What motivates banning books?
 

I moved this from the "racist judge" thread. It merits a discussion of its own.

This is a list of books challenged or banned (in schools somewhere in the US by or about African Americans:
This is not to suggest that the above list is representative of all book banning. But does racism play a significant role in banning the books listed above?

WTF is going on when books ranging from Catcher in the Rye to Gossip Girls are banned.

The most frequently challenged books in 2006

The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) received a total of 546 challenges last year. A challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint, filed with a library or school, requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness.

What motivates book banning? Are the efforts sincere or a screen for intolerance.

What can (or should) we do about it?

A HERO AIN'T NOTHIN' BUT A SANDWICH by Alice Childress
in stock at amazon.com

A LESSON BEFORE DYING by Ernest Gaines
in stock at amazon.com

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MALCOLM X by Malcolm X and Alex Haley
in stock at amazon.com

THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF MISS JANE PITTMAN by Ernest Gaines
in stock at amazon.com

BELOVED by Toni Morrison
in stock at amazon.com

THE BEST SHORT STORIES BY NEGRO WRITERS by Langston Hughes
in stock at amazon.com

THE BLUEST EYE by Toni Morrison
in stock at amazon.com

THE COLOR PURPLE by Alice Walker
in stock at amazon.com

GO TELL IT ON THE MOUNTAIN by James Baldwin
in stock at amazon.com

I KNOW WHY THE CAGED BIRD SINGS by Maya Angelou
in stock at amazon.com

JUBILEE by Margaret Walker
in stock at amazon.com


Unless we know the specifics as to why each school district arrived at their decision to make certain titles unavailable in their school libraries, we can only assume the criteria used. I'm sure other titles on various topics from a diverse range of authors have also been deemed inappropriate and made unavailable to students at school libraries. There is a difference between banning and being merely unavailable in a public school.

Each and every one of these books are available to anyone in the free market. These titles are also available through my local public library. It appears that anyone who is interested may read these books at any time.

The specifics (in general terms) are in the article: Banned somewhere in the U.S.A
One purpose of school reading lists are to stimulate discussion.

WHy are so many people afraid of providing a supervised, structured program in schools to allow young adults to discuss such books as Catcher in the Rye or Huck Finn?

Here's another good link.

http://www.abffe.org/bbw-booklist-detailed.htm

So many bible touting parental groups "protecting" their children from sex and nasty words.

Truly sickening.

And this is what it comes down to, in at least 95% of the cases and I'm being generous. I'll put money on it.

Sure, the books are available at Amazon, but that's not the point. I think sending a message to our children that the most important thing to know about a work of literature is whether something in it might be deemed offensive regardless of its context within the work is very unfortunate. I'm constantly amazed at what can be accomplished with fear and short-sighted ignorance.

So the point of this thread I assume is to somehow cast white America in a poor light for being afraid of these negro books or some such nonsense?

I don't think this is the right word.

I think a truer statement would be ....

Why do so many people think some books are unsuitable for children.

Because thats all this is really about, and for that you can debate all you want.

There were several books I've read which were entertaining and thought provoking as an adult which would not have been good for me to read as a child. One I read, and I forget the title, I'm sure someone here will know it, started with a court case where a woman is accusing a man of rape and fathering her child. She lost the case because genetically it wasn't his child, and he confesses to the reader that he used a syringe with someone else's sperm. The book itself is very homoerotic with a ton of drug use.

Now this is most likely not an appropriate book to be reading in highschool. Honestly there are equally important things to learn in school and books to read that don't talk about how to hide heroin residue in your clothes for getting your fix while in a jails holding tank or going to Mexico for sex with underaged boys.

So the question is where do you draw the line. Every parent is going to have their own line. I'm sure some wouldn't mind if their children were reading Hustler, and others think books were a bad idea to start with. Both for good and bad there are ways for parents to change their public school curriculum and as such the squeaky wheel can get some changes made.

