dc_dux

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?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ottopilot

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.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

dc_dux

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?

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

jewels

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.

__________________
We are always more anxious to be distinguished for a talent which we do not possess, than to be praised for the fifteen which we do possess.
Mark Twain

mixedmedia

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.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

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.

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

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.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

pan6467

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.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

levite

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.

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

ratbastid

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.

ottopilot

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?

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

roachboy

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?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

Ustwo = scared of sex and gays?

ottopilot

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.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

You get that from where exactly?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

thespian86

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".

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

mixedmedia

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.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Willravel

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.

ottopilot

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.

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Willravel

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

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

thespian86

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.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Willravel

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.

mixedmedia

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.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

thespian86

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.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Ustwo

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)

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

thespian86

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.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Ustwo

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.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

thespian86

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.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

levite

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....

__________________
Dull sublunary lovers love,
Whose soul is sense, cannot admit
Absence, because it doth remove
That thing which elemented it.

(From "A Valediction: Forbidding Mourning" by John Donne)

roachboy

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.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite