1984
discussion
A question on books in school
I think there are good reasons to ban books school-wide. Among them: Excessive swearing, sexual scenes, and propaganda books. Kids aren't allowed to talk or act that way at school, why should they be able to put it into their heads there?Admittedly, some parents shelter their kids more than others, but this way at least the worst books are skimmed off.
I believe your child's teacher was out of line. There is no need or even right for an adult to correct a child's reading based on a misconception as to the age level the child should be reading at. I would have reported the teacher to her principal and made my objection known. She evidently has some strangely erroneous notions of educating children and needs her thinking realigned.I,too was reading way above my age level at an early age. No one reproved me, nor did any one complain to my parents. Had they done so, I would have been annoyed. So would they have been.
As for pornography, swear words and the like, that's a complex question and you are not addressing it. The second poster did go beyond your question and raised those concerns. I do believe Americans are unbelievably puritanically uptight about sex and the child. I moved to a Hispanic country years ago and am amazed by the openness with which adults address the issue before children and the open display of sexuality. It is so much healthier than the uptight climate in the US. In the parks you will note statues of breast feeding mothers and angels with bared breasts. No big deal.
Sic Transit Gloria wrote: "I think there are good reasons to ban books school-wide. Among them: Excessive swearing, sexual scenes, and propaganda books. Kids aren't allowed to talk or act that way at school, why should they ..."OK, fair points, but where is the line. What happens if you draw a line that I do not like? What is excessive? Some will argue that all language is excessive and any mention of sexuality is excessive.
Geoffrey wrote: "I believe your child's teacher was out of line. There is no need or even right for an adult to correct a child's reading based on a misconception as to the age level the child should be reading at...."I disagree. There was no nastiness or implied threats. No harm nor foul. Just a discussion. No reason to run to the principal.
Sic Transit Gloria was well within the discussion. As for being uptight as a nation, I tend to agree, but it is who we are as a nation too.
Mae wrote: "Books should not be banned for any reason; however, for parents, teachers, and students, there has to be a means for identifying problem books before reading them. This has to extend beyond defined..."If a parent deems the book unacceptable, it is OK to not have that child read the book? If it is, then what do you do with that child when it comes to class discussion? What makes a person too extreme, misinformed, or negligent when it comes to a book? What makes a problem book that has to be identified in the first place?
Reading should be not only entertaining but it should enrich the reader's life by educating to some degree and maybe making the reader look at something from another point of view. With that being said, I wouldn't want my kids, if I had any, reading trash. Trash isn't trash because it is erotic or romantic. It isn't trash because of expletives or the use of magic or mention of vampires. Trashy books are trashy not because of content but because of purpose or reason. Most of the books that I recommend are classics, but all of the books I recommend to kids, teenagers and adults are well written and have something to say. My only requirement is to make sure the person will understand what they are reading. Let's be honest and admit that some adults have no idea what 1984 was saying but there are middle school and high school kids that do understand.
Censorship across any organization is a bad idea that puts us on a slippery slope. It doesn't matter if it is a school, a school district, a library system, a city, county or state censorship is bad. The parents should be making the decision about what books their child/children are reading, not some government or quasi-government agency.
The books on the banned books list are on there based on the number of challenges. Some of them have actually been banned and others are in process. The challenges come for a variety of reasons. Of Mice and Men was banned in California for years because it put agricultural labor in a negative light. Parents have every right to say don't read Steinbeck but the State shouldn't be able to say that.
By discussing books with kids we can teach and learn at the same time and maybe find the next Great American Novel.
I'm just completely lost with this thread... First, I don't understand why anyone would be worried about what kids are *reading*, considering the *images* they're exposed to? I mean, does anyone seriously think that reading Lady Chatterley's Lover is going to make little Johnny pounce on little Susie at recess, when they're both already taking pictures of their "Equipment" and sending them to each other on their cell poon? (Not to mention what they're watching on Big Brother (Or sister)'s iPad when s/he's not around... I mean, gimme a break.) They ought to be glad a kid is reading *anything*. Censoring books won't have any effect one way or the other; all it does is gratify the egos of "School Administrators" and other single-celled life forms.Second... wtf is with this teacher? I mean, what does "to old for him and he wouldn't understand what it was really about" mean, anyway? Somebody's supposed to think thad this kid is gonna get traumatized by, umm, huh? What? I don't get it. If it's over his head he'll just quit reading it and go back to his Grand Theft Auto V video game or whatever, NBD - it won't even be a blip on his radar screen. So what's this teacher **really** concerned about? I smell something underlying this, that's what's *really* got her panties in a wad.
