This is topic The Battle Begins (Update!) : Is this censorship? in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=030597

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Our school board met about this last night and I don't know what came of it yet...

This site is bringing up the issue. The books are Ricochet River and Rats Saw God. I've read the excerpts (they are explicit, just a warning) but I haven't read the novels in question. (Anyone read them? Opinions?)

I know that it's BAD to ban books because once you say no to this book, what's to stop someone from interpreting Anne of Green Gables to be inappropriate?

But I think kids should have a choice of whether or not they read a novel with questionable content. As long as they're 'warned' and given options, I think it's ok.

But then the argument is "well, what SPECIFIC content justifies a warning like that? Shouldn't we start warning parents about Where the Red Fern Grows because there is graphic content about doggie entrails??"

I am baffled by it all.

[edited to take my subject line out of the passive voice. ]

[ January 26, 2005, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I liked the way they did it in my high school when we read Slaughterhouse Five. If anybody didn't want to read that, they could read another book and do alternate assignments. I don't know if anybody actually took them up on this option, but we all had the option to not read something that offended us.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 

quote:

---

A NEW EXCELLENCE was formed after students complained about assigned reading materials at the high school level which contained profanity, graphic violence and explicit sexual descriptions.

---

Personally, I avoid all three of those things in what I read and watch on tv. High school isn't college where the kids can drop the class and replace it. If a high school teacher assigns a book, you read it or take the F.

Now if the issue were that the books were being taken out of the school library, I'd see it as censorship. Saying it can't be assigned is, I think, one of those things that should have been common sense.

I declined to read the excerpts so I won't comment on them directly.
 

---

Posted by Vid (Member # 7172) on :
 
I didn't read up on the issue, but I'm just going to say this:

I find it extremely strange, and mildly humorous, that schools see reason to ban books - BOOKS, of all things! - that contain "explicit content," when there is so much trash that is easily available on TV and in film. I'm not, by any means, saying that this is excusable. However, if kids are going to be seeing it anyways, why not expose them to some literature while we're at it? At least we can make them use their imaginations to get to the "explicit content."
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
But the students aren't forced to watch trashy TV or movies for their grades.

And not all students watch trashy TV and movies.

[ January 07, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
Why don't they just not read the book and fake the assignments? It always worked for me. There is no surer way to write essays that just parrot the teacher's views on the book and then they think you are a genius.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Exactly Porter. You've got really astute and grade conscious kids, some of which would really rather not read it, but do it anyway because of the grade.

I also don't think it's public education's job to expose them to the crap, even if there's literature along with it. Kids are going to encounter religious proselyting in the real world too, why not do some of that with literature attached to it? (tongue in cheek)
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
People can choose to reject things they find objectionable for religious reasons on TV. I think students should be able to choose that as well. If these are assigned books, I believe the teacher must provide an alternative.

As far as having things in the library, there is another line to draw as well. What else is good about the book that makes it acceptable to have such profanity, violence, and sex be part of the school library? The school library doesn't have porn, what seperates these from that? And what, exactly, are the students missing by it not being in the library? The library is limited in space and there is lots of very good literature that isn't there, not because of censorship, but priorities in what they are able to stock.

It is a complicated issue. I'm not in favor of censorship by any means. It is just that there is a line that must be drawn as to what is and is not appropriate in schools. The question is, where is that line and why?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

There is no surer way to write essays that just parrot the teacher's views on the book and then they think you are a genius.

---

My grades radically improved once I sold out and did this.
 

---

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
 
*puzzles* I always just assumed that if I had a major problem with a book my teacher would allow me an alternate. I never really did, though, so I'm not sure how that would have turned out put to a real life test. I think the most objectionable thing we were asked to read was Lord of the Flies, which I hated but I'm really glad I read. That was how I felt about most books we read in high school. With the exception of The Invisible Man which I just hated.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
Amka, great points. It's the kind of thing I wish more schools would think about before they spend their money on the books in the first place.

