I Know Why the Caged Christophobe Sings

[Vodka7]

I said the parents did not ask the daughter what she was reading, and your reply was to answer that the daughter went to the parents when she got to the rape part.  When *I* brought a new book home from school, my parents asked me every time what I was reading, what it was about, and questions like that.  No one in her family did so.  The daughter did her job by going to her parents for help, and the parents did what they believe is their job from that point on.  But when she brought the new book home, no one asked her about it.  It's not like high school classes read an entire book in one night and it's not like the rape happens on page one, chapter one.

I have two main points here, that we fundamentally disagree on:

1) Removing a book from the curriculum is the same as banning it outright.  Both cases ensure the book is not taught, and I think we can agree that just about 99.9% of typical high schoolers would not bother reading the book if it was not assigned to them.
2) Alternate books provide extra strain on the teacher, who has to split his or her resources by teaching two books simultaneously to his students.  Teachers are not going to do this.  They're not going to have 90% of the class reading one book and 10% of the class reading another book because it's ridiculous to spend half of their time on 10% of their students.  Even if the split were 50/50 and he could teach both sets of students equally, it still means he has to cover the same material he would normally do in one hour-long period in thirty minutes.  This is going to lead to a situation where some teachers are going to purposefully avoid controversial books in order to make sure no one could object to their choices.  That way they go back to the old system, where everyone reads the same book.  An uncontroversial book.

Anyway, I won't be able to make you see my point of view.  So I'm just going to close here with the books I read in high school from the most controversial book list linked in your articles.

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut
Lord of the Flies by William Golding

And, you know, it's funny to see Mark Twain on that list.  Because I never had any Twain assigned to me in high school.  Never got assigned Mice & Men, either.  You'd think Steinbeck & Twain would be staples in any American litererature class.  Guess they've been around long enough that families like the one in the story got to them back in the old days, when "removing a book" was just called "banning" and "values-based" was good old "Christian values."

[Matthew Carberry]

I'm not sure how not requiring a student to read a book, which is all that "removing it from the curriculum" means, prevents teachers from recommending the book as worth reading on your own, or suggesting it as another book that deals with similar issues as the assigned text.

It isn't removed from the library, nor spoken for or against from the teacher's desk, nor does it mean a child can't self-select it as a project if that's how that teacher teaches.  It just isn't required to be read for credit which is, under no definition, a "ban".

As far as "hard on the teacher" goes.  My English teachers had numerous books in their lesson plans  and rotated them throughout the school years to prevent boredom (for them) and to make it more difficult for kids to crib off of other student's previous work.  Knowing that you will be removing one book from the list of a dozen that you've used in the past can hardly be considered a headache.  Most teachers add books to their curriculum all the time anyway.

As far as only "non-controversial" books being taught, so be it.  English class should be teaching kids ways to appreciate any book they read, not "exposing them to XYZ" to somehow better them.  Bettering themselves is up to them and their parents.  If they ask, teachers are free to say, "you might like this or that book".  I read whatever the hell I wanted to read, in school and out.  If a kid is so stupid as to only read what is spoon-fed them in class, I'm not sure I can be made to care.

[Perd Hapley]

But when she brought the new book home, no one asked her about it.

How do you know that?  As someone already pointed out, the parents may have looked at the book but not found the controversial portions.  I have heard from parents that take time to read every word of what they're children read in school, but that is probably not a realistic expectation for every parent. 

Main point one is irrelevant.  No one in the situation sought to have the book removed, although I certainly would have.  If it's bad for kids, it's bad for kids, no matter who they are. 

Sorry, I misread something.  They WERE asking to have the book removed, as they should have. 

Main point two places blame on the wrong person.  There is simply no need for high school literature teachers to assign books with graphic sexual scenes.  If the teacher has to split up his time teaching a controversial book and a non-controversial book, blame the person who decided to teach the controversial book. 

That way they go back to the old system, where everyone reads the same book.  An uncontroversial book.

  If the controversy is graphic depictions of child rape, that would make perfect sense. 

[Vodka7]

Main point one is irrelevant.  No one in the situation sought to have the book removed, although I certainly would have.  If it's bad for kids, it's bad for kids, no matter who they are.

From the article:

"Heres what David and Lorrie asked the district to do in their complaint, which consisted of a two-page letter dated October 6, a district form and 10 pages of supporting materials: Remove Caged Bird from the districts curriculum."

