High School Parents Trying to Ban Book

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_...ELJyJryoTADW7oF

 

Parents Ken and Leona Tyree found certain scenes in "The Prince of Tides" "obscene and offensive." Leona Tyree said she was unable to finish the book. Their son has since left Shamblin's Advanced Placement literature class.

 

Another parent, Karen Frazier, complained about violence in "Beach Music," and told school board members last month she wants guidelines for books used in public schools.

 

"If a teacher was on a computer and sending this filth to underage students, they'd probably be arrested," Frazier said at last month's meeting.

 

--

And yet, I'm sure the kid finished the Bible which has plenty of murder, rape, incest, murder for hire, lust, etc. And that's just what protagonists are doing.

 

Why not have me avoid talking about what happened to Native Americans and also avoid what the Spanish and other Europeans did in the Americas because that might offend them? Why not avoid talking about slavery so black people won't get offended? Ad nauseum.

 

Also from the article: Leona Tyree said she was unable to finish the book. -- I guess too many non-monosyllabic words?

[Texsox]

Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

If the kid is under 18, then the parents can step in. But, this is a voluntary college level course being taught here. The parents do have an obligation then to ask just for their child not to read the book, not that every child is banned from reading the book. There are some parents that don't want their children to be willfully ignorant. In high school when I was there, a student did not want to read one of the honors English books. So, he chose not to read it and accepted the fact that he was going to bomb the quizzes on it. But the parents never once tried to get anybody else's child from having the opportunity to read the book (which in this case was Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land")

 

The idea of banning books will just mean that every kid (in the class and not) will try to read this book now. Seriously, what is wrong with exposing your children to controversial topics? It gives you an opportunity to have actual in depth discussion with your child about a subject that actually interests them. It encourages critical thinking and questioning of their surroundings. Is that a bad thing?

[Texsox]

Society demands that parents be responsible for their children and raising them. Schools beg for more parental involvement. They wring their hands and wonder what can be done to get the parents interested in what their children are learning. Yet as soon as parents go beyond the fundraisers, and buying tickets to games and plays, teachers feel threatened.

 

Willfully ignorant is a loaded phrase. Different topics are presented better in different venues. Perhaps I would rather be teaching my children about sex, drugs, love, and war, not having you do it. For that, I am mocked and accused of wanting my kids willfully ignorant? The hubris to think you are the best to do that is willfully ignorant. Parents that do not know what is being taught to their own children are the ones embracing willful ignorance not the ones that are standing up. But they are your best customer. They keep their mouths shut and keep sending their kids to school.

 

Tell me this, what literary concepts cannot be taught using less offensive works. It seems the goal here is to expose them to controversial topics? Why? How does exposing them to these controversial topics fit the mission statement of the school? Why is it the school's business? Amazing that you have time. Perhaps there should be a course Controversial Topics 101 and allow parents and students to make that choice?

 

The idea of parents and educators selecting books that teach the concepts is right. Parents just blindly turning their children over to strangers is what is wrong.

 

When the kids act out in ways that society does not approve, is it the teachers standing next to their students in court? No. They are back in their ivory towers, wringing their hands, trying to figure out why parents are not involved selling more M&M for the Senior trip.

[Mplssoxfan]

Is there any books that you would deem unsuitable for that age level? At what age should parents stop being parents and just turn their kids over to teachers to raise?

It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Tell me this, what literary concepts cannot be taught using less offensive works. It seems the goal here is to expose them to controversial topics? Why? How does exposing them to these controversial topics fit the mission statement of the school? Why is it the school's business? Amazing that you have time. Perhaps there should be a course Controversial Topics 101 and allow parents and students to make that choice?

 

Literature is not about teaching concepts. Literature is about the literature. What book are you going to substitute for Catcher in the Rye to teach Catcher in the Rye? What book are you going to substitute for Huckleberry Finn to teach Huckleberry Finn?

 

 

It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative.

 

^^^

[EvilMonkey]

Society demands that parents be responsible for their children and raising them. Schools beg for more parental involvement. They wring their hands and wonder what can be done to get the parents interested in what their children are learning. Yet as soon as parents go beyond the fundraisers, and buying tickets to games and plays, teachers feel threatened.

 

Willfully ignorant is a loaded phrase. Different topics are presented better in different venues. Perhaps I would rather be teaching my children about sex, drugs, love, and war, not having you do it. For that, I am mocked and accused of wanting my kids willfully ignorant? The hubris to think you are the best to do that is willfully ignorant. Parents that do not know what is being taught to their own children are the ones embracing willful ignorance not the ones that are standing up. But they are your best customer. They keep their mouths shut and keep sending their kids to school.