It's one thing to not buy the book becuase you want to buy a different book that doesn't have the objectionable content. It's another to spend our scanty school dollars on a book only to have to take it off the shelves because the parents threw a fit. The first is setting priorities with the age and temperment of the general student body in mind. The second is wasteful and leads to speculation of ulterior motives.
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
am i the only one that thinks that a school library ought to be limited to text books? it's the public library where you should be going to get other books.

but then, i don't believe that the entire book needs to be made available for a teacher to provide instruction in literature. nor do i believe that forcing kids to read novels in english class is positive. i've come to find that i enjoy books that i wasn't forced to read in school where others that were forced to read them came to hate said books.

edit to add: i'm referring to high school. college is a different issue altogether.

[ January 07, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: gnixing ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
I agree with AvidReader. Keep it in the library for anyone to read if they want to, but making high school kids read Richochet River for a grade is inappropriate.
 

---

Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
 
[/derail]

I'm just really tickled that you agree with me, sacracticmuppet.

That is all.

[/derail]
 

---

Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
 
gnixing:

I believe fiction must be available in school libraries. Many kids would not otherwise have a source. Even in high school, there are some communities where public libraries are so few and far between that it takes half an hour or longer to get to one. While driving. If your parents don't care, will they drive you there? If you can drive, how much is it a priority for you, especially if you've grown up where reading is not important.

The fact is that fiction needs to be made as easy to pick up as possible, by choice, if we are to help our kids gain a love for literature. I am also against mandatory reading assignments, though I would probably like to have a teacher give out a list for the students to choose from (especially if it is an example of something specific, like period fiction or genre).

Starts to drift and speculate: If I were an english teacher, I'd give my students a survey, so I could highlight books on the list that they would most enjoy, according to their stated preferences.
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 
gnixing: I'd have to strongly disagree with the concept of limiting school libraries to textbooks. Not all (read most) public libraries are not accessible to anyone without a car, and not all parents are able or drive their kids to the library the day they hear about a good book. Add to that that in many classes I had to research various topics (fictional and non-fictional) at school. Middle and highschool textbooks, while broad, are simply useless for gathering depth on any topic.

While I agree with offering alternatives to potetionally disagreeable books, I strongly disagree with eliminating any liturature with references to profanity, violence, and sexuality. I read well over a dozen of Shakespeare's plays, and a good deal of Poe's short stories in middle and highschool. Both of those authors (or playwrights) would be easy candidates for such censorship, and that would be truly sad, pathetic, and damaging to the education of man (in my humble opinion of course).

I'll debate this more later.

Feyd Baron, DoC
 

---

Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
 
maybe i've just been spoiled. growing up, i'd never bother to check the school library for personal reading material.

then again... in Salt Lake County, the public library system is probably one of the best. i've always been within walking/ bike ride distance from two or three different public libraries.

still, i feel a community should expand its public library system rather than focus on filling high school libraries with crap.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
I don't believe in censorship in general -- I'm very much an advocate of free speech -- even of those who say things I don't agree with.

However - reading the "excerpts" of these books that I saw on that link from the first post -- wow, that is really graphic. I'm more disappointed in the teacher who would think it would be okay for kids to read this. I mean, just because it looks to me to be poor writing, as well as graphic.

So what was the point of the teacher making this assigned? Were they just trying to push the limits to see what they could get by with; or are they a spoon that just likes to stir up trouble? I mean, are either of these books considered really good examples of literature?

As a mom, I wouldn't want my kids reading this. As a citizen, I still don't believe in censorship

Farmgirl
 

---

Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
 
Yeesh, you sound like a book at your HS library jumped off a shelf and bit you or something.

I would have to disagree that highschool libraries are full of crap. I know that mine (and the schools of my friends) was full of a good variety of the educational, the classic, and the entertaining.

Besides, the funding for highschool libraries (state) and public libraries (municipal) are most often seperate. It doesn't work to say they should give up the schools and give the money to the public. Doesn't quite work that way.

And you could well be spoiled to your library system. I know some cities that simply don't have them, or don't have branches, or only have trade books. I's wager it is not unheard of for school libraries to be the only access to books kids have. In an ideal world, I would agree with you that public libraries should cover all our needs. But that's so far from the truth, it's depressing.

