I Know Why the Caged Christophobe Sings

[Matthew Carberry]

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 ...

Bryan,

As someone who never took a non-Honors/AP English course I feel quite qualified to state that Advanced English does not equal "mature" or "adult" topics (subject matter) it means the books are written with a greater complexity, less traditional style, larger vocabulary and, perhaps, more universal themes.  Books that lend themselves to more "thinking about" than simply "experiencing" on a surface level.

In analyzing the literature it usually means you form an opinion on the topic, which may or may not be in line with the author's position, but that doesn't mean the topic itself has to be "controversial" in the sense of shocking one's morals, merely that it has reasonably plausible opposing points of view or nuance of meaning.

Accomplishing the goal of teaching "advanced" English does not require or even imply a book or other assigned reading needs vulgarity, brutalization, overtly sexual topics or explicit detail. 

[roo_ster]

BranP & others:

I think y'all are making the mistake many folks in the 20th century made: believing that because something is transgressive of prevailing mores it is better, more "advanced," more sophisticated, and such.

Sometimes smeared feces on the wall is art, sometimes it is just smelly manure.  Either way, it does not belong in a high school sophomore art class as there is plenty of fine art that is not also offensive to those footing the bill.

Tolstoy Anecdote:
Florence King read War and Peace and a few other of Tolstoy's works.  She found them unbearable bores and thought it was a function of the translations.  She then learned Russian and learned that his work is a bore in the original Russian, too.

She is not called a misanthrope for nothing.

[Perd Hapley]

I think y'all are making the mistake many folks in the 20th century made: believing that because something is transgressive of prevailing mores it is better, more "advanced," more sophisticated, and such.

Thank you.  I wanted to say that, but couldn't quite put it into words.  I'll go read Penthouse Forum to improve my English skills.

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.

In other words, if your parents have any sort of moral scruples, you're bound to be a slow learner.  And if you're not reading Anne Rice novels in the seventh grade, you're just an idiot.   

[Vodka7]

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.

My definition just says there's a difference between not teaching a book because you don't want to, and not teaching a book because someone has told you that you can't.

And I am surprised that some conservatives don't want the bible taught in public schools, but I can definitely understand that point of view.  Better to not have something taught than to have it taught in a way that could foster misunderstanding.  I agree with you that carefully selected passages could really benefit every student regardless of religion--there's a ton of medieval and renassaince literature that doesn't make much sense without a decent background in at least Genesis.

And I'm not defending Caged Bird.  I don't think it's a great book.  I am defending the right of a teacher to teach controversial books with graphic depictions of unseemly situations.  Because even though it's no skin off my back if Caged Bird is removed from the curriculum, it worries me that next time someone's going to go after As I Lay Dying, Beloved, or or Invisible Man.  All of those three have really difficult passages with graphic descriptions of nasty things, and especially in the case of As I Lay Dying, some decidedly un-christian elements.

[richyoung]

My definition just says there's a difference between not teaching a book because you don't want to, and not teaching a book because someone has told you that you can't.

Why is it OK for the TEACHER to make that decision, but not the teacher's boss, the school board, or the parents?

I am defending the right of a teacher to teach controversial books with graphic depictions of unseemly situations. 

You are defending a "right" which does not exist.  The school doesn;t belong to the teachers, nor do the students in it.  The public school belongs to the community polity that funds it - the students belong to whoever has parental custody of them.  The teacher is just an employee, and has NO RIGHT to anger or contradict his many bosses, which are: the school's senior administration: (principles, etc.), the school board, the parents of the students, and the community.  Anger ANY of your superiors in ANY profession, and bad things will happen to you.

A "right" that DOES exist is the right of PARENTS to control the exposure of their children to sexually explicit material without being counter-manded by a school system that, by law, their children must attend AND that they pay for.

If the teacher wants children to read rapes scenes, or watch "Girls Gone Wild", let HIM hatch some progeny over whom HE has the right to make such a determination - but NOT over captive subjects.

[Perd Hapley]

ALL CAPS aside, rich said it well.  Vodka, you're motive is now clear.  You hate the idea that anyone with a more traditional viewpoint would tell anyone else what to do.  Got some issues with your parents? 

[Vodka7]

No issues with my parents, but you nailed the rest of it on the head.  I don't want conservatives telling progressives what to teach.  You don't want the progressives telling the conservatives what to read.

I do have a lot of issues with what is and isn't taught in high school english classes.  It's a very sore point for me--most high school classes are heavily biased towards modern Black literature and against the classics.  Most classes jump straight from 1650 to 1950 with little to nothing in-between.  But, that's another discussion.

I think you may have missed this part, Rich:

"She approached Caitlins teacher, then worked her way up the schools chain of command, informing them in private that she didnt want her daughter to read any further in the book or participate in class discussions about it."

So, she went to the teacher, and the teacher disagreed.  She probably went to the principal, and the principal disagreed.  Maybe even the superindtendent.  They ended up in front of the school board, and the school board ultimately disagreed as well and did not remove the book from the curriculum.  They did compromise and allow alternatives in the future.  So, the teacher's book choice did not anger her "many bosses."  Her most direct bosses all supported her.  The school board more-or-less supported her.  Most of the protestors supported her.  So really, the teacher only angered a small subset of one of the groups you label her bosses.  If anything, it's analogous to a worker who has the support of his manager, director, and president, but has a few complaints from a minority of stockholders.

But, I think some people here are getting pretty upset over my posts, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation.  I've made just about all the points I care to make, and no one agrees with me.  So, I'm going to shut up and take my F

See you all in happier threads.

[Bogie]

Oooh! Oooh! OOOOH!
 
I know why it sings!
 
SHOW TUNES!!!!
 

[Perd Hapley]

I don't want conservatives telling progressives what to teach.  You don't want the progressives telling the conservatives what to read.

By progressive you mean leftist?  That's another argument.  I won't get upset about either side expressing their opinion.  This is not about one camp telling the other what to do.  This is about parents having a say in what their tax-funded schools are teaching their own children.  You would not have a problem with this is if it weren't coming from a more traditionalist point of view.  You see the whole school system and the couples' own child as victims of some repressive bunch of prudes.  As if we prudes have the power to victimize anyone. 

I think some people here are getting pretty upset over my posts, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation.

I don't think anyone's getting upset.  If they are, it's because you seem like a smart guy, but won't relent from a patently absurd point of view.  It's frustrating.