Third... **Bradley**? She's worried about somebody undersatanding *BRADLEY*? The guy is borderline worthless; he just whines and emits opinion and propaganda as fact, without a care in the world. Anybody with an IQ larger than their age can "Understand" him. I mean, Dostoevsky maybe... or Kafka... or whoever, might get the kid in over his head (in which case, op. cit. ref. Grand Theft Auto anyway), but *Bradley*?? Gimme a break... Like I said, she's blowing smoke out her ears because she's got a fire somewhere *else*...
Wuddevver... Like I said, color me "Lost"...
Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I believe your child's teacher was out of line. There is no need or even right for an adult to correct a child's reading based on a misconception as to the age level the child shou..."If the comment was a casual one, then, yes, there was no need to run off to the head honcho. I stand corrected.
Brian wrote: "Reading should be not only entertaining but it should enrich the reader's life by educating to some degree and maybe making the reader look at something from another point of view. With that being ..."If a book is banned it is usually because the parents have complained about it and put pressure on the governmental bodies to ban it.
Geoffrey wrote: "Brian wrote: "Reading should be not only entertaining but it should enrich the reader's life by educating to some degree and maybe making the reader look at something from another point of view. Wi..."In some cases your comment about the parents may be true. It could be true in most cases, but not all. There have been several instances where the government (federal, state, local) or a school or library district ban a book. Parents are not always to blame.
Shelter the child, stifle the mind.
Papaphilly wrote: "Assuming that those that challenge books are both honest and serious in their intentions, is there a reason to remove a book from school reading lists?"I'm not sure what a "reading list" is...been a while since I was at the school. I assume it's the books that would be studied for exams or as part of class work rather than ones in the school library. Whichever it is, I think in this day and age there is a blinkered view if the school system thinks removing a book will stop it being read by those that want to do so...but that isn't the point is it? Those that would seek out books would do so anyway, the issue seems to be whether the text will be studied in a structured way in class I think?
I think the only reason not to study it would be if it wasn't going to be part of the exam...now that takes us down a different path as teaching kids to pass exams is not the same as teaching them how to think or analyse texts.
Papaphilly wrote: "...do parents have a right to limit what their children see at school and is there such a thing as age appropriate books?"
Once the kid is at school I think the parent has limited input into what they are exposed to...and let's be honest what they are exposed to in the classroom is only part of the school experience. I remember books and LPs being traded in the playground/schoolyard.
Papaphilly wrote: "Does your opinion change if the parent in question wants the books banned from school as compared to only for their child?"
The parent should have no influence over the school as a whole. Why should they? They could remove their child if they have that big an issue...as removing the book isn't going to stop those that want to read it doing so even if it is outside the classroom.
But the issue of childhood literacy is more important to me that what texts they are reading...those that want to read will seek things out, those that don't need to be encouraged or lead by the hand through texts...if making texts seem dangerous and banned helps kids want to read I'm all for it (oh, the irony!).
The whole "think of the children!" argument is a well-known logical fallacy, and of fairly recent origin (twentieth century; before that children were considered little better than beasts).In regards to books, it is often used by a person who was offended or disgusted by a book* as a way to get revenge on the book or the author. The idea is to get over-protective parents to react with their emotions, instead of thinking about the issue rationally. It's a childish tactic, which is why you only see religious zealots and liberals using it.
Children have one job: to grow up. Ideally, into productive, well-balanced adults -- but who are we kidding, that hasn't been a requirement for decades.
Reading books about adult situations is one way for them to mature.
Sure, some books may be inappriopriate for some children at some ages, but banning books is not the answer. Even something like The Anarchist Cookbook: if you catch a kid with it, then you'd better keep an eye on that kid -- but banning the thing only serves to make it highly-prized contraband.
(*) often without even reading it, as happened with Ulysses
Brian wrote: "Reading should be not only entertaining but it should enrich the reader's life by educating to some degree and maybe making the reader look at something from another point of view. With that being ..."So what is trash? When King, Bradbury,and Vonnegut first published, they were considered trash and now they are highly respected. I look at reading trash much like potato chips, guilty pleasure, but not much nutritional value, except all reading is good.
As for parents deciding for their children, I agree. However, what happens when that parent want no children to read said books? Where is that line?
