PV is an affluent school district in the Quad Cities.
Until recently, Linda Goetz, sixth grade teacher at Bridgeview Elementary used the book “The Misfits” as part of an effort to address the kind of name calling and bullying that often occurs in our schools.
The problem? The book has a character that happens to be gay.
Dozens of outraged parents apparently got their knickers in a twist and protested, demanding that the book be restricted.
“A book with a gay character cannot be read aloud at Pleasant Valley elementary schools, but can be read to older students and will remain in the district’s libraries”
My favorite parental quote?
“This question is of a religious nature and a deeply personal matter,” he said. The gay movement, he said, has an “aggressive agenda to indoctrinate children.” :smack:
Hate to nitpick here, but the book was not banned. It is still available in the library and can be used in the curriculum for older students.
What this was was political pressure to change the curriculum, and that happens from nearly all political parties and movements.
This may seem a petty distinction, but in fact it is a very different issue. It would be appropriate to discuss this based on the actual circumstances, and not by calling it a book banning when it’s really not.
Incorrect. For junior high students (and younger), that book is banned in the classroom. Just because it’s available to older students in the district doesn’t nullify that fact.
I read it all, beagledave. I just came to a different realization than you did.
The book will still be in the libraries. If a student has a copy, and brings it into the classroom, it doesn’t look like he’ll be punished for doing so.
The book has been ruled inappropriate for classroom discussion at that grade level. Now, you don’t have to agree with this particular decision to realize that this decision is made about countless books all of the time.
It isn’t a banning, and I think your calling it so, taking your cues from the Quad City Times, is using a politically loaded word to comment on the case.
The FIRST action taken by the school board, I referred to as “censoring” or “restricting”…get it? I purposely chose those words to be as precise as possibly, a nuance that you have STILL missed, unfortunately.
I THEN said that the next natural step (since many parents wanted to BAN the book outright) is to have lots of books up for review to have them BANNED.
If you take the decision making process out of the hands of teachers, librarians and administrators for something like this…then that next step is inevitable. that’s the point that the Times made…and it’s a point I agree with.
It is appropriate to ban or censor some books at the elementary school level.
Of that, I think there can be little serious question.
The question then becomes, “Is it appropriate to ban or censor THIS book?”
It’s unclear to me why it would be, if the book’s only alleged problem is that it has a gay character.
But the mere warning that “Banning may be next!” does not remotely worry me, since, so far as I’m aware, books like “Swap-Around Pammie And the Double-Headed Dildo” are ALREADY effectively banned at the elementary school level.
Using a politically loaded word to describe political pressure?
If it isn’t banned, what is it? Restricted? PG13? NC17? Its not formally banned simply because they’re (the Board) a bunch of pussies. To leave it in the library but restrict it from the classroom reeks of chickenshit. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if these are the parents of the kids doing the bullying in the first place.
The Christian Jihad has a problem with teaching tolerance. The school board, instead of embracing the teachings of tolerance by Jesus, has decided instead disregard the professional opinions of the teachers and bow to the knuckle draggers.
Listen, beagledave, I’m not a simpleton merely because I disagree with you a tiny bit. And I don’t appreciate the smarmy tone just because I attempted to point out where the real debate is.
The school board said the book couldn’t be read in class. That’s not censorship, nor is it a book banning. It’s a curriculum decision. It may be a thoroughly boneheaded curriculum decision, but that’s exactly what it is, and little different from similar decisions made every single day.
Conflating this decision with the issue of book bannings and the political baggage that issue carries does little to clarify the discussion. In fact, it muddies it a great deal, politicizing it rather than illustrating where such lines can reasonably be drawn.
Political pressure is made on the curricula as well as to the content of the school libraries. Though these issues are related, they are quite different in how they affect students, and I was merely trying to repoint the debate toward its proper focus, IMHO.
I hope we can discuss this without rancor toward each other, especially since I’m of the view that the teacher should have been able to teach to that particular book if she chose. I’ll not sit by and be shouted down simply because I tried to make a small point.