When you add 'public' to the discussion the public is allowed to get involved and as someone who works with said public all the time, I can say there are a lot of idiots out there, and some of those idiots are parents or on school curriculum boards.

Of course my kids will not be going to public schools, despite the money I'm forced to pay for them because I want my child to get the best education possible, not the government issued, union supplied, lowest common denominator version.

Banning books is banning intellectual growth and honesty. There's only one reason to do that: they don't want intellectual growth and honesty.

BTW, The Biography of Malcolm X was one of the best books I read, and I read it when I was like 16.

I find it interesting that we pick and choose rights we defend or want taken away.

These books, as Otto pointed out are available outside of the schools from which they are banned.

And why do we not discuss Huck Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, Of Mice and Men, Harry Potter and so on also. All these books have been banned also.

http://www.bookreporter.com/features/010928-banned.asp

Banning books is flat out wrong, but it is not a government mandate it is a local school's decision, so it's not a true "banning".

Does the government tell you, or anyone in this country they cannot read these books? Does government the government forbid you from buying these books?

So they aren't truly "BANNED" are they. Certain schools or public libraries do not wish to carry these.

Years ago I would have fought against the schools and argued and blasted.... but now I realize.... they are available in this country, just not that school or public library.

Call me when the government decides to start making it illegal to read or buy these books.

It's the idea that some thoughts aren't acceptable in schools that bothers me. School should be about broadening one's horizons. And quite frankly John Steinbeck sucks and I would have much rather read Catcher in the Rye or I Know Why a Caged Bird Sings than Grapes of Wrath. It would have made my learning experience more rich, but neither of those books appeared in my high school library despite being some of the best ever written.

well, i dont know folks: you'd think that creating and maintaining a more rather than less open environment for kids in school would be better, wouldn't you?
more inquiry rather than less--more ability to address coherently issues that might be discomfiting rather than less.
you'd think that enabling kids to experience more rather than less intellectual freedom would be desirable--because maybe then, at the least, they'd have a sense of what was being lost when their reactionary parents decide that they don't like the politics of a particular book--or when later they as parents have to debate this kind of issue amongst themselves.

that's why i'm opposed to banning books.

i don't know if i'd teach "beloved" to high school kids, though, not because i am concerned that it'd freak them out, but because i don't know if they have the background reading other things to see how the novel works.
it'd depend on the students.
it'd depend on the school.

i've taught books that are way beyond the level of students before, and it sometimes is very interesting and productive and sometimes it isn't.
again, it depends on the students, the school, the course, etc.

so there's pedagogical reasons to include or exclude particular texts---so it's simply not the case that because it's possible to teach a book to high school kids that every book will be taught to them. i mean, i guess you *could* teach ulysses to high school kids, but it'd have to be part of a program that sets them up to deal with literary modernism.

personally, i think one of the stranger little problems is that kids are taught to be superficial readers by giving them superficial books and discussing them in superficial ways--so it's hard to convince them that they'll probably have to reread alot of more complicated books, and that they'll see them differently each time they do it. like their one-dimensional parents, they want everything easy peasy, all on the surface--they dont want to work at understanding because they don't think they should have to.

i'd worry more about that than about whether some book might "turn little johnny gay" or some other such idiocy.

See, maybe I was a weird one. My parents promoted my sister and I to learn. We were members of book clubs and my parents and grandma were very open politically. I read the newspaper from front to back, I watched the news and I learned all I could.

I think it's up to the families to help their children, just like mine did for me. I also realize that today we have a problem with that because economically both parents usually have to work and aren't there to encourage their kids. But that is another issue.

Both of mine worked.... but mom worked 3rd shifts and it is a different situation today, my parents by the time I was in high school never worried about bills. Parents today worry about them daily and that stress adversely affects the family and the quality time they can give their children.

But again, another issue.

