1984
discussion
A question on books in school
Ruth wrote: "She's already told me when she dies I have to go to the cemetery to read to her. lol ..."I love that! Thank you for sharing your story!
I think your mother was wise!
Ruth wrote: "I've never understood this "age appropriate" nonsense. Every child is different and comprehends at different levels. When I was in the 4th grade my reading comprehension was on a high school level..."My parents never truly censored what I read either. I'm fine. But then again, I had friends whose parents did and they're fine, too. "age appropriate" is probably a lot more about the parent's personal ideals, morals and thresholds than the child in question. I read books with sexual content as young as 9-10 while I had some friends who were in their teens and their parents still wouldn't let them read anything like that. I don't think either one of us turned out any worse off than the other. I think there is a lot more that goes into raising a child than what you let them read or don't let them read.
Now youse has got me wondering WHAT my parents intended. They *owned* all the banned stuff of that era - James Joyce, Henry Miller, Jan Cremer, Colette, thisthatandtheother, and I don't think they were even *paying attention* to whether I read it or not. They must have had thousands of books; so many that I don't think they would have even been able to deicide what I should be reading of it and somehow sequester away whatever was going to corrupt my 6-year-old morals, Or Something...I will say though, the old man had L. Ron Hubbard's "Dianetics" on the shelf and I read *that* at about age 11 or something and it made me vaguely nauseated and I concluded that L. Ron was a *total* whackjob, so that inoculated me pretty well against Scientologeeks (though I didn't know it at the time).
But he also had a bunch of Forensic Medicine books on the shelf in his lab and there was stuff in there that was *far* worse than *all* the horror movies he wouldn't let me watch, *combined*... and again he didn't seem to have a *clue*...
All of which causes me to view this whole thread with a sort of dumb uncomprehending bewilderment...
Duane wrote: "Now youse has got me wondering WHAT my parents intended. They *owned* all the banned stuff of that era - James Joyce, Henry Miller, Jan Cremer, Colette, thisthatandtheother, and I don't think they..."Why are you bewildered? The stated intent of the thread was plain. The unstated intent has shown itself beautifully. Are you bewildered that some parents will not let their children read what they want?
Mochaspresso wrote: ""age appropriate" is probably a lot more about the parent's personal ideals, morals and thresholds than the child in question... I don't think either one of us turned out any worse off than the other. I think there is a lot more that goes into raising a child than what you let them read or don't let them read. ..."
Yes, there is much more to raising a child than just reading material and it is not an easy job. Your statement is beautiful about all turning out OK.
Papaphilly wrote: "Are you bewildered that some parents will not let their children read what they want?"I think I'm bewildered that parents supposedly exist who somehow manage to *know* what their children "want" to read... (much less what they're going to stumble into over at Suzy or Tommy's house, or on the Internet, or wherever...).
Sooo, er, anyway. Other than the usual questionable subject matter (erotica, how to build a bomb...) I don't think that there is a reason to prohibit reading matter for anyone. I used to read a lot of 'big people' books when I was younger, didn't necessarily enjoy them but it brought my reading on a lot. Big and meaty subject matter books were usually dull enough to put me off. Letting younger folks read bigger people books allows an entry for discussion that can open the book further. A friend's eldest had recently read The Hunger Games (yes, I know it's a 'young adult' book, whatever that means; consider its themes in comparison to those of grown ups' books) and a handful of us adults got into a discussion about the book. Before he was really aware of what he was doing the young 'un was sensibly discussing plot, history and character with the grown ups.
I think that there is a great value in having read a book as a young person and then coming back to it at a later age; the themes develop, plot turns mean more to the reader as they mature.
I've been reading and rereading the Hitchhikers books since I was about 9, I recently spotted a gag that had passed me by in every previous read, perhaps fittingly I am now 42.
Tony wrote: "Sooo, er, anyway. Other than the usual questionable subject matter (erotica, how to build a bomb...) I don't think that there is a reason to prohibit reading matter for anyone. I used to read a ..."
You now know the answer to everything.
OK, so, Inquiring minds want to know... Now that we've deicided to prohibit kids from reading questionable subject matter like how to have sex and build a bomb, how can we be sure to keep the list of stuff that they're not supposed to read a secret, so they won't have the usual "oppositional defiant" reaction and insist on finding and reading whatever it was that the adults have proscribed, just because it's now "Forbidden Fruit"?
