbes, so books that have kids talking about "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" should be taken out because the implication would be that they have to have sex to be boyfriend and girlfriend? If homosexuality is only defined to you as "having sex with someone of the same gender" does that go the same with heterosexuality? If not, why not?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Hobbes, so books that have kids talking about "girlfriends" and "boyfriends" should be taken out because the implication would be that they have to have sex to be boyfriend and girlfriend?
No.
quote: If homosexuality is only defined to you as "having sex with someone of the same gender"...
It's not.
Hobbes
[ December 03, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
So books with a pair of boys who are boyfriends are ok, as long as there is not sex, correct?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm not for banning any books, any where; appropriatness should be considered for where they're being bought and that's it. I was just pointing out that a book with homosexual characters is far more likely to not meet that level of appropriatness than one that doesn't, because to discuss homosexuality is a discussion of sexual desires.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Does the discussion of homosexual relationships involve sexuality any more than the discussion of heterosexual relationships?
Posted by JaneX (Member # 2026) on :
quote:There goes Perks Of Being a Wallflower...sigh...
I love Perks!
~Jane~
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Technically it doesn't have to, but I've never seen a case where it didn't, whereas hetreosexual relationships are so engrained as being a normal part of growing up (instead of about the desires they neccessitate) they are often, if not usually, treated without any sexual overtones.
Hobbes Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Have you looked at any children's books that deal with the subject? I have a friend who was researching it and there are quite a few of them. Granted many of the books on the subject deal with middle school or high school age children discovering that they are homosexual, but that's not that much different from a book talking about a hetrosexual first crush, and it can be and is done in just as appropriate a manner.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm sure it can, and that's why I think banning books based on if the sexual orientation of the characters it contains is stupid.
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think banning books because they potray people being sexual is silly, myself. *shrug*
[ December 03, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well it depends on how you define "being sexual" but in elementary school I would fully support banning those books from the library (i.e. not buying them).
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Originally I was going to agree that elementary school is too young for books that deal with sexual issues. But then I thought about it for a few minutes. Elementary school goes up to either fifth or sixth grade (depending on the school). And kids in fifth and sixth grade are already dealing with issues of sexuality. And fiction reading helps a lot of people to make sense of their world and the issues they go through. I think we should be encouraging upper elementary kids to read books by Judy Blume, Madeleine L’Engle, and other writers who deal maturely and compassionately with difficult subjects. Certainly not making the books harder to find by removing them from school libraries.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Yah, but if it's avliable to 5th and 6th graders, it's avliable to 1st graders too.
Hobbes Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Not necessarily. My elementary library was divided into three sections. K-1 were only allowed in the first section, 2-3 were allowed in two of the sections, and 4-6 could check out books from anywhere. The sections were ostensibly based on reading-level, but controlled for age-appropriate content as well.
Edit: Reading-level and interest will also help control for age-appropriateness. How may first graders want to read a chapter book (with no pictures!) about teenage relationships?
[ December 03, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
It's available, but does it interest them? I don't know any kids of first grade age that would be interested in Judy Bloom books.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
My wife developed was a C cup and menstruating at age 10. Waiting three more years to start hearing about sexual relationships and their consequences wouldn't have been a good idea for her. On the other hand, my youngest son is 12 and seems to be exhibiting no interest in relationship matters that don't concern the number of video game players.
I think I'd rather see books of different age levels available and let parents know they should pay attention to what their kids check out.
[ December 03, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Really? I'd never heard of that. o_O Was there actually policing going on, I mean if I as a first grader walked into the 5th gradere section would I be shunned away?
Hobbes
[ December 03, 2004, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You could walk into the section, but you couldn't check anything out. And Mr. Washburn would have (nicely) suggested that you get your butt back into the section where the rest of your class was.
I did successfully petition to let second graders in the advanced reading group check out one non-fiction book a week from the last section, though. I wanted a book of instructions on yarn-crafting and it was in the "big kid" stacks.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
You do have to be pretty mature to handle that subject, I surprised they let you get it.