 

Tell me this, what literary concepts cannot be taught using less offensive works. It seems the goal here is to expose them to controversial topics? Why? How does exposing them to these controversial topics fit the mission statement of the school? Why is it the school's business? Amazing that you have time. Perhaps there should be a course Controversial Topics 101 and allow parents and students to make that choice?

 

The idea of parents and educators selecting books that teach the concepts is right. Parents just blindly turning their children over to strangers is what is wrong.

 

When the kids act out in ways that society does not approve, is it the teachers standing next to their students in court? No. They are back in their ivory towers, wringing their hands, trying to figure out why parents are not involved selling more M&M for the Senior trip.

Tex, I like alot of what you said here. I have a problem with the parents wanting the books 'banned' though. Pull your kids, have them not participate, maybe raise a stink about it so that other parents are aware and can maybe make the same choice as you, but her assuming that her views were better for all didn't fall too far from the school's thinking that they are the end all to be all.

 

As for the 'classics' like Huck Fin and Catcher in the Rye, i thought they sucked anyway. Who decided they were 'classics' anyway? Why are they worthy of teaching instead of something else?

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

As for the 'classics' like Huck Fin and Catcher in the Rye, i thought they sucked anyway. Who decided they were 'classics' anyway? Why are they worthy of teaching instead of something else?

 

That sort of eye-of-the-beholder subjectivity is always going to be a part of any humanities coursework. Math is math and Chemistry is chemistry and physics is physics, etc., and the subject matter is pretty mush set. That's not so with art, literature, film, etc., where an instructor has to his/her best call as to what sampling of works to tackle in a finite amount of time.

 

Oh yeah, Catcher in the Rye thinks YOU suck too.

 

[Soxy]

Tex, I like alot of what you said here. I have a problem with the parents wanting the books 'banned' though. Pull your kids, have them not participate, maybe raise a stink about it so that other parents are aware and can maybe make the same choice as you, but her assuming that her views were better for all didn't fall too far from the school's thinking that they are the end all to be all.

 

As for the 'classics' like Huck Fin and Catcher in the Rye, i thought they sucked anyway. Who decided they were 'classics' anyway? Why are they worthy of teaching instead of something else?

Like what? Just from a purely literary standpoint--what would be included in your canon of great works in English literature? I understand the complaints about the current canon that is used, but I am always curious to see what else people suggest we read instead of what is in place.

[Texsox]

It was a voluntary elective. If the parents don't like the books, withdraw the kids from the class. If the parents want to ban the books from the class, and therefore deprive the other students the opportunity to read those books, that's not their prerogative.

 

Then why elect a school board of you are just going to allow teachers to do whatever they want? In Texas, and I suspect every where else in the United States, kids are free to read whatever they want. They can go to the library, they can go buy the books. No one is telling them they cannot read the book or deprive them. What is in question is who should expose them to "controversial topics". Perhaps every High School English teacher is better equiped than you, but I doubt it.

 

 

Literature is not about teaching concepts. Literature is about the literature. What book are you going to substitute for Catcher in the Rye to teach Catcher in the Rye? What book are you going to substitute for Huckleberry Finn to teach Huckleberry Finn?

 

 

 

 

^^^

 

Not about concepts? Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, poetic forms, autobiography, historical, biogra[hies, etc. None of these are taught in High School anymore? Is this class called Prince of Tides? or AP English?

 

LCR mentioned the controversial topics. Who would say "I want my kids exposed to these topics, and a High School English teacher is the best person to do it"? This is also about age appropriate readings. A teacher made a conscious decision about what book to teach and to what level. There should be some oversight. This is public education, and should be available to all and should be as inclusive as possible. There certainly should be room for compromise and an alternate book selected.

 

You may not be concerned about what people teach your children, but I am. And the sooner parents start caring what is fed to their children the better we all will be.

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way, not to be missed here... I actually read Prince of Tides, it was required reading for me in high school for some class or another. I know exactly what scenes these people are referring to as obscene.

 

 

***WARNING _ SPOLIERS FROM BOOK***

 

 

The scenes in question are about a brutal attack, where a house is broken into, people are assaulted, and a young boy is sodomozied. The young boy is a main character, the main character really, in the book.

 

But that's just it - the scene is not meant to be some glorification. Its about how bad that was. Similar to this, for example, I would rather have my 12-year-old kid watch Saving Private Ryan than some Schwartzenegger bullet fest. Why? They are both violent, but one puts violence in its proper context. The other glorifies it.

 

I just wish parents would try to be a little more intelligent, and see past the surface of things. Kind of like the idiots from the Christian Brothers who banned their parishoners from reading the Potter books because they encouraged sorcery. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. The device is not important - its meaning is important.

 

Oh, and, one other thing... an ELECTIVE, COLLEGE course???? And they want a book banned? Come on.