As for challenged books, the only constant in getting a book challenged is some person does not like it.
Papaphilly wrote: "Brian wrote: "Reading should be not only entertaining but it should enrich the reader's life by educating to some degree and maybe making the reader look at something from another point of view. Wi..."You're right. One man's trash is another man's treasure or to be more politically correct, person's trash would work. That is sort of the point though. It should never be up to a panel to decide what someone should read. The only reason I think parents should have the right is because it is their child.
Even a parent can be wrong. My cousin has banished the Bible from her house because as a child she was forced to read it and not allowed to read what she wanted. This is also censorship and is wrong but she doesn't see it or doesn't care. She doesn't want her kids reading the Bible because of what she went through. She refuses to see what she is doing as censorship or hypocrisy.
Everyone,I am not playing gotcha. I am asking and will continue to ask hard questions. I am asking because I am both trying to draw out responses by pointing out the potential fallacy of an answer because nothing is magical and works in every situation and I am curious to see if there is a solution. If it makes you feel any better, I do not have the answers either. This is tough stuff and there is no easy solution.
Mae wrote: "In my response, I'm trying to keep in mind the fourth-grade reader not a high school student. I do acknowledge that parents and teachers can both be wrong, but some standard has to be set other tha..."I agree there is a difference between fourth grade and high school. At the same time, you start to cut in fourth grade, it will lead to cutting in high school.
The alternate book may be the way to go or sitting out the movie, but when the problem book is an idea? Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and the rest of them are high on the hit list, yet no nudity or cursing.
Mkfs wrote: "The whole "think of the children!" argument is a well-known logical fallacy, and of fairly recent origin (twentieth century; before that children were considered little better than beasts).In re..."
Conservatives have had their share of banned books too. Nobody has a lock on the banning. Most of the time when someone banned a book, it only made the book more desirable and sold more copies. The young that have had books banned in their home read them somewhere else.
I do agree that it seems to be personal when it comes to book banning in schools. Once at a public gathering on book challenges, I mocked a pro banning group and compared them to the Nazi's and got the exact response that I wanted. I was publicly attacked. Then I dropped the bomb and compared what they said to what the Nazis said and it was truly similarly eerie. You could have heard a pin drop. I did not win any friends, but I killed the move that night.
People whose religious beliefs are challenged by fictional witches and science, need to rethink their relationship with secular society.I could never side with a parent that led their children away from reality and tried to drag others with them. One need not tolerate self-righteous ignorance in the public sphere. In fact.......
I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children off to parochial school. I am sure that there are enough churches with enough cash in the coffers to give ample scholarships to such parents.
I'm fairly forgiving on the book front. I think controversial books are beneficial for children to read. And please, if your kid is anywhere near High School age, they're already swearing like sailors and have viewed at least one porno.But I learnt the hard way to be more involved with what your kids are reading. Even if you're only babysitting them.
My nephew is 6 so I gave him a Beatrix Potter book. The Tale of Jemima Puddle Duck. Only I had completely forgotten that it used the word "faggot" in it's original context. You could imagine my surprise when wide eyed curious bubs asked very loudly in public "Aunty, what does faggot mean?" 0_o
Reading along with them and answering questions is your job as a parent, isn't it? Even if it's a book you find questionable.
Geoffrey wrote: "I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children off to parochial school. I am sure tha..."E.D. wrote: "People whose religious beliefs are challenged by fictional witches and science, need to rethink their relationship with secular society.
I could never side with a parent that led their children aw..."
So let me ask you two this, do you think you would react OK if someone else came to you and said you were not helping your child? If you do not have children, it is very intensely personal how you raise them. Morals are funny things to try and tell some one else they are wrong even if you are doing it for good reasons.
So I will ask this question again, what is over protection? How do you define it and where is the line?
I do agree that it ends in public schools when adults try and prevent everyone from reading a given book.
As for relationships with secular society, it is their right to see the world as they see fit and raise their children as they see fit. Secular society needs to accept that let them live and let live.
Somerandom wrote: "I'm fairly forgiving on the book front. I think controversial books are beneficial for children to read. And please, if your kid is anywhere near High School age, they're already swearing like sail..."Funny story and kids do say the darnedest things. yes, it is a parents job of raising their children. I just wish more parents would be just that.
Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children off to parochial scho..."Tolerance of idiocy is not a public virtue, Papaphilly. Morals and ethics are not "funny things" to be relatively dabbled in.