Hobbes Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Our elementary school only goes up to 3rd grade, 4-8 is middle, and 9-12 high school.
If a school k-6 or 7th grade, then I think separate library sections are a good way to go. In our school library, all the kids have a reading level assigned to them (it's updated three times during the year, based on reading aptitude tests) so those scores give the librarian a guideline as to what books the child can handle on their own.
It was a problem when Natalie tested at a 10th grade reading level in the 3rd grade - but the librarian and the teacher and I discussed it and they pretty much let her check out anything she wanted, but then again, this library was only for K-5 (at the time, they've since made it a k-3 school)
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I had a similar problem with my children being sent to the "little kids section" when they were in 3rd and 4th grades while they were reading Ender's Game and Red Prophet at home. After meeting with the librarian (and she even gave my daughter a short oral quiz on a book she had just finished), all of my children were exempt from the "rule" from then on.
Most librarians will recognize an exceptional child when they see one, and in my experience, were excited to give them suggestions of books to read.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Madeleine L'Engle and Judy Blume write wonderful books...I read them when I was that age. They explore common feelings of pre-adolescence, and I can't say that's a bad thing at all. Far to the contrary. If there were a Judy Blume book that explored pre-adolescent feelings of same-sex attraction, I don't know how I'd feel about it, but I'd surely want to read it first before letting my child read it. It depends on how it was handled, I guess. If it was, "Hey, you're still very young, but what you feel is part of growing up." then I'd probably be okay with it and want to know from my son what he liked about the book and what he found intresting about it, if he checked it out.
In my son's school (a private Christian PK-8 school), the books are all pre-screened, and when a potentially objectionable subject is included (whether non-fiction or fiction) the book is stamped with a warning along with what might be objectionable about it. A slip is sent with the book so the parent can review whether or not it's suitable. For example, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest to have my son read a book that included references to evolution. Not all parents feel that way, so books with references to evolution are stamped.
I don't see why the public schools could not do something similar with potentially objectionable books so that parents are aware. See, what Idemosthenes pointed out on page 1 is *precisely* why so many parents pull their kids out of public school. Yet we are required by law to make sure our children are educated...not everyone can send their kids to private school, and not everyone can (or should) homeschool. So we're left with a system of education that is swayed by private lobbies who see children as the perfect targets to effect their pet social changes. It's wrong and I don't blame anyone who objects to it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That would have been such a torment to me. I hated being told what to read and what not to read when I was young. I hated having people confiscate books I bought for myself, for example...
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
What books did you have confiscated that you bought yourself, Syn?
Much as I hate them, I haven't taken my son's Goosebumps books from him. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I went through a brief John Saul phase in junior high after I read Second Child. It was freaky, but quite good. There was also this young adult scary trilogy as well that was pretty good. Then my father and former stepmother decided to take those books from me and half the ones the library threw away. I was very annoyed. I bought most of those books with my own money. I so dislike having my reading material censored. I read everything from fascinating young adult novels to mediocre adult novels.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
See, the issue here is...who is responsible for a child's upbringing? Parents, or the government? We've always said, "The parents." Abuses occurred, and we changed it to, "The parents, unless they abuse the rights that come with the responsibilities." And now we're faced with the line between abuse and not abuse.
No parent is perfect. I like to believe that we all try to do our best at the job, but I know that some parents are terrible at it, and their children suffer.
Someone has to be responsible for a child's upbringing, because the child himself cannot. So it is in the best interests of the child to have someone who has that child's best interest in mind be responsible. I believe that generally, that is going to be the parents. I do not believe, nor has it ever been shown, that the government is a better entity to be responsible for a child's upbringing. With that in mind, we must allow parents final say, except where abuse exists, over what is best for a child to view or read. If the parent is the one responsible, they must have the right to restrict access where they perceive it is necessary.
Having said all that, personally, I can't see sheltering a high schooler from the realities of the Holocaust unless he was mentally ill. A friend of mine has a 14 year old who is very clingy and is afraid to stay home by herself. I wouldn't blame her at all for restricting access to books that would make her more scared to leave the house. See what I mean? The government can only make sweeping rules...generally, parents know their kids and are in the best position to know what will them harm. Are they always right? No way. But I bet that generally, they get it right more often than the government would.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The stamp idea seems like a perfectly appropriate compromise.