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

Then why elect a school board of you are just going to allow teachers to do whatever they want? In Texas, and I suspect every where else in the United States, kids are free to read whatever they want. They can go to the library, they can go buy the books. No one is telling them they cannot read the book or deprive them. What is in question is who should expose them to "controversial topics". Perhaps every High School English teacher is better equiped than you, but I doubt it.

Not about concepts? Romanticism, Realism, Modernism, poetic forms, autobiography, historical, biogra[hies, etc. None of these are taught in High School anymore? Is this class called Prince of Tides? or AP English?

 

LCR mentioned the controversial topics. Who would say "I want my kids exposed to these topics, and a High School English teacher is the best person to do it"? This is also about age appropriate readings. A teacher made a conscious decision about what book to teach and to what level. There should be some oversight. This is public education, and should be available to all and should be as inclusive as possible. There certainly should be room for compromise and an alternate book selected.

 

You may not be concerned about what people teach your children, but I am. And the sooner parents start caring what is fed to their children the better we all will be.

 

Sure, there are literary forms that the works can be compartmentalized into, but the literature itself transcends its mechanics in a way that math and physics, etc., don't. I might be able to find another Elizabethan sonnet that alternates metrically between lines in iambic tetrameter and lines in iambic pentameter, a 4-5 stress pattern ending with two pentameter lines at the end of each stanza, but would that alone justify teaching some other poem instead of John Donne's The Flea? Yes, yes, I know that Donne's metaphysical love poems were just the author's attempt to get into someone's pants (er. . . chastity belt), and as such they have no place in the classroom.

 

I think Mplssoxfan had it right, and I think that is the approach that can satisfy everybody without the need to talk about banning books. Study the "controversial" literature in elective classes and require the parents to sign a permission form stating that they have read the syllabus and know what works will be assigned and grant permission for their highschooler to participate. The parents that don't want the teachers filling their poor impressionable childrens' heads with language and smut and everything else that they think must reside in the evil literature can keep their kids from particpating while leaving open the possibility for other students to take the course.

[Texsox]

The public should have some input in what is taught in public high schools.

 

Who should teach your kids about sodomy? The English teacher of course! How could kids ever learn English Lit without being exposed to sodomy? And those sure are terrible parents for not wanting the high school English teacher to teach their children about anal sex and child abuse. And let's have the Math teacher teach them about racism.

 

I can't believe the only way to teach English is via anal sex and child abuse. No wonder parents want to take back the schools.

 

[Rex Kickass]

If you are going to be taught literature, themes like rape, incest, sexuality, violence and even racism are going to come up again and again. Literature reflects life.

 

If you can't expect that, how do you expect to even read Dr. Seuss? I mean the Lomax was about pollution and the Butter Battle Book was about nuclear war.

 

Tex, I really hope you're being sarcastic... because from what you just typed out, your kids would never get past Richard Scarry "It's a Busy Busy World."

[FlaSoxxJim]

If you can't expect that, how do you expect to even read Dr. Seuss? I mean the Lomax was about pollution and the Butter Battle Book was about nuclear war.

 

That would be Lorax. Lomax was the guy that recorded George Harrison's song Sour Milk Sea.

 

 

[FlaSoxxJim]

The public should have some input in what is taught in public high schools.

 

Anybody who wants to have input can join the PTA, get on the school board, vote on various referendums that come up. etc.

 

An uppity mother who feels the need to go beyond policing her own kid and decides to be the arbiter of artistic merit and social value for everybody else's kid is overstepping. The elective, college-level class should be beyond the reach of some lone parent on a crusade. Make your kid drop the class, banish im to his plastic bubble for a month, and leave everybody else alone.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The public should have some input in what is taught in public high schools.

 

Who should teach your kids about sodomy? The English teacher of course! How could kids ever learn English Lit without being exposed to sodomy? And those sure are terrible parents for not wanting the high school English teacher to teach their children about anal sex and child abuse. And let's have the Math teacher teach them about racism.

 

I can't believe the only way to teach English is via anal sex and child abuse. No wonder parents want to take back the schools.

 

 

Tex, some other famous banned books.

 

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

To Kill a Mockingbird

Grapes of Wrath

Great Gatsby

1984

Ulysses

Of Mice and Men

Catch 22

Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison)

 

The ALA has a ton of books for Banned Book Week.

 

Plus:2. High school subjects are generally graphic in nature. I dissected a fetal pig for weeks in high school. I also learned about Samurai gutting themselves, Caligula pretty well personifying debauchery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, massive genocides around the world and the lynchings during the civil rights movement. A depiction of violence in a work in literature seems fairly tame compared to that.

[Soxy]

Plus:2. High school subjects are generally graphic in nature. I dissected a fetal pig for weeks in high school. I also learned about Samurai gutting themselves, Caligula pretty well personifying debauchery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, massive genocides around the world and the lynchings during the civil rights movement. A depiction of violence in a work in literature seems fairly tame compared to that.