If a man wants to kill his daughter because she has offended his god or honor....should we "live and let live"?
Mkfs wrote: "Even something like The Anarchist Cookbook: if you catch a kid with it, then you'd better keep an eye on that kid."Oh, no kidding - If I caught my kids with *that* thing I would give them a stern lecture and a copy of "The Improvised Munitions Handbook" and tell them, "You'd better use THIS, and not THAT stupid Hippie Radical book if you're going to make Bombs.
And you ask Daddy for help too, so we make sure you blow up the school, and not yourselves!!"
Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children off to parochial scho..."Your post doesn't make sense to me. Be more explicit.
From what I gather you are asking how I would react if someone complained to me that I was not restricting his reading habits? I would tell him to go to hell. He has no business telling me how to raise my child. Nor do I have the right to restrict my child's reading habits, unless they were training manuals for violent mayhem.
Duane wrote: "Mkfs wrote: "Even something like The Anarchist Cookbook: if you catch a kid with it, then you'd better keep an eye on that kid."Oh, no kidding - If I caught my kids with *that* thing I would give..."
If we look past the complicity in a major felony, you are to be commended for parental involvement. :}
Duane wrote: "Oh, no kidding - If I caught my kids with *that* thing I would give them a stern lecture and a copy of "The Improvised Munitions Handbook" and tell them, "You'd better use THIS, and not THAT stupid Hippie Radical book if you're going to make Bombs."You can tell the people using Anarchist's Cookbook or The Poor Man's James Bond by counting the number of fingers. Improvised Munitions Handbook and Chemistry of Powder and Explosives are much more reliable.
Geoffrey wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children of..."You certainly understood exactly what I was asking and your reaction would be much like mine. My main point was that your reaction should be every parents reaction. Even if they do not want their children to read books that you and I like.
I pointed out this is tough stuff. Lines are blurred everywhere and not necessarily for the wrong reasons either.
E.D. wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "I totally agree. I don't believe parents have the right to this over protection of their offspring. It it is too much for them then they can send the children of..."There is a far cry from public ignorance to murder. Other than the obvious, it is not a crime to be ignorant. By the way, it is virtuous to be tolerant of the ignorant. You do not have to agree or like it, but you must be tolerant. All ignorance is the lack of education. That can be changed. Those who choose to remain ignorant only hurt themselves in the long run.
Duane wrote: "Mkfs wrote: "Even something like The Anarchist Cookbook: if you catch a kid with it, then you'd better keep an eye on that kid."Oh, no kidding - If I caught my kids with *that* thing I would give..."
You need to get some help... :-)
OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, who goes on it and who is kept off of it? You do realize that there is always someone with a problem with any given book. Is is majority decides? What happens if the majority through a vote decides to remove Moby-Dick; or, The Whale, Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Catcher in the Rye because they deem it inappropriate for high schoolers regardless what other districts or academics think. It is not for their children. They do not what the exposed to material they find offensive.I will give you the reasons no less, the first has undercurrents of homosexuality and animal slaughter, The second has rough cursing and war, and the third has underage drinking and contact with a prostitute.
Do you think you know better than these people? If you think so, then what do you think their reaction is going to be when you interfere? Remember they are hard working honest people that love their children too and do not what them exposed to the harsher realities any sooner than necessary. Calling them name is certainly not going to help.
Paraphilly,Rather than post multiple times to respond to similar topics, i shall just make some observations in the name of brevity.
Nine families in present-day Charleston would disagree on your "far cry" from ignorance to murder observation. A cursory reading of 20th Century history further illustrates the point. Those who choose ignorance more often than not don't "only hurt themselves".
Educating the ignorant is a public virtue. Tolerating them in the public sphere is not, as stated above.
Are you, personally, labeling homosexuality, cursing, war, and prostitution "harsher" realities..., or are you supporting the right of the ignorant to ill-prepare their children to exist in the world?
You seem to be dancing on the head of a pin. Either you call out those who pontificate from an orifice halfway between their mouths and their ankles, or you tacitly accept their excretions. Common sense and civic responsibility demand you choose.
And..., yes..., I do know better. Don't you?
Papaphilly wrote: "OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, who goes on it and who is kept off of it?"When you take the idea to the university level, any book is an acceptable subject for study. They've been studying comic books for a decade or more, fercrissake. If someone digs up the Necronomicon, you can bet there'll be a university class somewhere reading it (no doubt with oral presentations).