Main point two is important because it illustrates how instead of censoring or removing the book outright, the district opted to enforce a policy that is likely to lead to self-censorship that will hand the family the win they wanted anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Vodka.  I was going by the article that RevDisk linked:

Both parents said they were disturbed by what they call a graphic, sexually explicit description of the sex act in Angelou's autobiography, but they never asked that the book be banned or censored.

Whoops, I was incorrect.  The same article said they DID want the book removed from the curriculum.  But that would make perfect sense.

Vodka, why shouldn't the school self-censor, for this kind of material?  Why shouldn't the parents win (if their goal was to ban the book)?  Why should high schools assign novels that graphically describe the rape of children?  Aren't there other books they can and should use for an American Lit. class? 

[roo_ster]

Why should high schools assign novels that graphically describe the rape of children?

Because graphic depictions of child-rape being read by children is what this country was founded upon.  It says so in Article LXVIIII.

If we remove depictions of child-rape from the classroom, the terrorists* will have won.

* AKA: Parents, Grandparents, and associated other troublemakers NOT appearing in sexual predator databases.

[Vodka7]

It's an advanced English class, which in my mind means the material students are reading should be at least one to two years above their age level.  So you've got advanced 15 & 16 year olds reading a book that normal 16-18 year olds should be able to handle.  And the average 16-18 year old can read a challenging excerpt about the rape of a child without being "sexually awoken," to use a phrase from the article.

And I've carefully tried to keep the issue about censorship because I think way too much Black literature is taught in American lit classes, and a lot of American classics are currently untaught.  But, advanced classes should tackle difficult works and difficult issues, and child molestation is a difficult issue.  Reading a passage such as the one in the book builds a working, rather than theoretical empathy of what it's like to be raped as a child.  The graphic depiction is useful because of the way it worked on the child--but instead of making her sick and lashing out at rape, it made her sick and she lashed out at the book.

So while I would not have made the choice to put Caged Bird on a reading list, I defend the teacher's right to do so, because ultimately I believe a personw ith a master's degree in education is in a better position to chose an educational book than a parent who hasn't read the book is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Everybody on this board mocked the schools that removed peanut butter from the lunchrooms because some kids were allergic.  I'm sure quite a few of you would be in an uproar if a school removed ham sandwhiches and switched to all-beef hotdogs to cater to some muslims.

But some Christian wants a book removed from the curriculum because she has a problem with it?  Oh no, then it's time to support an unreasonable minority.  And maybe I'm out of touch with the red states, but up here a sixteen year old in an advanced english class is expected to be able to read a challenging passage without complaint.  If she didn't want to read the book, she should have taken an F and shut up about it--this choose-your-own-education stuff is a load of crap.

Allow me to be painfully blunt:  you're full of *expletive deleted*it.

Did you actually read the article?  It certainly doesn't sound like it.

The objections raised by the parents had nothing to do with religion or with how challenging the passages may have been.  They had no intentions of banning or censoring anything.  They simply wanted the option of not forcing their child daughter to participate in graphic, explicit descriptions of child rape.  What's so wrong about that??

If you live in a world where raising your kids properly makes you an unreasonable minority, then I sincerely pity you.  But don't force your bankrupt existence and world views upon the rest of us.  Some of us want better for our families. 

"Take an F and shut up about it"?!!  Heck, why stop there?  Why bother to raise our children at all?  Let's all just turn the trivial matter of child rearing over to the state.  Surely they know best.  Anyone who disagrees should just shut up and get with the program or else be punished, right?   

[Matthew Carberry]

It's an advanced English class, which in my mind means the material students are reading should be at least one to two years above their age level.  So you've got advanced 15 & 16 year olds reading a book that normal 16-18 year olds should be able to handle.  And the average 16-18 year old can read a challenging excerpt about the rape of a child without being "sexually awoken," to use a phrase from the article.

And I've carefully tried to keep the issue about censorship because I think way too much Black literature is taught in American lit classes, and a lot of American classics are currently untaught.  But, advanced classes should tackle difficult works and difficult issues, and child molestation is a difficult issue.  Reading a passage such as the one in the book builds a working, rather than theoretical empathy of what it's like to be raped as a child.  The graphic depiction is useful because of the way it worked on the child--but instead of making her sick and lashing out at rape, it made her sick and she lashed out at the book.