Duane wrote: "OK, so, Inquiring minds want to know... Now that we've deicided to prohibit kids from reading questionable subject matter like how to have sex and build a bomb, how can we be sure to keep the list..."Yeah, Duane is right. In 1979 I had never heard of the Anarchist's Cookbook, but once I found out what it was, and that a classmate had it; it was only like two weeks before we were making our own napalm in the garage. And not because we really wanted to, just because we weren't supposed to.
...and most , if not all of this, is available freely on the internet. I fully defend the mindset of teaching people about sex properly rather than let them make horrendous mistakes themselves. Otherwise you end up with a cultural belief that it's dirty, wrong and horrid, meant to be endured rather than enjoyed.
Yes, there's the forbidden fruit aspect but really, a lot of anarchist cookbook 'secrets' shouldn't be in everyone's hands, should they? Pay attention in chemistry classes and most of it is rudimentary.
My point really is about books in school and that you can't really say "this is a book for growed up people, little folks can't read it". That's all.
...and 2 weeks to make Napalm, were you on holiday for 13 3/4 days?
Duane wrote: "OK, so, Inquiring minds want to know... Now that we've deicided to prohibit kids from reading questionable subject matter like how to have sex and build a bomb, how can we be sure to keep the list..."I asked about books in public school. I did not ask about what is at home or what parents choose for their children at home either. That is at home. I asked specifically about school because that is where the clash is going to be between public and private choices.
I also noted that it was pornography that should not be in school, not sex education. If you do not understand the difference, there is no point in trying to explain.
Holly wrote: "Duane wrote: "OK, so, Inquiring minds want to know... Now that we've deicided to prohibit kids from reading questionable subject matter like how to have sex and build a bomb, how can we be sure to..."Except that book was not in the school library, but your friend had it? Your point is valid, but that was an outside influence, not school provided. That is also an issue parents have to deal with when it comes to trying to raise their children, how to deal with the kid that always gets his hands on that kind of material.
Still supporting the right of the prudishly ignorant to dictate what *public* schools can teach or make available to *The Public* due to their deeply held ignorance, eh..Papaphil?To give any credence at all to ignorance is, in itself, ignorant. Do you agree?
It doesn't MATTER if "The School" Provides it, or if Daddy has it on the shelf in his chem lab (along with a COMPLETE inventory of the necessary ingredients, MIND you...) or if Suzy and Tommy on the block have got it... The point is that if *anybody* - ANYBODY - has a *list* of what's *not* supposed to get read, 13-year-old Me is NOT going to rest until he gets his grubby little paws on that list, and THEN on the BOOKS on the list.Like, as in, "what exactly IS it that these creepy adults don't want me to see"?
So, how ya gonna prevent THAT? I mean, "whatcha gonna do.. Send me to Vietnam?"
(and - @Holly, as I've emphatically warned before, DO NOT let your kids use The Anarchist Cookbook to make bombs! - INSIST that they use "The Improvised Munitions Handbook" instead, to make sure they blow up the school and not themselves!!)
I think that we all need to calm down and read the original post.
E.D. wrote: "Still supporting the right of the prudishly ignorant to dictate what *public* schools can teach or make available to *The Public* due to their deeply held ignorance, eh..Papaphil?To give any cred..."
I actually believe in letting the ignorant speak for themselves and you are doing a magnificent job of it.
Ha, where's the like button?
Duane wrote: "It doesn't MATTER if "The School" Provides it, or if Daddy has it on the shelf in his chem lab (along with a COMPLETE inventory of the necessary ingredients, MIND you...) or if Suzy and Tommy on th..."E.D. wrote: "Still supporting the right of the prudishly ignorant to dictate what *public* schools can teach or make available to *The Public* due to their deeply held ignorance, eh..Papaphil?
To give any cred..."
You two have been trolling this post from the start. I do not know if you cannot help yourselves or think you are funny. You have done everything to disrupt the conversation and yet have not answered my original post. So please keep proving your ignorance by making those inane comments.
As a matter of fact, you get to make the last comment because I will not respond to either of you again. So feel free to shower us with your lack of wisdom.
My Dearest Papaphilly,Disagreement is trolling? What an enlightened approach to public discourse you have.