Jeniwren, you and government raise your children. The government has an interest in the morality of your children. If they break the law, the government doesn't send them home, the government hauls them away, then calls you. That's why honesty and tolerance are taught in the classroom. Schools need to partner with parents, and that happens better in some places than in others, but it's a team effort to make sure your kid doesn't try to mug me now, or ten years from now.
quote:Are they always right? No way. But I bet that generally, they get it right more often than the government would.
I don't know. School librarians and teachers spend a lot of time thinking about these exact issues. I know they are the "government," but I almost think that they would probably know as much as the people who succeeded in getting pregnant.
I do think that controversial books should be discussed before introducing them in the curriculum proper, but yanking them wholesale out of the library?
I do think that, with discretion and thought, books containing intimacy should be in elementary school libraries. I mean, if kids are going to be given to kiss and touch in junior high school, I remember spending large amounts of my day thinking about kissing and touching, the books could prepare them to help them cope.
If it's thought about in life, it should be in the book. That the only way I can imagine to try to keep books relevant and kids reading. As a fifth grader, these are tangential issues, but it doesn't mean that they should be completely ignored. ________________
I didn't know that middle schools go from fourth to eighth. That's a tough road for the fifth and sixth graders.
[ December 04, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I like the stamp idea, but I'm sort of worried. Is the slip of paper sent home with the student, or does the school email or send it to the parents without the student as a middleman? I ask because when I was in elementary school I got all kinds of papers to take home that my parents never saw, not because I was trying to hide stuff, I just forgot about them.
Completely different subject, while I agree that it is necessary that we pay strict attention to what goes in elementary school libraries, I don't think that's the case in high school libraries. A high schooler is at the point in his or her life when they are not only being taught information, but also to be independent. I don't think the school should be censoring what high school students are exposed to. Most school libraries don't have very big collections anyway, so books are screened on how educationally useful during the buying process, I don't think they need to go through another screening process.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Someone has to be responsible for a child's upbringing, because the child himself cannot. So it is in the best interests of the child to have someone who has that child's best interest in mind be responsible. I believe that generally, that is going to be the parents. I do not believe, nor has it ever been shown, that the government is a better entity to be responsible for a child's upbringing. With that in mind, we must allow parents final say, except where abuse exists, over what is best for a child to view or read. If the parent is the one responsible, they must have the right to restrict access where they perceive it is necessary.
Having said all that, personally, I can't see sheltering a high schooler from the realities of the Holocaust unless he was mentally ill. A friend of mine has a 14 year old who is very clingy and is afraid to stay home by herself. I wouldn't blame her at all for restricting access to books that would make her more scared to leave the house. See what I mean? The government can only make sweeping rules...generally, parents know their kids and are in the best position to know what will them harm. Are they always right? No way. But I bet that generally, they get it right more often than the government would.
And, thus, it seems to me the optimal configuration would be for the library to stock everything and put the burden of policing their child on the parent.
There are really only two options here. Either the school restricts some books, or allows a child access to all books. If you restrict some books, you run into the problems already illustrated in this thread where some children who are ready for 'certain' books are going to be disenfranchised. You can't assume that schools or librarians will always make exceptions for your child. There are many instances of 'zero tolerance' policies in schools run amok. Why do you think libraries would be immune from unthinking censorship or buaracratic laziness? (I can't spell, I know. I'll fix it later.)
In the final analysis, if a school restricts books from certain ages of children/people, you are handing over your parental rights to the state and, once given, they are out of your control. The state that can keep knowledge out of a child's hands can force it on a child, too.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
It'd be kind of difficult to police your child when they're at school in the school library...
Hobbes Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Hobbes, if your relationship with your child is such that they can't share the books they read with you, or don't want to show you, all the censorship in the world ain't gonna save your child.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's idiots like that who give us Southerners a bad rap.
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)