So while I would not have made the choice to put Caged Bird on a reading list, I defend the teacher's right to do so, because ultimately I believe a personw ith a master's degree in education is in a better position to chose an educational book than a parent who hasn't read the book is.

I was in the honors and AP English program my entire Jr. and Sr. high career.  It was never my understanding the purpose of the English program was to introduce me to more sophisticated or "adult" topics.  The books I read that were more advanced, were more advanced due to the complexity of the plot, the vocabulary used, the more complex points of view and perspectives.  The topics in terms of sexual content, violence and vulgarity may have been more "mature" but that was secondary and in no way necessary to learning the higher principles of English language and literature being discussed.

You don't have to have "adult" themes in order to learn to read or comprehend at a higher level.

If you want to learn about the sociological and psychological effects of child rape, you take soc. or psych.  All English should do is make sure you can read the words and comprehend the meaning of any topic at that level.

It is not the place of English class to expose children to anything but English reading, writing and comprehension.  Any competant instructor should be more than able to come up with a wide variety of books to do so without introducing child rape.  If they can't they don't deserve to teach.

[roo_ster]

On a more serious note...

Removing a book from the curriculum is not banning a book.  Neither is it censorship.   Seeing that the class in question was English, how 'bout we use the English language for our discussions, not Newspeak?  Truly interested children can still read graphic depictions of child-rape in FdL's libraries and classrooms, so there is still hope for the Republic.

So, what is the downside of a school district assigning a less controversial book not containing descriptions of white trash girls' inverted & exposed crotches?  Are there not other worthy works of literature written in the English language that might bear consideration?

I guess we'll have to disagree on the following:

...ultimately I believe a personw ith a master's degree in education is in a better position to chose an educational book than a parent who hasn't read the book is.

My experience with education departments has lead me to believe that their denizens and products are singularly unqualified to make such decisions.  I would rather trust in a random draw from the local phone book than trust a random Ed Dept MA holder.

The graphic depiction is useful because of the way it worked on the child--but instead of making her sick and lashing out at rape, it made her sick and she lashed out at the book.

Vodka7, I really do wonder about you after reading the above quoted sentence.  I think you ought to do some thinking about what the purpose of education is and the place of education providers.  I do not think it is what you describe.  As a parent, I don't want some educrat trying to use such material in a utilitarian fashion to "work on" my children.  I think the original article had something to say about this:

You know enough about the emotional cost of premature sexual involvement, the consequences of sexual abuse, the pernicious grip of pornography, that you want to carve out a space where a kids conscience can grow  unmolested, so to speak.

That, after all, is your prerogative as a parent. And you dont want some ideologically motivated teacher or school official usurping it.

Are you with me here? If youre a parent, Im pretty sure you are. Unless youre one of those folks who likes to involve their kids as guinea pigs in clever social experiments, in which case, hey, its all about you anyway.

[Vodka7]

The objections raised by the parents had nothing to do with religion or with how challenging the passages may have been.  They had no intentions of banning or censoring anything.  They simply wanted the option of not forcing their child daughter to participate in graphic, explicit descriptions of child rape.  What's so wrong about that??

Wrong.  One of us didn't read the articles, but it wasn't me.  The parents did not want an alternative, they wanted the book removed from the curriculum.  I even quoted that line directly once already.  Removing a book from the curriculum is the same as banning the book.  In both instances you're saying to teachers "you can't teach this book."  And you're saying to students "we don't want you to read this book."

If you think that forcefully removing a book from a curiculum because you think it is sexually explicit is different from banning a book, you are wrong.

[Matthew Carberry]

Nope, banning the book means it is not allowed in the school at all. 

"Removing from the curriculum" simply means it cannot be assigned, in class, for credit.  It is still available in the library for students to read and teachers are free to mention it.

That is hardly a "ban" it is simply placing it on the same level as the thousands of other books available in the library that aren't taught for credit, with the codecil it cannot be.

It affects the students ability to learn English not a whit.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The objections raised by the parents had nothing to do with religion or with how challenging the passages may have been.  They had no intentions of banning or censoring anything.  They simply wanted the option of not forcing their child daughter to participate in graphic, explicit descriptions of child rape.  What's so wrong about that??