Feyd Baron, DoC
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
In a small town in Michigan where I went to school, the high school library WAS the public library.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I see no reason to ban them from the school library, but assigning those books -- both clearly vulgar, and both clearly not stellar examples of the written word in the first place -- seems rather pointless.

[ January 07, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
As a (hopefully) future educational librarian I am decidedly against banning of books on a general principle, but I do think that age appropriateness is something that needs to be taken into account when selecting resources for a school library. School libraries are not public libraries, there is differnet selection criteria that needs to be applied when deciding what books to put in there.

I read the excerpts, because I didn't want to comment on something I hadn't read, and let me tell you, I felt physically ill after getting halfway down the page - I didn't read them all, even though I had planned to.

One thing that I find significant is that this is not a group of hysterical, religious parents asking for these books to no longer be assigned - it is the students themselves. I think we should listen to them. Certainly one can't be in a situation where you allow the students to always dictate what learning materials they use, but when some of them are offended by the content of the books they're studying then parents and educators definitely need to re-evaluate their choices.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Here's the recap of last night's board meeting on the subject.

I haven't read it yet, so I'll comment later...
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
After reading the excerpts, I'd say that's not appropriate for a high school classroom assignment.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Wow, the AUTHOR of the book was at the hearing last night.
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 

quote:

---

He and others disagreed with any suggestion that the scenes in the book could be considered pornographic.

---

quote:

---

Teachers said that students rarely dwell on the passages in question.

---

quote:

---

Superintendent Ron Naso then told the Board that he supports a district staff and parent committee's recommendation to allow the use of the book with parental notification and an option for students who do not wish to use it.

---

quote:

---

por·nog·ra·phy   

1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material

---

quote:

---

Teachers said that students rarely dwell on the passages in question.

---

Glad I wasn't the only one to have a reaction to that statement! I snorted out loud when I read it!

Sheesh. I was in high school when "The Godfather" was published and became a bestseller. I read the whole book, but there were a couple of pages I read much more often than the rest of the pages. (Many of my classmates (male and female) only read those particular pages! (It wasn't my book they were reading! Honest!)

Rarely dwell on them?

I wonder what else gets by these teachers?
 

---

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
 
I would not find it acceptable. You have to be 18 to buy books and magazines that have letters in them that read exactly the same.

Wow, I sound like a crotchety old man.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Well, I bet they dwell on reading them, but they probably don't dwell on discussing them in class. Presumably, the teachers would have no direct knowledge of the former, so I expect the context was that they were noting the latter.

[ January 07, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Based on the excerpts I'd say pull them from the required reading lists.

However, I would never make such a decision on a book after reading selected excerpts out of context. As Amka already asked, what are the benefits of the books? Why are they on the lists? I've never read either, I don't know what the students are expected to learn from them.

I don't have enough information to make a decision yet.

[ January 07, 2005, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
*psst* you ARE a crotchety old man. (not you Chris, zgator.) And Chris, you beat me, I asked some of the same questions.

What floors me is that the teachers would feel that this book has SO much literary value that it's worth the smut/porn that is plainly and prominently placed in it. Are there literary lessons in this book that cannot be taught with another book? I highly doubt it.

This isn't the first year they've tried to teach this book, so obviously the LA teachers see something in it...

or are they just teaching it for the shock value? Are they doing it to see if they'll be challenged and arguing, not because they think the book is valuable, but just because of the principle of the thing?

I mean, now that this has gone on, everyone is going to go read those passages now anyway. Was that the point? A publicity stunt? I know I'm probably being ridiculous here, but I'm just trying to think of why this book has so many advocates.

[ January 07, 2005, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

[/derail]

I'm just really tickled that you agree with me, sacracticmuppet.

That is all.

[/derail]

---

[/derail]

I'm just tickled AvidReader thinks my opinion is worth something.

That is all.