That’s the ONLY reason for the restriction on this book. it will promote a “gay agenda”…according to one parent. Little Jane will be listening to Indigo Girls on her CD player on the bus…Little Johnny will be accessorizing his wardrobe and using “fabulous” a lot in conversations. It will be ugly.
Of course that wan’t my (or the QC Times) “mere warning”. My warning is that using the specious “logic” used in this case…Hamlet, the Bible, Huck Finn etc could all be problematic (not for a “gay agenda”, but perhaps some other pet related issue)
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Listen, beagledave, I’m not a simpleton merely because I disagree with you a tiny bit. And I don’t appreciate the smarmy tone just because I attempted to point out where the real debate is.
The school board said the book couldn’t be read in class. That’s not censorship, nor is it a book banning. It’s a curriculum decision. It may be a thoroughly boneheaded curriculum decision, but that’s exactly what it is, and little different from similar decisions made every single day.
And sorry…those decisions are NOT made every day by ad hoc school board meetings.
Curricular decisions ARE made every day. However, if you honestly think that a teacher choosing which materials are a best choice for his/her educational objectives is the SAME thing as a group of parents pressuring an elected school board to restrict access to a CURRENTLY used book because of a “gay agenda”, I honestly don’t know what to say.
Well, at the end of the day the school district has decided what they deem appropriate for classroom discussion.
Do you see any role for elected officials or school administrators in this process? Or should teachers operate without oversight at all?
Point of fact, teachers do not have full free speech rights in the classroom, and neither do students. The decision made here is a legitimate one, done within the scope of authority delineated to the various levels of administration and government.
So you think (as I do) that it’s a bad decision. It surely wouldn’t be the first time that’s happened. But let’s not think that anybody’s rights were violated here, since the teacher and the students didn’t have those rights to begin with.
Of course. There are curriculum committees in most districts that help to align learning and materials with educational goals…etc. For example, many districts have guidelines in place about showing films in classrooms. If a guideline is in place and a teacher shows an R rated movie…yeah there should be oversight of that.
Point of fact…I never claimed that they had “full free speech rights”. I DO think that reading outloud “The Misfits” is different than showing “Pammie Demonstrates the Double Headed Dildo” on DVD. I also think that the kind of thinking that leads to censoring/restricting/“banning in elementary classroms” a book like “the Misfits” is the same kind of thinking that bans other mainstream material.
I didn’t make a claim about a “loss of rights” (damn…you’re making lots of claims about my statements that don’t match up with what I said)
I think the point is that whether in their power or not, the School Board has acted speciously in its decision to ban/restrict the book in question based on a bunch of intolerant fag-haters who are worried about their children being tainted by the Gay Agenda. Shouldn’t our School Board members be objective enough to look at the work for what it is and base their decision on that?
Or is it more important to ignore the theme of the book based on getting re-elected by a bunch of intolerant parents?
Beagledave, that’s what I took censorship to mean.
If a body is charged with deciding what students learn in class, or what content will be in the library, and they actually make decisions in this area, I don’t think it can fairly be called censorship.
Now, you can call it bad judgement, and I’ll be on board with you. But I’m wary about using words outside of their proper context, since the descriptive power of those words then becomes diluted.
I disagree. If the school board makes a decision that the Scott-Forseman Math series is not the most effective textbook series for their classroom …and so replace it with the Houghtlin Mifflin series (as past of a curricular process that invites and respects teacher input), I don’t consider that censorship.
If the same school board retroactively restricts or “bans from classroom” use “The Misfits” because of charges of a “gay agenda”, that kind of action meets a commonly understood definition of censoring or “banning” (in the classroom).
And it’s not just the QC Times using that phrasing.
Assume for a moment that the “degreed, professional teachers” selected this book in part because it provided a positive portrayal of a gay character. I relaize there is no evidence of this particular assertion, but I don’t find it onherently incredible. either.
Should the parents be without recourse to demand that their students are not exposed to it?
In other words, may parents legitimately reason as follows?
A book with a sympathetic, positvely-portrayed gay character may cause an impressionable reader to believe that being gay is a positive – or at least a non-negative – trait.
Being gay is, in fact, a negative trait.
I do not wish my child to be taught that being gay is a positive trait.