Banning books is nothing but ignorance and puritanism. Obviously, nobody is suggesting that we start reading the juicier highlights of Henry Miller's Sexus to Little Johnny's kindergarten class, but it's absolutely ridiculous to ban any books from being read by high-school age children, and most books banned from middle schools are done for fairly indefensible reasons.

In any case, at least regarding high school kids and their reading, whether we approve of it or not, kids in high school are expanding their minds and trying to find themselves; they're at the very least thinking about having sex; they are confronted all the time by opportunities to drink, smoke, take drugs, engage in illicit, illegal, dangerous, or ethically questionable activities; and they face racism, homophobia, sexual harassment, anti-religious bigotry, and oppressive religious fundamentalist attitudes, as much as adults do-- and sometimes even more acutely. In short, anything that you might read about in a book.

By banning books that deal with such subjects, we are essentially telling them one or more of the following:

A) We have no concept of or are in total denial about what your real life is like;
B) We know what you face out there in the word, but we think you should do it without having great works of literature to reflect on as philosophical and psychospiritual preparation;
C) We know what you face out there in the world, but we think you're too stupid and immature to read about it;
D) We may or may not know what you face out there in the world, but in any case, we don't trust you to think for yourself, or to begin learning to think for yourself;
E) We don't care what you face out there in the world, we don't care how prepared you are, we want at all costs to retain the illusion that we control you.

All banning books really ends up doing is making sure that kids don't read challenging literature. It makes for less educated, less sophisticated, less aware kids. Nothing else.

There's something very odd about calling the act of declining to shelve a particular volume in a particular school library "banning a book". As if a local decision made based on local values is somehow Fahrenheit 451.

I have a hard time getting worked up if Mississippi doesn't teach Huck Finn. It'd be nice if our education system was in such good shape that something like that was a real problem. But there are much more fundamental, much more structural things that need addressing before Beloved's merits as a summer reading assignment should be debated.

My children (if and when there are any) will read freely from any printed work, with me as a guide and mentor. On the other hand, their Internet usage will be severely restricted via technological means until they reach sufficient savvy to defeat the lock themselves. This plan achieves several parenting goals at once, and I like it a lot.

My high school library got a LOT of traction out of its "banned books" display. Most of us read most of those books, and only because of the aura of scandal that the display generated for them.

The specifics from the article are only descriptions and commentary of each outcome. It does not state the specific criteria used to evaluate each book.

Are we talking about young adults (college age) or high school age kids? What is the purpose of these discussions that we are attempting to stimulate in our high schools? Is allowing certain topics for one or two minorities fair to the other students who want to read controversial titles not attributed to afro-americans? Is the criteria for allowing/disallowing books in various school districts meant to show fairness for all students... if we can't let group A have titles containing certain topics, then we can't allow similar topics for group B? Don't most schools celebrate black history month? Schools in many districts have a hard enough time graduating students that can read above a third grade level let alone trying to accommodate all view-points and sociological trends. Would these topics not be well served conducted in after school book clubs?

otto--so you're defending a community that bans certain books?
you're defending the ability to ban books?
you yourself would ban certain books, given the chance?
you don't think books can be banned because there's amazon?
you're just asking random questions without a real argument?

Eh?

While there are many books idiots try to get banned from their libraries which are quite important literary works I don't think books like.....

Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite - #2 in 2000
Sex by Madonna - #19
The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein -#28

Would be 'challenging'

Over all I think this is about sound and fury but signifies nothing ;)

Looking at that 2000 list I can see a few I read in school...

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck - #6
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger - #13
Lord of the Flies by William Golding - #70
Native Son by Richard Wright - #72

But I did read them even if they were challenged frequently in libraries, and I can understand why Native Son is on that list, its a rather nasty book that can promote racism if not properly discussed. Hell most of those books on the top 100 list are sex Ed books, and I can only guess what Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite (#2) is about.