[/derail]
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 
Oh, and just to add, this kind of relates to a discussion I've had with friends over R-rated movies. The way I see it, violence like that found in war or (more generally speaking) in human nature can be appropriate for a moviegoer (or in this case, a reader) to experience, because IF it is done in a way that is not gratuitous, but telling a bigger story, then it works. And works well. Movies that come to mind are Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brother, Passion OTC. Books -- Night by Elie Weizle, possibly A Seperate Peace. Violence often makes something rated R (or the equivalent in the written word), which I don't consider to be a harsh judgement. I don't consider it to be a bad thing, either.

Sex, in my opinion, is never appropriate. In movies it is most often added just to get an R-rating for the piece, and in many many cases adds absolutely nothing to the story.

I don't know if the book in question has any true redeeming qualities outside of the explicity, but the fact that it has it in the first place demeans whatever he was trying to put across in the first place.

[ January 07, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 

quote:

---

Sex, in my opinion, is never appropriate. In movies it is most often added just to get an R-rating for the piece, and in many many cases adds absolutely nothing to the story.

---

quote:

---

There are indeed cases, IMO, where the sex needs to be shown for the sake of the story.

---

Those are stories that I don't need to see.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
We're the Defenders of Graphic Sex. It's like a superteam, only with fewer costuming requirements.

(And yeah, Porter, I don't think anyone here is requiring that you submit to graphic sex for the good of the country. You're perfectly wellcome to stick to stories where the sex happens off-camera. The only cost is that you miss out on stories that might have otherwise been good.)

[ January 07, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
My superhero outfit includes a scarf, a turtleneck, an ankle-length skirt, and no makeup. I don't know about you guys.

[Forgot about the top. Oops.]

[ January 07, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

(And yeah, Porter, I don't think anyone here is requiring that you submit to graphic sex for the good of the country. You're perfectly wellcome to stick to stories where the sex happens off-camera. The only cost is that you miss out on stories that might have otherwise been good.)

---

I'm perfectly OK with that. I can't see/read every story.

[ January 07, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I think we're all okay with Sara's convenient omission of the top.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
She just said that those are included. She never said she wasn't wearing anything else.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Mine has only the scarf, but in deference to the average nausea level of humanity the scarf is 200' x 20' and wraps around me until my entire body resembles a large bean bag chair.

I'm willing to defend graphic sex in a general manner, but some things are just too horrible to be seen. Someone has to think of the children.
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
*loves Chris*


 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Don't we all, Belle? *smile

Porter is correct. "Includes but is not limited to" would have been the correct translation. Unless I was baking an apple pie, of course.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
Note that I'm skillfully ducking the question of whether or not my body resembles a large bean bag chair even before the scarf.
 

---

Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
 
ANYWAY... found surprisingly few reviews online for "Ricochet River" but what I found was mostly positive. Coming of age novel set in the Pacific Northwest in the 60's, talks about growing up there, the pressures of being a teenager in a logging town, and how local Indians were treated.

Again, I haven't read it so I have no clue about the quality of the book or its appropriateness for teenagers. I do think that books with potentially objectionable content should be limited to optional lists instead of being mandatory.
 

---

Posted by Trisha the Severe Hottie (Member # 6000) on :
 
I actually have a beef with violence. God didn't flood the earth due to porn, he flooded it due to violence. And at least in LDS doctrine, adultery can be forgiven where murder of the innocent cannot. (Though of course only God really knows what constitutes that... I play it safe and don't murder during lent.)

P.S. I didn't read the excerpts. I don't figure it would be being discussed if only hopeless prudes like myself would find it porn.

[ January 07, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Nope. It's pretty porny.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
This reminds me of a thread on greNME where we discussed why it is or is not appropriate for schools to deal with religious belief systems. The concern is that if a school does anything with a belief system (like putting songs that deal with Christ in the Christmas Choir Concert) would be like a school endorsing that religion and that would be "wrong", rather than celebrating the religious beliefs shared by a large portion of the population.

But it is OK for schools to endorse these other ideologies that so many people find offensive and don't want their kids exposed to.

I think including only ideologies that have to do with God under keeping church and state separate is unfair for reasons like this. We can keep God out of schools, but we can't keep pornography out.