At this point, you're not talking about someting inherent in the books themselves. You're talking about the age at which children are permitted to be exposed to them. "Whenever they're ready" is a good rule of thumb, but doesn't make for viable policy. Some kids aren't ready even in their seventies (you can usually tell when they try banning books they've read).
So an arbitrary line has to be drawn. No swear words before age 10 (they'll know them all by then). No sex before 13. No violence before 15. No rape, torture, substance abuse, prostitution, etc before 17. Whatever works.
But really, it doesn't matter. Regardless of what parents may think, children aren't materially harmed by reading such books. The ones that make adults uncomfortable will probably be over the kids' heads anyways.
E.D. wrote: "Paraphilly,""
I SAW that and that was NOT a TYPO, E.D. you scalawag
Ssshhhhhh! You'll wake the baby. :}
Papaphilly wrote: "OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, who goes on it and who is kept off of it? You do realize..."Yes, I know better than these people. Sheltering kids from homosexuality is about as silly as sheltering kids from race. Like they're going to come face to face with gay people, so what's the point?
Pftt, swearing. I knew the word "cunt" at age 8. I'd argue it's better to have books with swearing in school, then the teacher can provide proper context for the words, just like I had to with my nephew.
Underage drinking and prostitution might be more of an American concern for kids. There was a legal brothel just a block away from my High School, everyone knew of it. No one was instantly corrupted by this knowledge. And from my experience at least, if you didn't at least have a first sip of beer/wine/champers by age 10 you were considered weird with parents with sticks up their asses.
There are parents with sticks up their asses? Is that the next fad after body tatooing?
Somerandom wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, who goes on it and who is kept off of ..."OK, Do you have children? Do you want someone to tell you how to raise your children? If not, then what gives you the right to presume that you are more knowledgeable than a parent of their children? Even you have to admit that everyone raises their children differently and not everyone agrees on how to do that. I know plenty of parents that would neither give their children alcohol nor want them exposed to foul language and I do not consider any of them weird. It is their way of raising their children as is their right.
While I agree that teachers may provide proper context in books and I do not want to see censorship either, I also understand when a given parent is not happy with a given text to read. I do not want them to be able to remove a book, but I do not dismiss out of hand their concerns because they are not my concerns.
Out of curiosity, if that was your mother or sister working that brothel and you friends were visiting it, would you be OK with that?
Mkfs wrote: "At this point, you're not talking about something inherent in the books themselves. You're talking about the age at which children are permitted to be exposed to them. "Whenever they're ready" is a good rule of thumb, but doesn't make for viable policy. Some kids aren't ready even in their seventies (you can usually tell when they try banning books they've read).So an arbitrary line has to be drawn. ..."
You understand what I have asked from the start. I agree that it is going to be an arbitrary line and I have no idea where that line is either. I also agree that public schools need viable policies and that is where the rub is when it comes to deciding on books in school. What scares me is that much harm may be done when people try to remove materials for what they consider legitimate concerns.
I do not think books in of themselves will "Warp your mind, curve your spine and lose the war for the allies." as George Carlin would say. It is the ideas that some find so objectionable. Except, school is about educating the mind and to do that, you have to be exposed to ideas to make you think and thinking makes some very upset.
E.D. wrote: "Paraphilly,Rather than post multiple times to respond to similar topics, i shall just make some observations in the name of brevity.
Nine families in present-day Charleston would disagree on you..."
Since you brought it up, please explain what books in school and a mentally ill young man killing innocents have to do with each other?
Public education is a virtue as is tolerance. From your writing, it is obvious that you do not understand the word tolerance.
Yes, I support parents raising their children as they see fit even if it means they raise them ignorant. It is not for me to tell them different except when it comes to breaking the law or abuse, which once again is breaking the law. I will not tell someone how to raise their children and do not tolerate someone telling me how to raise my child. If you were a parent you would understand this statement.
Note my parameters, I wrote these are people thinking they are doing the best for their children. I also rejected from the very first post those that would pontificate for politics. The reason I put those two caveats in is to make this thread about honest discussion between people who do not agree on what is best.
I noticed you both attack me and make fun of my moniker, but did not answer my initial questions. What is it about people that disagree with you that bothers you so much? You already admit to no toleration for differing opinions. That is totalitarian in thinking and that is truly scary.
Papaphilly,Boo.
Ignorance in the public sphere. Influence. Ideology. Aren't all murderers "mentally ill"?