I've answered your "original post" multiple times.., in multiple ways. In general it remains: Ignorant ideas in the public sphere demand a policy of NO TOLERATION. Ignorant ideas are no less ignorant because those holding and expressing them are heartfelt and honest in their belief. If one's opinions and beliefs require one to ban books--or ideas--in opposition to the general public or academic thought…, then one should exercise their options to separate from the public aspects of society one finds "objectionable". To seek to set public policy to conform to one's personal preference is a political act. Whether moral, religious, cultural, or partisan based…, a political act. If you can't handle the democratic principle of majority rule and social consensus, explore the many alternatives…; THAT is your option.
Seems pretty damned clear to me.
Now, seeing as you've played the "troll card"…there's no further need for me to point out the vapidity of your reasoning. Your "internet shunning" and metaphorical huffing off to the monkey bars illustrates my point for me. Thank you.
Need a towel after your shower? :}
Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be better if the book was removed only if many parents have a problem with it. Some parents forbid children from reading a book for a minor reason, and sometimes irrational. If many parents have a problem, the probability of the reason being legitimate will be more.
Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list"Why?
It is never the intelligent, well-educated parents arguing for a book to be removed from required-reading. It's always the ignorant. And the ignorant really shouldn't be making decisions that affect others.
So now the parents have a greater right to reading lists than the professionals?
Sigh....the trouble with "the democratic principle of majority rule" comes when one finds oneself in the "minority" and thus deprived of any right to one's individual opinion or belief. Numerical superiority is only numerical superiority.
Mizzou wrote: "Sigh....the trouble with "the democratic principle of majority rule" comes when one finds oneself in the "minority" and thus deprived of any right to one's individual opinion or belief."And how does this fit into what books are assigned in school?
The parents are not being deprived of their opinions or beliefs. They are free to hold those beliefs, and express them as well. What they cannot do, however, is impose those beliefs on others: their children, the other children at the school, the school staff, the board of education, and society at large.
Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be better if the book was removed only if many parents..."Hallie,
Not to put you on the hook, but what is irrational? Assuming that a parent is not playing games and politics; I assume this with you because you are writing from a reasonable point of view of community standards, what makes them irrational? Your definition? My definition?
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks is recently challenged because a mother found the word "cervix" pornographic. Is she right? I do not think so because I do not find the word pornographic. However, she finds it so and that is her opinion. Is she being irrational?
Geoffrey wrote: "So now the parents have a greater right to reading lists than the professionals?"Professional have had their blooper too. Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? was banned in Texas by the Texas School Board because Bill Martin Jr. the author shared the same name as an obscure Marxist theorist and nobody checked to see if it was the same person. This was in 2010.
We've touched on the Texas SBOE earlier in this thread. Are you calling the political whack jobs that politically maneuvered themselves the power to place their god and ignorance in every classroom "professionals"?Sorry. Forgot. I'm a troll. :}
Mkfs: I was bothered by Hallie's post about how "it would be better if the book was removed only if many parents have a problem with it" plus E. D.'s post about not being "able to handle the democratic principle of majority rule". Because of that, "community standards (or values)" as a yardstick by which to determine the 'suitability' of reading material for public school pupils would be shaped by the 'majority' of parents weighing in on the matter. That 'majority' would then impose its collective opinion on all, including the 'minority'. Would any dissent from the 'minority' then be disallowed? Who gets to appoint himself/herself censor of what public school pupils shall and/or shall not read?
Mizzou wrote: "Who gets to appoint himself/herself censor of what public school pupils shall and/or shall not read? "Educators, naturally. There are university degrees for this sort of thing. People who are specialists in the education system make decisions about curriculum, just as they have been doing for decades.
Sure, it's not perfect, but it beats involving parents or politicians. You want to mold young minds? Here, go through 6-8 years of training first. Maybe you won't muck it up as bad as Kansas did.
Mizzou,Regarding education and minority positions…, there are alternatives.
Private, charter, religious schools. Home schooling.
The majority doesn't impose it's will under "pain of death or imprisonment". Reason and social consensus--reached by reasonable people--doesn't lead to punitive action.
A minority whining about it's persecution because it's not allowed to impose it's beliefs on those in the majority is unreasonable, and is incapable of ever reaching social consensus.