I realize that it is a lot easier to draw a line between "God or no God" and "pornography or no pornography". People are far more likely to disagree on the defining of the second. That is why being allowed to read a different book is a good policy.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Actually pooka, you could argue that God flooded the earth and destroyed Sodom and Gamorrah for porn.... (Ghamorra, Gamorah?)

[ January 07, 2005, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
I don't see how you could argue that.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
One difference would be that the book would be more likely to be up for critical review. Songs usually aren't, nor are displays. There is tacit approval of sponsored events unless criticique is explicitly invited.

I think that is what makes comparative religion classes a different ball of wax, too.

That being said, I don't think this book should have been assigned to a high school class. I don't have a problem with a teenager being able to find it in a library or on a reading list, but assigning it to a roomful of teenagers to discuss with each other means deliberate destruction of some boundaries I think those kids should be able to decide for themselves to keep in place.

Different for college, though, as you can choose whether or not to drop the class.

[ January 07, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
I read some of the excerpts (I only partway down before I had to flee), and while I admit that I am a prude, I will add that if any child or niece/nephew or child of anyone else whom I loved had to read that pornographic crap as a school assignment before they reached the age of adulthood, I would raise a huge stinkin' fuss. It isn't appropriate reading for a lot of adults, so how could it be considered appropriate reading for children?

There is a LOT of good literature available that does not have that kind of language in it. Why is this so necessary? For shock value?

I had an English teacher in high school who brought in a movie to show us - A Clockwork Orange. I was 16, grade 11, and I walked out after about 5 minutes. I was terrified that my teacher would fail me on that section, but I could not stay. It was far too disturbing.

In the next twenty minutes, over half of the rest of the class followed me in walking out.

The next day, our teacher said that the assignment had been changed to optional for those who wished to do it, but those of us who didn't stay wouldn't be penalized. That was a reasonable result. It would have been better, though, had he informed us ahead of time what the movie was about and given us the choice before it started of staying or leaving. I would have chosen to not see any of it. It's still stuck in my brain. I wish it wasn't.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 

quote:

---

One difference would be that the book would be more likely to be up for critical review. Songs usually aren't, nor are displays. There is tacit approval of sponsored events unless criticique is explicitly invited.

---

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with a teenager being able to find it in a library or on a reading list, but assigning it to a roomful of teenagers to discuss with each other means deliberate destruction of some boundaries I think those kids should be able to decide for themselves to keep in place.

---

quote:

---

It would have been better, though, had he informed us ahead of time what the movie was about and given us the choice before it started of staying or leaving. I would have chosen to not see any of it. It's still stuck in my brain. I wish it wasn't.

---

quote:

---

This is all I would ask for from a school district: the freedom to decide for myself if I wanted to read that or not. Our district is arguing the necessity of "warning" students about content like this and those that are against it cry "But where is the line drawn?" That is a good question. I'd like to make sure that a child of mine had some say in drawing that line. Because if they do not...

---

If I could a) satisfactorily define porn or b) satisfactorily define where such lines should be drawn, I'd be a heckuva lot more powerful than I am. *grin

A major problem with porn as a required classroom reading assignment is that one has to do something which one might not wish others to know that one had done. (I know this isn't a good way to phrase it, but I'm more trying to sketch the point rather than make it in a decisive manner. It's the best I can do.) Whether or not one has considered a given political philosophy, or a particular way to find the surface area of a square, or the distinction between a simile and a metaphor -- these aren't generally highly emotionally charged, personal identity sorts of issues. Well, I suppose political philosophies may be, but these are an accepted topic of public discourse. You can pretty much assume that everyone in the US has heard of the Democratic and the Republican party, and just knowing about them isn't a standard source of shame or self-doubt.

Sex is. Porn is. In this culture, it is a very different sort of thing. Given that context, I think it is counter-productive and cruel to force young people to deal with a subject we know may be traumatic or highly personally unsettling for them. For similar reasons, I don't think comparative religions should be a required course in public school. What discussion there is of sex should be kept as clinical and informative as possible, as there is a need to educate in this matter, but one's personal reaction to that information (and porn is about personal reactions) should be permitted to be a matter of solely private information.