Out of the 10's of thousands of books out there, I'm sure you can raise educated, sophisticated children into educated and sophisticated adults without using ANY 'banned' book, though losing Lord of the Flies would be sad.

Lord of the Flies, Animal Farm, and 1984 should all be read before starting contemporary history classes.

Ustwo = scared of sex and gays?

Are we talking about public schools and the community's right to assess what is appropriate to be offered to all students of that community within the scope of the district's educational mission and resources (money, time, people)? I wouldn't call that banning. These books are available outside of school, they are not "banned". I am against banning of any books in the free society and the market economy.

uh...so you don't think there are bannings.
there are just resource allocations and decisions which are of a piece with them.
so any community can allocate any book out of the cirriculum and you're fine with that, because "buy it online" means there are no "bans" and if there were, you'd oppose them, but there aren't any, so you're cool with books being "allocated" out of the cirriculum because some nitwits imagine that reading x might encourage little johnny to become gay or worse to think independently of the parents on political questions. for example.

um...because if these abstract nitwits were to decided to allocate a book out of the cirriculum, that's not banning.

so there are no banned books.

wait.

You get that from where exactly?

I don't think I agree Ustwo. I think the front put forward by parents/leaders in communities who defend banning art/books/plays/music etc, is that they are "protecting their children" but the real reason is "sheltering their child" from an idea or thought that they themselves may disagree with, or are often afraid of; such as racism.

What's worse, is not only are they denying their children the breadth of incredible literature at our fingertips, but they are often creating a single train of thought by denying all others.

Ignorance, which I think almost all of these cases are based upon, is the complete opposite to education. It's ironic really. Banning books to teach children a "better" lesson. It's bullshit if you ask me; I've read Catcher in The Rye probably ten times and I've never felt obligated to murder anyone. I've listened to Helter Skelter and have never had a violent episode. I don't want to kill anyone for Jodie Foster nor do I condone drug use or shooting cops because I play Grand Theft Auto. Bullshit.

edit: I think it was your comment about "Daddy's Roommate".

Read 'Native Son' and then imagine your typical teacher trying to discuss it with a class.

Black boy's abusive father leaves home, grows up poor, becomes a thief, gets a job as a driver for a rich white family, sexually assaults drunk daughter and accidentally strangles her so her parents don't find him fondling her, murders his girlfriend, and is then defended in court by the American communist party.
Its been a long time since I read the book but it might be a bit out of order.

What age should this book be read?
What type of teacher could lead a discussion?

Could you see where parents might be concerned?

Most of the time I think removing a book from the curriculum is pointless, but I think its perhaps the most minor issue we have to deal with in our education system.

native son is a great book.
it's not so hard to teach it.
the writing is quite clear and it does alot of work for you, if you're teaching.


o wait--theres a COMMUNIST in it that isn't dangling upside down from the nearest yardarm. and FAR worse than little johnny becoming gay is the possibility that little johnny will not agree with you politically and worse than that might run away to join the communist party of the late 1940s.

a real & present danger that.

Ummmm, I think you misrepresent the events in the book a little bit, but no, I don't think we should hesitate to discuss the book Native Son with high school age students.

The three books you listed to exemplify poor books dealt with homosexuality (Daddy's Roommate by Michael Willhoite and The New Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein) and sexuality (that piece of crap by Madonna).

Just fyi, young people have sex, and some young people are gay. As a matter of fact, Daddy's Roommate could actually help quite a few young people who have two mothers or two fathers in a monogamous homosexual relationship.

Yes, books are banned. But unless we frame the context of why, we are simply demonizing the practice by using an unsavory term. Do we allow pornography, KKK materials, witchcraft, bestiality, sadomasochism, man-boy love, religion? If they are not allowed in schools, are they not banned? These are extremes, but we do draw lines in our schools.

Yes thats nice, but first did I SAY they should be banned from the public library?

No.