Papaphilly wrote: "...because Bill Martin Jr. the author shared the same name as an obscure Marxist theorist and nobody checked to see if it was the same person. This was in 2010. ..."Now, THAT's what I call ***success***... To have the mere mention of your *name* cause schoolboards to scream in terror
E.D. wrote: "... the political whack jobs that politically maneuvered themselves the power to place their god and ignorance in everyclassroom "professionals"?
Sorry. Forgot. I'm a troll. :} "
WhAT??
How do you KNOW that?!!
You're not cLEARed for that type of informaTION!!!
<< !!!!GuARDS!!!!!! >>
Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be better if the book was removed only ..."Papaphilly, I used my friend as an example. Her parents do not allow her to read some books because 'it involves kissing'.
Mizzou, I'm not saying that the minority must not be considered, if only one parent has a problem, unless the reason is genuine, it's better to give it more thought than removing it instantly.
Mkfs, before I answer, what is you opinion on parents moderating books read by children for casual reads.
How do we feel about schools who have removed 1984 in favor of more contemporary titles?My nephew's school is reading
and
and
. Good or bad? Should majority rule if a bunch of parents simply don't want their kids reading "that boring book that I (never) read in HS and I can't believe they are still trying to teach kids that crap." Believe it or not, this scenario actually happens a lot.
Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "So now the parents have a greater right to reading lists than the professionals?"Professional have had their blooper too. Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? ..."
The school board consisted of academic professionals or those that were politically connected?
Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be better if the boo..."Had my parents done that, I would have hidden those books they disapproved of. Parents simply don´t have the right. Children have rights too and in their reading choices usurp those of their parents.
OK, well, my apparent anti-censorhip position(s) notwithsatanding, I DO want the schools to make sure my kids are getting their instructions on how to blow up the school from "The Improvised Munitions Handbook" and NOT "The Anarchist's Cookbook". It's a safety issue, plain and simple.
Duane wrote: "OK, well, my apparent anti-censorhip position(s) notwithsatanding, I DO want the schools to make sure my kids are getting their instructions on how to blow up the school from "The Improvised Muniti..."Oh, Duane, I have a lovely little book I picked up in Ireland back in the 80's......sadly out of print now.......but highly instructive.
Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be better if the boo..."Hallie,
My brother would not let my niece read Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul because she was twelve. Why? I have no idea and we were not raised that way either. I found that odd, but it was his daughter and his home.
As far as parents choosing their children's reading habits at home for casual reading, I will defend that right even if I disagree with their choices. I stay out of other family choices as I want them out of mine. If parents choose to allow or not to allow freedom of choice for their children, I respect their right to raise their children as they see fit even if that means they are not allowed to read as long as I am allowed to raise my family to my standards.
As far as a "genuine" reason, what is genuine? Your friends choice not to allow their child to read about kissing, is that a genuine reason? Your friend certainly thinks it is even if you do not. My brother certainly thought his reasons were genuine even if I thought he was be idiotic.
While I tend to agree with what you are actually trying to say and have noted that very sentiment, I also think ignoring others thoughts is not good either even if I do not agree with them.
Mochaspresso wrote: "How do we feel about schools who have removed 1984 in favor of more contemporary titles?My nephew's school is reading
and and..."That is a great question. I have no issue with books being circulated out in favor of contemporary works. I was forced to read A Separate Peace BRRRR. I was very glad to find that book gone when my son was in high school. My only caveat is that the works replaced are not being replaced by a less contentious title to keep the peace or the works are not being dumbed down.
Geoffrey wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be be..."Geoffrey wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "So now the parents have a greater right to reading lists than the professionals?"
Professional have had their blooper too. [book:Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What D..."
The Texas School Boards are elected positions. As in all elected officials, some will be better choices than others.
As for parents overseeing their children's reading habits, I am going to disagree with you. Not the sentiment, but the actuality. I do agree there will be plenty of reading on the sly and I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing, but I will not tell a parent how to raise their child even if I do not approve of their methods.
Holly wrote: "Oh, Duane, I have a lovely little book I picked up in Ireland back in the 80's......sadly out of print now.......but highly instructive."
All right, Holly. You can't fool me. I can smell you thinking. Let's just cut to the chase:
How much?