You:
Support parents raising their children to be ignorant unless they abuse them or otherwise break the law--which the ignorant must be allowed to influence...
Will not tell the ignorant what to do, or tolerate them telling you what to do...
This I call pin dancing. Are you a Libertarian?
I have raised two genetic modules. One teacher, one vegetarian veterinarian.
My parameters:
No toleration of ignorance in the *public sphere*. Is an ignorant idea less ignorant because the person holding it is "honestly" ignorant?
Boo.
This will be my last comment on this thread and is basically just restating what I've already posted, but I also wanted to plug my book. Censorship in any form is wrong. When I first started writing my novel, I was hoping that it would be the "Great American Novel". Halfway through the process I started to hear more from publishers, libraries and authors about Banned Book Week and the different Banned Book lists. At that point I decided that I wanted my book to be the next "Great Banned Book".
It talks about censorship and government control. It discusses privacy and security, and sex, drugs and rock-n-roll. Everyone on this thread should check out Off the Grid: The Catalyst. It is on several Listopia lists and has some great reviews. It could be the next Banned Book in schools, libraries and states. www.offthegridbook.com
Papaphilly wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, who goes on it and ..."I am a flawed individual. I do not know all there is to know. Neither does ANY parent. The fact that we refuse to correct a parent on their parental concerns is troublesome. Where is that line drawn? Say a parent wants to raise their child in violence, in depravity. Should we just stand aside and let child abuse occur just because a parent "has the right to raise their child any way they want?"
A kid is not property, it's a kid. That responsibility not only falls to the parent but other adults around that child. That's why we have schools.
I agree that parents have the right to raise their children any way they want (without abuse, of course) that's why we have opt out options you know? But even still, sheltering a child is proven to be detrimental, so I would argue that it's the responsibility of the teacher to guide a child despite it's head stuck in the sand parent. Because that is more beneficial than throwing a child into the world without proper preparedness.
LOL!! If my sister or mother worked in that brothel and my friends paid them a visit, we would all be adults. When you have legalized prostitution, it's a lot like alcohol, accepting minors is just too detrimental for profits as a legitimate business. So because it's in their best interest, minors are heavily monitored and kept out. Anyway, things would be rather awkward, but as reasonable adults I'm sure we could work things out.
And that brings up a question that is currently being asked as to whether parents have the right to restrict their children from vaccinations? Michelle Bachmann raised the question and it has been floundering since. If the parents are Christian Scientists do they have the right to deny their children medical attention? For me it is clear cut. They simply do not. The child has rights that supercede those of dominion by the parents.Even more clear cut is an example from Waterbury Connecticut in 2001. The mayor was a pedophile and contracted the services of a 10 year old whose mother sold her in an act of sexual slavery. We must recognize from the very onset of this conversation that parenthood is not sacrosanct and these two are but examples of that.
Geoffrey wrote: "And that brings up a question that is currently being asked as to whether parents have the right to restrict their children from vaccinations? Michelle Bachmann raised the question and it has been floundering since."Huh?
Out here they can get out of ANY sort of medical procedure for the kids, but if the kids end up damaged (Or dead, unless they're just Goth), the parents go directly to jail, do not collect any more methamphetamine or Jesus.
I.e., yeah Mr. and Ms. Parent, go right ahead with your rocket science, but you better be right about it...
E.D. wrote: "You:Support parents raising their children to be ignorant unless they abuse them or otherwise break the law--which the ignorant must be allowed to influence...
Will not tell the ignorant what to do, or tolerate them telling you what to do..."
No, I support parents raising their children to their standards. I do not support someone telling me how to raise mine, nor do I tell them how to raise theirs. I have raised mine to my standards and left others to raise their to their standards. I watched how some parents made their children wear their hair very short, wear certain or not allow certain clothes, would not allow them to listen to certain music, watch television, or give them a smart phones. This included access to certain books sometimes. Some were for religious reasons and most not. These people raised their children to their standards and gave/prevented access for their reasons and it is not up to me to determine how they raise them. This had nothing to do with money, it was about life choices. I did not agree with most of their choices and they did not agree with mine for my family. Still, I do not criticize them because they were honest in their belief they were doing right by their own.
If a parent chooses to raise their children ignorant, that is their choice. I chose not to raise mine that way and that is my choice. This is about morals not politics. Please do not confuse the two unless you are one of those that cannot understand the difference.