Good point. Not to mention current headlines and news stories and pop culture stuff.

[YASNY]

This is a very interesting discussion. Great points made on both sides of the issue. I can see where a parent who has an issue goes to the school board. Thats why we elect officials. At the same time, one whack job ranting parent should not be able to influence an entire communities educational system. I believe the school board is the key here. It comes before them, gets dealt with in whatever manner and you move on.

[Mplssoxfan]

If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book.

 

One thing is almost a certainty in this mess: more kids are going to read these books than would have before. I'm sure that's not the outcome that these parents want, but it's going to happen.

[YASNY]

If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book.

 

One thing is almost a certainty in this mess: more kids are going to read these books than would have before. I'm sure that's not the outcome that these parents want, but it's going to happen.

 

It would happen over the short term, while the issue is a hot item. Once it's settled and not a topic of conversation then it depends on what was decided as to whether or not more kids read these books.

[Texsox]

If you want a challenging class, you must have challenging material. I took a class in High School that featured Giles Goat-Boy by John Barth. I wonder how these parents would have dealt with that? I'm actually fairly certain that not many High School teachers would even try to teach that book.

 

So what is the difference between a High School teacher that doesn't teach a book, and the public who does want to teach that book? No matter what books are selected, hundreds of thousands more are omitted.

 

These are public schools, and there needs to be public involvement. There should be mechanisms and procedures to make certain what is being taught is what the masses want, not one teacher. Likewise, one citizen, without broad support should not make the decision.

[Texsox]

Tex, some other famous banned books.

 

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings

To Kill a Mockingbird

Grapes of Wrath

Great Gatsby

1984

Ulysses

Of Mice and Men

Catch 22

Invisible Man (Ralph Ellison)

 

The ALA has a ton of books for Banned Book Week.

 

Plus:2. High school subjects are generally graphic in nature. I dissected a fetal pig for weeks in high school. I also learned about Samurai gutting themselves, Caligula pretty well personifying debauchery, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, massive genocides around the world and the lynchings during the civil rights movement. A depiction of violence in a work in literature seems fairly tame compared to that.

 

There are tens of thousands of books that could be chosen. Is there a difference between a High School teacher that looks at the above, or similar works, and elects to use a different work and the public that asks that the same action be taken? We can look at this list and obviously agree that they are classics and great readings for adults. I would state they are clearly not appropriate to use in fifth grade, but maybe that too would be a point of disagreement. Perhaps they are appropriate for High School.

 

Bottom line, teachers should not be omnipotent, nor should one parent.

 

I cannot take the leap from learning A&P by dissecting a pig and teaching students about anal sex in English. I can see some value in seeing internal structures of the body. I could see covering anal sex in a health class, but it seems unnecessary in English.

 

Bottom line I support parental involvement in their children's education, beyond selling candy for the senior trip. I know that is so threatening to teachers in their ivory towers.

[kapkomet]

There are tens of thousands of books that could be chosen. Is there a difference between a High School teacher that looks at the above, or similar works, and elects to use a different work and the public that asks that the same action be taken? We can look at this list and obviously agree that they are classics and great readings for adults. I would state they are clearly not appropriate to use in fifth grade, but maybe that too would be a point of disagreement. Perhaps they are appropriate for High School.

 

Bottom line, teachers should not be omnipotent, nor should one parent.

 

I cannot take the leap from learning A&P by dissecting a pig and teaching students about anal sex in English. I can see some value in seeing internal structures of the body. I could see covering anal sex in a health class, but it seems unnecessary in English.

 

Bottom line I support parental involvement in their children's education, beyond selling candy for the senior trip. I know that is so threatening to teachers in their ivory towers.

UMMMMMkay.

[NorthSideSox72]

There are tens of thousands of books that could be chosen. Is there a difference between a High School teacher that looks at the above, or similar works, and elects to use a different work and the public that asks that the same action be taken? We can look at this list and obviously agree that they are classics and great readings for adults. I would state they are clearly not appropriate to use in fifth grade, but maybe that too would be a point of disagreement. Perhaps they are appropriate for High School.

 

Bottom line, teachers should not be omnipotent, nor should one parent.

 

I cannot take the leap from learning A&P by dissecting a pig and teaching students about anal sex in English. I can see some value in seeing internal structures of the body. I could see covering anal sex in a health class, but it seems unnecessary in English.

 

Bottom line I support parental involvement in their children's education, beyond selling candy for the senior trip. I know that is so threatening to teachers in their ivory towers.

Again... the book is not about anal sex. This is what I was getting at earlier. High school students in advanced, elective classes should be exposed to challenging material. That material may contain plot devices covering matters that happen in real life but which are not pretty - war, murder, hate, violence, etc. That doesn't mean the books are about those things. It means the books use real life situations to more effective get their points across.