Anyone in this conversation familiar with the expression Christian privilege" ? An earlier expression, to suggest the presumptuousness of white Americans, was "white privilege". Also, taking a vote to decide something only leads to a "score"---so many FOR, so many AGAINST. That is NOT a consensus! Religious schools are not public schools, and do not depend upon the public purse. Public schools in the USA, a religiously pluralistic nation, are funded by U.S. taxpayers, en masse, and cannot show favor to some taxpayers and disfavor to others. P.S. E.D.: It's is a contraction for "it is"; its is the possessive form, as in its will, its persecution, its beliefs. "It's not allowed" was a correct usage. The other three called for the possessive form.
Mizzou,Thank you. I shall ruler slap my typing finger for its misbehavior. :}
P.S.- Votes are what happens after social consensus is reached. Whether you agree or disagree with that consensus will most likely determine how you vote.
Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I think it would be be..."Well, I think parents must know a little about the book children are reading even at home. There are some children who take books from the adult section, and I don't think a twelve year old must read Fifty Shades of Grey.
My friend's parents have strict laws. I'm not really close to her, but I once overheard someone saying that her parents don't let her do things others do. We have shared books, and it was during one of these when I found out that her parents didn't allow her because of that. I wouldn't consider that a genuine reason. I would have been more flexible if it contained erotic content, but only for kissing? It comes along with some draconian rules in her house.
I respect your opinion as well, but if I said an orangutan is a Homo sapien, my friend might find it asinine, but I might find it authentic.
"Social consensus" = "Groupthink" ?as in Big Brother's world? or Dr. Goebbels' (Nazi) Germany? or the justification for something, as offered by teenagers (Everybody's doing it" ?
That kind of "consensus?
Why bother with a vote after it is reached?
Pilate still needs to wash his hands of the matter, and collectively, the myrmidons need the stamp of "Officialdom" to reassure themselves that they're "Following The Rules".The Reichstag continued to meet long after all parties other than the NSDAP had ceased to exist, and they became nothing but a rubber stamp...
Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Hallie wrote: "Well, my opinion is that parents reserve the right to moderate books in the school's reading list, but there must be a limit. I t..."I am not talking about home reading as important as that is to child development. I chose public schools as the battleground for a reason. This is the one area that clashes with home views that cannot be overridden so fast. There will be natural antagonisms if the school and the home have large differences of what is proper, whether it is religion or other child rearing decisions. Education is in part about exposing students to new and different views of the world and some of those views will clash with what is taught at home. Books in particular create much turbulence due to the differing morays and ideas presented and that can create problem within the home especially if the family in question does not approve.
Using your friends kissing issue as an example, her parents probably do not see kissing the same as you. They may see kissing as always erotic, the first step to sexual relations. Assuming this for the example, they ban their child from reading about it because they do not want their child enticed. That is in the home and it is their right. Now however, a book comes home and there is kissing in it. It may be nothing more than a peck on the cheek as a hello in the book, but remember they see all kissing as erotic. Now something that is banned at home is now at home coming from school and that is the rub. Something they do not want their child exposed too is being disseminated at school.
Now I do not want parents removing books they find offensive, but I do not think they should be ignored either, which of course sets up the loggerhead.
As you mention age appropriate books, I tend to agree there are such things and that needs to be worked out.
You may find an orangutan human and truly believe it. You may not allow your child to go to the zoo because you think it is wrong to see Orangutans locked up in the zoo and that is your right. Where the line is drawn is when you do not want any child going to the zoo and try to have it abolished as school trips or even allow pictures of the zoo to be in school.
But the rest of us and our parents have no problem with kissing. So I don't think it would be prudent if only one person has a problem with it. In this case, only my friend's parents have a problem, so the school will give it a thought, but usually, they think about such stuff. So when they've already thought about it they give their explanation. However, if many have a problem, the school needs to examine it again. That is my opinion. The concept is similar to yours: they don't necessarily have to be removed, but they must not be disregarded either.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
A Separate Peace (other topics)
The House of the Scorpion (other topics)
Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul: 101 Stories of Life, Love and Learning (other topics)
Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Unwind (other topics)A Separate Peace (other topics)
The House of the Scorpion (other topics)
Chicken Soup for the Teenage Soul: 101 Stories of Life, Love and Learning (other topics)
Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See? (other topics)
More...
to her and then we talk about what we liked about it or didn't like about it. She's already told me when she dies I have to go to the cemetery to read to her. lol