Wrong.  One of us didn't read the articles, but it wasn't me.  The parents did not want an alternative, they wanted the book removed from the curriculum.  I even quoted that line directly once already.  Removing a book from the curriculum is the same as banning the book.  In both instances you're saying to teachers "you can't teach this book."  And you're saying to students "we don't want you to read this book."

Well now, let's see about that.  Did the parents want to ban or censor the book?  Did they want to prevent students from having access to the book?  Or did they merely want to prevent the book being forced upon students against their will?  Let's see what the article said:

While school authorities mulled those questions, Lorrie and her husband, Dave, requested an interim solution for Caitlin. She was parked at the end of the hallway in a study carrel, where she worked through an alternate but hardly parallel work, Mark Twains The Prince and the Pauper.

Heres what David and Lorrie asked the district to do in their complaint, which consisted of a two-page letter dated October 6, a district form and 10 pages of supporting materials: Remove Caged Bird from the districts curriculum.

Heres what David and Lorrie did not ask the district to do: Ban Caged Bird from the school library or censor the content somehow.

It's right there in black and white.  All the parents wanted is for their daughter not to be forced to endure sexually explicit child rape depictions in class.  No censorship, no banning, nothing even remotely unreasonable.

If you think that forcefully removing a book from a curiculum because you think it is sexually explicit is different from banning a book, you are wrong.

Has the book been banned?  Have the parents asked for it to be banned?  Has any interested student been prevented from reading it?  Has it been removed from the library?  In all cases, 'no'.    You are wrong.

Most English courses have a list of required titles which every student is expected to read, as well as a much longer list of individual reading titles from which students are expected to read one or more titles on their own.  So merely removing it from the curriculum (i.e. taking that book off the list of required titles) doesn't prevent any of the students from reading it.  In fact, it doesn't even prevent it from being used by an interested student for part of his/her coursework.  All it does is give parents the option of not having their children forced to read it.  Which, to beat a dead horse, is exactly what these parents sought from the school district, not banning or censorship. 

You are wrong.

[Perd Hapley]

My head is sore from banging against the stone wall of a closed mind.  You guys go ahead. 

[Vodka7]

They sought to ban teachers from teaching the book.  That is a ban.  I don't know how many more times I can say that.  If it's not on the curriculum, it doesn't get taught.

Apparently, for it to count as a ban for you guys, it would have to be removed from school grounds, public libraries, bookstores, and preferably, every copy on Earth be burned.

The family can say whatever they want to say, but their actions stand in direct oposition.  They did not *ask* for an alternative book, or that students be allowed to chose alternate books in similar future situations--that is the result they *got.*  They asked that the book be removed.  Because they found it against their morals, they didn't want *anyone* being forced to read it.

I don't see how this "yank it out of the classrooms but leave it in the library" crap flies with you guys.

[Matthew Carberry]

There are thousands of books equally available to students not being taught for credit.  Of equal or greater merit.

Ban means the book is unavailable, that is not happening, hence no ban.

Just no grade attached.

[gunsmith]

Apparently, for it to count as a ban for you guys, it would have to be removed from school grounds, public libraries, bookstores, and preferably, every copy on Earth be burned.

it aint a banned book if it indeed in the schools library, my problem with caged is that it is a tiresome self important bore.
All of Maya's stuff is,  Charles Bukowski is ten times better then she is... 

Why not have them read Tolstoy?

[Vodka7]

Charles Bukowski is ten times better then she is... 

Oh thank God, finally something I can agree with someone on   But imagine a book like Women, Post Office, Factotum, or even Ham on Rye getting past parents like these...  Not gonna happen.

Me, I spent a lot of high school burning through as much Buk, Hamsun, Celine, Fante, and Vonnegut as I could find, but I know I'm in a very small minority.  The few of my peers who did read books that weren't assigned read sci/fantasy and nonfiction outside of school.  If a book isn't on the curriculum, it can't be taught.  If it can't be taught, it's not going to get read.

If you don't believe me, ask your children or your nieces and nephews.  See how often they check out literature that isn't assigned to them.  See how often they go to the library except to do research or use a computer.