I do think its a rather non-point to the concept that by banning these books we are impoverishing our childrens development. If they want to learn where to stick it in another man there are plenty of sources outside of the library next to the school.

And I didn't say that you said that. I said that you used them as examples of poor books.

I did?

I didn't even mention him hanging the kitten or burning the first girls body.

I actually don't think its a bad thing to read it in highschool but I can understand why some parents wouldn't want it included, and I can think of several english teachers I had who would be completely unable to handle discussing such a book in class.

Also, I didn't say they were poor books, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over them not being in the public library.

I have and I will (imagine that is).

Here's what I think though. I think you're making a sweeping generalization, grouping every child of every upbringing together to label them unfit. And that is exactly what banning materials does; it assumes that every person is unprepared to deal with the complexities of a certain piece of work. Which is only furthering their underdeveloped opinions. Human beings, not just adults, have the right of free will, within the bounds of safety when it comes to children. There is nothing unsafe about Native Son. It is provocative, but that is the point. It provokes you to think. You are completely underestimating all young adults and children. For no reason?!

I directed a play in high school called "Bang, Bang, You're Dead" about a school shooting. Parents had shit fits and they didn't read it, or think about it. "School shootings should not be endorsed in schools!". Too bad the play is about the human condition, emotion, and loss. And the kid realizes why he was wrong! Wow, the opposite of what they assumed.

There are messages within Native Son that you are dismissing because of the subject matter. Unfair.

EDIT: Also, by dismissing art because of their subject matter you are creating a child who carries on your beliefs. You sound pretty homophobic. Keep it to yourself.

It's not like they're not being included because they're obscure or there's not enough room on the shelves, though. We're dealing with a thought policing situation, which is entirely different. Even though I hate Steinbeck, I'd definitely "lose sleep" if his books were actively removed because they featured themes that schools or libraries consider to be wrong or inappropriate. That's what I take issue with.

Well, yes, you did. And it completely illustrates my own objection to banning books. Native Son is a 544 page book (I just had to go grab my copy and look). 1. I think your use of the term 'sexual assault' is inaccurate and 2. your summation leaves out a lot of significant details to the story. I mean, come on. It reduces what is universally known to be one of greatest works of 20th century American literature down to the 5:00 news level.

And just because you know a few teachers who would not be able to handle teaching a class on this novel doesn't mean that none should.

Last I heard having sex with a drunk girl was rape, so no, I think sexual assault covers it, though he didn't get past fondling before her mother came by and he killed her.

And yes I left out a lot of details but I think that would cover most of the objections don't you think?

Christ and I NEVER SAID IT SHOULD BE BANNED I READ THE DAMN THING IN HIGHSCHOOL, what I am saying is I can understand why some parents would object to it and that some teachers are not able to handle it.

What I am not is doing the typical TFP thing of acting superior to the public and knowing whats best for everyones children or school district.

This isn't an issue of superiority; unless you view people supporting basic human rights being upheld as elitist. People should have the freedom to read and educate themselves in any way. No one has the right to take that away. If anything, the opposite of what you are accusing us of is the truth. The only superior actions taken place within this argument are by those who feel they know better then others to say what they can and can't experience.

Yea well you are entitled to your opinion, but you are doing the generalizing here mostly about my motives. (Btw every play is about the human condition, emotion, and loss, you will have to forgive parents if they see copy cat school shootings and would like to avoid it at their school)

You are doing exactly what I just described the parents doing. What do you know about the play? If anything at all. The piece is about atoning for his sins and accepting the truth; "he was wrong". No, not every play has the same elements.

I'm not generalizing your motives, I'm looking at what you've written and responding.

Christ, the book isn't 'banned' we are talking about what age it is suitable for a public school. You can go buy 2000 copies right now and hand them out legally. If you school doesn't use it, feel free to have your kids read it, there is more to education their your government funded schooling.