Lines blur, of course. Is there enough sex in The Grapes of Wrath that it should not be assigned? I think that, in context, the sex that is there makes sense for the story, and the level of detail is something I think is not inappropriate for high schoolers to read as a class. I don't think it is at a level where a standard reasonable person (how sweet the hypothetical ) might suffer undue shame or embarrasment at having to admit awareness of it. For Ricochet River, at least from the parts I saw excerpted, I do not think that is the case. Some of these were long, extended scenes, and it wasn't a matter of being able to quickly skip over anything that might be offensive to you. It went on and on and on.

In such a case, I think it should be the option of young men and women to keep private whether they are or are not interesting or willing to engage in such a text. Mind you, I think there are a lot of good reasons for and good things that can come from porn, but none of them come from being forced to engage with it.

Again, I'm not going to satisfactorily define porn. I'm trying to sketch out my thoughts, that's all -- although feedback and comments are welcome.

[ January 08, 2005, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 

quote:

---

In such a case, I think it should be the option of young men and women to keep private whether they are or are not interesting or willing to engage in such a text. Mind you, I think there are a lot of good reasons for and good things that can come from porn, but none of them come from being forced to engage with it.

---

Bingo. I totally agree with you on that last sentence. The porn thing is another issue, but we won't go into that.

But I was interested to read that you think it should be private whether or not a student chooses to read stuff like that. So, are you saying, like Tom did, that the choice to opt out isn't good enough and that the whole class should just read a different sort of book? (sorry, I'm probably just getting hung up on logistics.)

I agree with you that the choice should be a private thing. Kids shouldn't be made to feel bad about themselves by their peers because they've chosen TO read it. I'm just trying to figure out how the privacy issue could be approached in a classroom and carried out successfully without just yanking that book and books like it from the curriculum.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I would not put it in terms of either "read X" or "opt out and read Y." That really puts the pressure on.

I think a better way to handle it would be to present a list of options, say 3-5, which ranged in content and focus. Include a brief snippet on each with any appropriate cautions, just as a summary for a television show in TV Guide. With a few more options, the choice is less forced and less a focus of scrutiny. Any classroom discussion of the more explicit texts can be limited to the drier, more analytic review of the writing in a broader sense.

However, if the teacher wishes to teach from only one text (say, to narrow down the topics of discussion or something), then something should be chosen which cannot reasonably be expected to be unduly cruel or fundamentally upsetting to any of the participants. Challenge them, make them think, yes. Humiliate them (regardless of whether you yourself would be humiliated), no.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Sara, I love you.

I never would have thought to use "humiliate" in this case, but you're exactly right. That's what it is doing to those that are forced to read, those that opt out, and those that openly choose to read.

I like your idea of a reading list with content summary. They even do that for MOVIES now (to some extent, but it still makes a difference). They should be willing to do it for material presented in a public school.

So now my question is, why don't these options make sense to the teachers in this school district? I wish I knew.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I love you too, Narnia.

As to why it doesn't work this way, I honestly don't know. A part of me thinks that many people just like to make things difficult so they have something to get worked up about, rather than deal with things in the calmest, most efficient, and most sensible way possible. But then again, I've gotten pretty cynical about these sorts of things.

I certainly agree with Farmgirl that it sounds like the last meeting over this topic was moderated in a stellar manner. I hope all involved can extend the same level of courtesy and maturity to the classroom itself.

[ January 08, 2005, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
I know what you mean. I'm wondering if it's an Oregon thing?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I can testify that (at least from my perspective), it's also an Indiana thing, an Illinois thing, a Wisconsin thing, and an Alabama thing. (all places where I've lived) After having travelled outside the country a little bit, I'm coming to think it's partly an American thing.

Not that I don't admire this country -- just that things like this (and the popularity of Crossfire, etc.) seem to point towards a relatively recent social trend here. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back, though. Be nice if it happened sooner rather than later.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Going back to the humiliation thing. I certainly felt humiliated by watching that movie, and I felt humiliated as I walked out of the room. Thing you need to understand is that back then, I did not make a habit of sticking up for myself. I had zero self esteem. So for me to actually walk out of that room that day took every single ounce of personal strength that I had. And for those other kids who walked out, every single one of them thanked me after for being the first one to walk out. Every single one of them said that, if I had not walked out first, none of them would have had the nerve to walk out either.