I agree ignorance is ignorance regardless of motive. However, people have the right to be ignorant whether you or I like it or not.
I notice that you did not answer my question on what a mentally ill young man has to do with books access in school unless you think that the books would have prevented him going on a rampage.
I started this thread to discuss if there is a way for those that truly disagree on which books should be in schools. I do not have the answer on where the proverbial line is, if there is one; on what books belong.
Since you brought up politics, I want to point out one fact, both the far left and far right have long histories of book censoring. The Libertarians no so much.
Geoffrey wrote: "And that brings up a question that is currently being asked as to whether parents have the right to restrict their children from vaccinations? Michelle Bachmann raised the question and it has been ..."Somerandom wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "Somerandom wrote: "Papaphilly wrote: "OK, so lets change this up a bit. Where do we draw the lines to what is acceptable for school books? Do we have a committee and if we do, ..."
Both of your points are well taken and excellent. I have already noted that parents do not get to abuse their children, sexually or otherwise. I probably should have added health and welfare just as the various levels of government have in place. Please understand, I want all children raised in healthy loving homes. What I am talking about is the different ways of meeting that goal including access to books in school. Here in New Jersey parents are on the hook for ensuing their children can go to college if they are financially able. There are more than a few states that have that requirement. That means if you want them to work in a car wash and they want to go to college and you can afford to help, you are on the hook.
Parenting is sacrosanct and the Supreme court ruled on that. Those rights were affirmed in a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Troxel v. Granville, about a case regarding grandparent visitation rights, when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children … is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court." That does not means there are not limits, even free speech has limits. It does mean parents get to decide for their children. I never limited access to books to my family, but I never provided books to those that had parents ask me not to do so out of respect for their wishes. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I respected others to raise their children as they saw fit.
As for immunizations, if parents do not want to immunize, then as foolish a policy is that, I would respect it. However, I also note that these same parents do not get the right to send their children to public school without immunizations. They do not have the right to potentially place other children in danger to exposure. That is a health and welfare issue and the state has an interest in protecting the public health. As I said, there are limits.
Papaphilly wrote: "Geoffrey wrote: "And that brings up a question that is currently being asked as to whether parents have the right to restrict their children from vaccinations? Michelle Bachmann raised the question..."Well I do agree with you. Ultimately. The opt out method is usually the compromise we have at school regarding books. (Though I would argue that just causes more problems for the kid.) I do recall in grade 4 some lady apparently tried to get The Twits removed from the library. So naturally my teacher read it to the class soon afterwards.
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...
My question is this: Assuming that those that challenge books are both honest and serious in their intentions, is there a reason to remove a book from school reading lists?
Before you answer, think about this: do parents have a right to limit what their children see at school and is there such a thing as age appropriate books?
The reason I ask is when my son was in fourth grade he read Flags of Our Fathers. He was questioned by his teacher at the time and it just so happened that I had a meet the teacher night that night. it was brought up that he had the book and she was questioning who he received the book from. I explained that I gave it to him and if she has any questions about the books he is reading, she can assume I gave it to him or she can call me and ask. I then asked her what the problem was with the book and was told that she thought it was to old for him and he wouldn't understand what it was really about. I asked her did she talk to him about the book and she replied no. I told her that he understood and that did catch me off guard given his age. I then explained that he wanted to read the book and that's why I gave it to him.
In all fairness to his teacher, she was not nasty or pushy and was very concerned that it was out of his league. She never challenged him again, but then it was made abundantly clear that I would not be a happy camper if she kept up her challenges.
What did happen was that I have ever since wondered what is an age appropriate book and when does it cross into censorship, if it does. It also made me wonder if a parent can take opposite tact from me and demand their child not read a book they find offensive. I assume that they are acting in their belief that they are doing the best for their child be not exposing them to ideas they do not find appropriate.
A couple of caveats. I am not talking about pornography because that truly has no place in school. I am also not talking about religious texts except as a comparative religion class meaning this is the religion in question and this is what they believe. I am not talking about proselytization because in my mind that has no place in public schools either. I am also only talking about public school because private school has its own set of rules you must agree to before you enter the school.
Finally, I have posted this thread on other groups I joined and I am every bit as interested in your thoughts as others. The group tends to read the very types of books most banned in schools.
For the sake of discussion, lets assume everyone is acting for the right reasons and this is not a political gamesmanship. Does your opinion change if the parent in question wants the books banned from school as compared to only for their child?