The only superior actions taken place within this argument are by those who feel they know better then others to say what they can and can't experience

So its ok if they say creationism should be taught in public schools? Seriously dude, the melodrama is getting a bit thick in here.

I'm a dramatic guy, what can I say. If the class is religious studies, and it intends to teach about the bible without spin, not present the bible as fact, of course. People teaching about Native Son shouldn't openly advocate or openly disagree with anything in the novel; that's for the student to decide. And the way they decide what they think is experiencing other things in life. That's the point; how can you learn properly when your limited. People who would form opinions for others in Socrates' time were called Sophists. They still exist, we just call them something else now.

Well, if we're still only talking about school libraries, then yeah, I probably would agree that it might be a little difficult to defend Madonna's Sex or The New Joy of Gay Sex on the shelves-- although, to be fair, I'm not sure anyone would consider those books either great literature or of sufficiently relevant interest to any research a student is likely to be doing in a school library to outweigh the obvious issues with them. But I would think there's no possible reason to exclude Daddy's Roommate from a library (school or otherwise) except for homophobia [I'm not necessarily accusing you of anything, Ustwo, I'm speaking in general]. A book about toleration, acceptance, and how those qualities are presented to children seems fairly unobjectionable, unless one happens to be intolerant and unaccepting and intent on passing those qualities on to children....

If we're talking public libraries of the regular sort, though, then I don't think anything should be banned or excluded from the shelves, even books I find repugnant. Free speech is free speech, and knowledge is dependent upon free access to information.

Yes, I suppose, as you say, one might raise an educated, sophisticated kid without having them read a single book that's been banned; but since the list seems to include a mighty heavy swath of the greats of English and American literature, it seems possible, but unlikely.

Also, in general terms, I believe restricting free speech, free press, and free access to information is a very slippery slope. I tend to believe we must restrict those things as little as possible, lest we suddenly find it being ever more difficult to speak freely, write freely, and know what is going on in the world around us....

got it.
so we can say----liquidated--that's good yes? erased. eliminated. censored might work in certain cases.
because the word "banned" is harsh--it reminds one of marriage announcements in a catholic parish.


and a book like, o i dont know, toni morrison's beloved is like those how?

just to show you that i'm paying attention.
this is like an iq test question: which pieces do not belong, right?

i thought you called that an unsavory term.


so because there are some lines, then any line is ok.
so long as you dont "demonize" the books that are--um--liquidated from the cirriculum by referring to them as banned, everything is fine.

got it.

the problem is the word "banned."
because it sounds bad.

I once read some books by a couple of German exiles that got me to thinking that the current social arrangements needed a fundamental re-working. I've heard that they used to confiscate these books in places like Singapore. I don't think the fear of political subversion was entirely unjustified.

That's why i don't like the argument that books are harmless. "Catcher in the Rye" was a big fuck you to mid-20th c. America, by one of its own, and in its own idiom. Why else do teens like it so much? I'm quite sure that the book did pervert many American youth -- and that's all to Salinger's credit.

You're funny. Tell me another story uncle roachboy.

I don't know about you guys, but when I was a kid, every time I read a "naughty" book it was a fierce disappointment. I don't know what I was expecting, though.

I...don't...remember him fondling her...can't recall her name...but it's been about 20 years since I read it. If I feel like later, I might look it up. But I'm certainly not here to defend the actions of Bigger Thomas. :)

Obviously, this book was not written for young children. But teenagers in the upper grades of high school are certainly familiar enough with murder to be able to stomach this novel. Any attempt to 'protect' teenagers from this material is arbitrary at best and politically motivated at worst. I don't find either of those reasons to be valid.

Liq, did you like The Sun Also Rises? It's probably one of the best books I've ever read in my life. I'll bet you it's banned in places.