Humiliation? Shame? Something like that. Yeah, it's huge. And yes, it needs to be considered. Peer pressure, folks. I was lucky - I was in an honors class with the same 28 students I had all my other classes with in a school of 1700. If it had been a regular classroom where I knew almost no one and had no friends? I doubt the outcome would have been the same.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Good for you, quidscribis.

I'm all about encouraging questions and fostering critical analysis. I even think it's good to have one's preconceptions challenged on a regular basis. That's one of the reasons I am here.

This is different. The emotional reaction of some who are put in the situation where they have to react to it (and are judged on that reaction) just goes too deep. It goes past the teachable moment for some, I think. I may not have the same reaction -- at least, not at this point in my life -- but I can certainly understand and respect it.

*grin

I admit to trusting that natural curiosity will lead many young people to explore this on their own, so long as the materials are in some way accessible. But that is under their own control, and I think that is the sort of situation in which any benefits have a real chance to occur.

Provide accurate information about things which put one at risk and the tools one needs to function in the world. Provide privacy where appropriate. Set up no idols in the form of forbidden fruit. Don't traumatize in any real sense of the word. Just ... don't make things worse.

[ January 08, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
But when you're talking about teenagers in a high school setting, statistically enough of them will have been abused or raped, or come from violent homes, or otherwise been damaged traumatically. Those ones will have a far more difficult time standing up for themselves. The lesson about critical thinking could easily be missed by them, and could just result in more trauma. Unless they've already worked through their past trauma, which, from what I've read, is unlikely. Doesn't usually happen until they become adults and have control over their lives and their healing.

Unfortunately, if their parents are the ones doing the abusing, the parents are probably less likely to stick up for the kids.

Goes back to not doing more damage.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
We agree on this, quidscribis.

I think one's willingness or not to read sexually explicit and prolonged graphic (jimminy cricket, it went on and on) reading material is not an appropriate focus of a required class's attention. Like you, I think there is potential for a lot of unnecessary distress without a balancing significant gain.

Having it available doesn't press the point. Assigning it, or even offering just one alternative option, does. Different matter.

[ January 08, 2005, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Oh, Sara, I already knew I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just fleshing out the idea in more detail.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Well, I felt so bad after reading your description of your experience. You were very brave.

My brother and I were allowed to watch PBS and occasionally the local news but pretty much no other television. (This was before the days of VCRs, too.) However, one evening while my mother was working in the garden and my father was napping, something very odd came on PBS. Yes, A Clockwork Orange.

I was around four or five, and my brother was eight. He still says it warped his view of sex (though he's rather tongue-in-cheek about it). I wouldn't say it scarred me, but it did make me both rather nervous about sex and suspicious that the whole thing was a big joke. I just really couldn't conceive of my Uncle Jack chasing around Aunt Emily and batting her with a giant sculpture of a phallus. I became quite skeptical for many years.

However, I would have been mortified (red-faced, shaking, angry, humiliated, terrified) if I'd had to watch it, or even had to discuss whether or not I had or would watch it in front of a group of my peers. As it was, it wasn't so much traumatizing as curious and bizzare -- but that was because I was just peeking every now and then, in between doing some garden project and making bread pills or something.

[ January 08, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
My mother made my sister and I watch The Holocaust, a movie or documentary, I'm not sure which, about Jews being exterminated. It was graphic, complete with heads rolling or gas chamber footage or the like. I was five. And I knew that it really happened - she made sure we knew that.

When I was six, my mother made us watch Sybil.

She thought she was educating us. I say she was being extremely inappropriate.

I had nightmares from both for years.
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
Geez. 5? No wonder you had nightmares! *pat pat*
 

---

Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
 
*bump*

The school board made a decision regarding _Ricochet River_

[ January 26, 2005, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
 

---