And really, I'm not as big of an enemy to you guys as you might think--you'd probably be surprised to learn that I actually think the bible should be taught in American public school.  I don't think there's a book written you can learn more from.  I don't care if it's libs like myself wrongfully fighting to keep the bible out of classrooms, or conservatives like yourselves fighting wrongfully to keep Caged Bird out of classrooms, I'm against censorship.  It's pretty sad that I didn't have a professor until college who had the guts to put even an excerpt from the most important book on Earth on a syllabus.

[Matthew Carberry]

If a person isn't self-motivated to go read on their own or be taught by their parents I doubt having a book assigned is the answer.

Let the illiterates die on the vine or figure it out later.

[Perd Hapley]

Vodka, one of your assumptions seems to be that schools need to make students read literature that their parents either object to altogether or think their children aren't ready for.  Literature that deals with sexuality.  Why is that?  Given the very different attitudes parents have toward sexuality, why put teachers in charge of teaching about it?  I'm not talking about teaching sex education, I'm talking about the social aspects of sex.  Wouldn't students be at least as well-served teaching "classics" that parents would be less likely to object to, such as Tolstoy, Dickens, even Hemingway?  (I don't know how explicit Hemingway and Tolstoy might get, but the point is that parents would be more supportive of it.)  If you were wondering, I've never read much Tolstoy or Hemingway.  I guess a teacher should have made me do it, so I could sit through one of those sessions where a bunch of my illiterate, gum-chewing classmates could struggle to figure out what they're supposed to have learned from the book.  Spare me the pain. 

And as for this school notification crap, how lazy can a parent be?  Did he talk to his daughter?  Did he even see what books she's bringing home from school every day?  Oh no.  That's too much work.  Let's have the school send home letters that the same children we aren't talking to won't bother to give us anyway.

Why would you even say that, when you deny the parents any say in what their students read, anyway?  Your opinion seems to be that teachers are responsible for giving students a govt.-issue education over which parents should have no control.  I note that you go on after this passage to deride the idea of alternate reading material.  Your message seems to be that parents with a dissenting point of view should follow their kids around cleaning up the messes the teachers have made in their kids' heads. 

[Perd Hapley]

I don't care if it's libs like myself wrongfully fighting to keep the bible out of classrooms, or conservatives like yourselves fighting wrongfully to keep Caged Bird out of classrooms, I'm against censorship.  It's pretty sad that I didn't have a professor until college who had the guts to put even an excerpt from the most important book on Earth on a syllabus.

Vodka, by your definition, every book NOT being taught in a school curriculum is being censored. 
  The high schools are censoring Good Night Moon* and Marvel Comics!   

You might be surprised how many conservative Christians DON'T want public school teachers mis-teaching the Bible.  I'm with you, though, it needs to be at least briefly considered simply because of its importance to Western culture.  That doesn't mean I want them to teach just any parts of it, though.  Like the passage about the concubine who's raped and killed, so her master cuts her up and distributes her throughout Israel.  Or the passage that graphically describes early withdrawal birth control. 


*It's a children's book.

[roo_ster]

For any First Amendment non-scholars out there who might be operating with faulty understanding: Not providing taxpayer monies to not teach a particular book is not censorship.  Driving oneself to tears over the sheer wonderfulness of Maya Angelou does not change this basic fact.

Vodka7, folks who think it appropriate to assign books with graphic child-rape content to high school sophopmores have no business teaching anything out of the Bible past the copyright date & publisher.  Or using pointy-ended scissors without supervision.

[richyoung]

For any First Amendment non-scholars out there who might be operating with faulty understanding: Not providing taxpayer monies to not teach a particular book is not censorship. 

Exactly.  Neither is NOT spending your own money to NOT see a Dixie Chicks concert.

[gunsmith]

I am a huge Bukowski fan but I'm not sure high school kids should read it, when I was a young punker in the old days I tried to get the other kids interested in it though.

Tolstoy is someone all of you must read, he has written short Stories if "War and Peace" is to much for you.
"Resurrection"  is probably one of the most important must reads of all time.

If you want an incredible book "Painted Bird" by Jerzy Kosinski, probably not suitable for 9th graders, maybe seniors...maybe.

The Village Voice doesn't want you to read it though.

[BryanP]

It says right in the article that she's in the Advanced English course.  She should expect to be exposed to advanced topics.  If she's not ready for that then she should switch to the standard english course. 

Hell, my AE teacher made us read Deliverance.  Talk about some weird discussions ...