Sorry, my argument isn't that the message is harmless, it's that the message is more important then the taboo placed on it. I was obviously not born into Salinger's time, but I think the novel was meant as a reflection of the unspoken lives that young men were living at that age. When you were growing up, you had sexual thoughts, yes? Was it because you read about it, or was it natural? Salinger gave voice to a sexually repressed and emotionally sheltered generation who couldn't express it themselves; that's all. By calling it perverted is missing the point I think. Although, maybe I misunderstood.

Have you ever read Frank Wedekind's play Spring Awakening. It was written in 1890. It involves physical and sexual abuse, homosexuality, suicide, abortions, rape, and child abuse. People banned it. Although, they were missing the point. It was about a socially repressed group of individuals who, without being taught properly about life, began to try to find their own answers and ended up fucking themselves up. It's about ignorance for the sake of ignorance and tradition; to try to impede social evolution. A lot like the story Salinger penned for an equally repressed group of individuals generations later.

Most of it is meant to be ironic. If anything they were advocating education to save the secret lives their children were living, and they were ignoring; they wanted the botched abortions, and failing out of school, and hiring hookers, and suicides, etc, to end. And they wanted to let the world know that someone would say out loud "This is happening".

What happens when you ban materials is you are backhandedly allowing teens and children to go uneducated. Or a whole state. Or a whole Country.

All I can say is that, given the state of the public schools in my area, I don't expect any of my kids to be exposed to anything even remotely resembling culture in terms of curriculum-- culture gets in the way of teaching kids to pass standardized tests (thanks NCLB). I'm not afraid to buy books and I'd rather be the person to help my present and future kids put things in context, as opposed to some teacher who I might not agree with.

You know I think this may be what the real argument should be.

Is it a public schools job to teach 'culture'.

From my perspective no. We have awful math scores, horrible geography skills, almost no grasp of history, and mediocre scientific knowledge. We have a population thats more superstitious and believing of paranormal activities than we had in the 1960's.

If you want to work a book like Black Boy into the lesson plan on the civil rights movement, or Animal Farm into the Russian revolution thats great, but as a backdrop for the facts, not as a end itself.

It is grossly apparent that kids need to learn what the real cost of items are with a credit card at 19.9% interest is and I won't lose sleep if they cancel poetry class in order to drum that sort of information home.

And I'm sure there are few students who can comfortably write a complete sentence, let alone a paragraph. You left out literacy and the value of teaching language arts. Without these, how can we expect students to communicate with any effectiveness? Language arts have an impact on the other disciplines in this regard. What do we do in language arts? We teach reading and writing. What do we have them read? Grammar textbooks? Maybe we should. But if the students can't grasp mathematics, they might have a tougher time with pure grammar.

So how do we teach them? With creative works such as stories and novels. But these aren't just about grammar, they are about culture. So why not teach culture at the same time? It makes things more interesting. (And to exclude certain works for content or topics via banning is something I oppose, as it opposes certain realities.) We don't teach geography from a pure land & water perspective. There is some culture in there as well. History? Culture. When reading literature, we emphasize culture because that is its raison d'etre. But it isn't the only value.

--This is more of a ramble than anything, so I hope it makes sense.

If "teaching culture" by using modern literature as the basis for stimulating classroom discussions to help students better understand the diversity of the country in which they will live and work....it seems to me to be a good use of school time and resources.

It might even enlighten students and end some of those superstitions...they might learn that if a classmate has two dads, it doesnt mean the classmate is more likely to "become" gay.

there is a philosophical question that ustwo raises that is interesting (filtherton raised it as well) concerning the value of standardized testing/test scores in evaluating an educational programme. that seems important enough to maybe warrant another thread....

personally i am not at all persuaded that these scores measure anything.

anyway, even if they did, they would be beside the point in a debate like this over banning books...

basically, i agree with baraka guru that the central function of education is to enable students to think independently and creatively about the world, about themselves--and to provide them with a sense that they too can make things and by making things make the world Otherwise.

history is not simply a repository of factoids: it is a relation to information, it is procedures for ordering it--but most of all it provides a set of tools for thinking *through* information, *with* information. presenting history in the history channel mode as a spectacle that in no way impacts upon the spectator is close to worthless from this viewpoint, except insofar as it provides purty pictures for the entirely passive consumer to look at.

in a democratic polity, being able to think through information is a baisc assumption behind citizenship--if you are cowed by what is simply because it is, and you do not have the tools to relativize what you encounter, then you have no hope of making coherent decisions, informed choices--no hope of being able to assess what is as over against what could be, no way of weighing alternatives, thinking in terms of strategy, etc.

it is amazing to me that conservatives want to institute passivity through education when in their politics are so much about their own solitary intellectual heroism.
it makes no sense.

So this is now about not having time to teach American literature?

Yeah, i think there is some misunderstanding here. I'm saying that if you are what Holden called a phony, "Catcher in the rye" was/is a dangerous book because it legitimates a certain kind of dissent. Whether you call it "dissent" or "Pre-vertin' 'murican yout", the book does have a concrete social and political impact.

I think part of the problem is that we read it against different contexts. I'm thinking fifties-sixties-seventies and you seem to have something like Columbine in mind.

Banning books amounts to nothing more than a means of control. The motivation is the desire to control access to information by one group over another.

Grammar is an after-the-fact summarisation of linguistic practice. Linguistic form structures the message, but there is still a message. To write an essay, a student has to go outside the grammar book for knowledge and opinion.

In ancient times, they had kids memorise Homer or Confucius & the other 4 books & 5 classics. "There. Do it like that." You'd pick up the proper form and the content in the process of reproduction. Anglo-American pedagogy seems to be stuck in a reaction against that sort of classicism.

I find this fascinating and would like this discussion to play a larger role in this topic than grammar and testing.

When you say you don't like the argument that books are harmless, what do you mean by that?

Do you feel that some books are harmful, and if so, how and to whom?

Yes. This is what I'm getting at.

Is this in reference to Plato's railing against the written word, and that it leads to forgetfulness and a lack of seriousness (i.e. the dialogue is the only serious discourse)?

It is a pity what we have lost from classical education, but I do believe it isn't practical anymore--not in our current culture and political economy.

Sure, they can be harmful.

Take the Confucian classics i mentioned above. The Mencius has always been a problem for conservative rulers who would otherwise be happy with Confucianism. The problem was that Mencius thought that it was OK for commoners to overthrow bad rulers. Even the word 革命, which is how "revolution" gets translated in Chinese and Japanese, has its origins in Mencian ideas. As the left-populist Confucianist, Mencius was often banned.

Any text that seemed to promote egalitarianism was obviously a threat to the feudal order, and such books were often banned. Interestingly, one of those banned under Japanese feudalism was the xtian bible. (along with Mencius, too, of course)

In general i'd like to think that books & ideas can still have an impact outside the text. Exactly what that impact is, and whom it affects, depend on the book and the times.

If you want to say that there are books that bring us to change how we live, or, books that at least try to do that, then you accept that they are political. As part of a political process, books will have friends and enemies; they will help some and hurt others, they will anger some, and embolden others.

On the other hand, saying that books are harmless really amounts to a dismissal of their power. If they are indeed harmless, they become "mere entertainment", museum pieces representing bygone ages, or school lessons.

I'm regretful I missed this earlier.

I can tell you exactly what motivates book banning:

Fear.

That one word is why every book that has been banned has ever been banned.

You can collate it out however you like but fear of the * is the root cause.

Off to read the replies.


I'm hating you so very much right now. Steinbeck is what it is.

Heh, you just redeemed yourself. So what about that, Ustwo?


Right? So disappointing. I wanted lust, horny nasty lust. You know, like my pubescent brain was thinking.


I'm not much a fan of poetry and I'm certainly not a fan of the CC system.

Are you inviting me to stick it in your pooper?

I literally LOLed.

He wrote "what about that?" not "how about that?" :D