I’ll tolerate just about any kind of crap the right-wing extremists in this country can drudge up with regards to limiting the rights of gay Americans to live openly in this nation, so long as they stay in states I would never entertain living in even if you paid me (most of them Red, yes), but I draw the line at the sort of willful ignorance Ala. State Rep. Gerald Allen is up to:
Republican Alabama lawmaker Gerald Allen says homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. As CBS News Correspondent Mark Strassmann reports, under his bill, public school libraries could no longer buy new copies of plays or books by gay authors, or about gay characters.
"I don’t look at it as censorship," says State Representative Gerald Allen. "I look at it as protecting the hearts and souls and minds of our children."
This report notes some of the literature public school libraries would no longer be able to buy, including works by Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, and Gore Vidal. Others include Auden, Albee, Alger, Baldwin, Behan, Boswell, Burroughs, Butler, Cocteau, Crane, Crisp, Cunningham, Forster, Foucault, Fry, Genet, Gide, Ginsberg, Housman, Hughes, Isherwood, Keynes, Kushner, Leavitt, Mann, Marlowe, Maugham, Maupin, McNally, Monette, Orton, Proust, Rauch, Rimbaud, Savage, Sedaris, Andrew Sullivan, Whitman, Wilde, Wilder, Wittgenstein, etc. etc. etc.
I want to laugh at this. I want to note that the only people he’s really hurting are the ones he thinks he protecting, the ones who will be that much stupider, that much poorer, and that much less blessed by the genius of such writers. I want to believe that an idiot like Allen will be drummed out of the Alabama legislature for being too freakin’ moronic to serve as dog catcher, let alone Representative. Five years ago, in this country, I would have been certain that would be the response to such a transparent grandstanding. Now, I think this SOB might actually be successful. Look at what happened in Texas, just yesterday:
The school board in [Odessa, Texas] has voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum.
Hundreds of people, most of them supporters of the proposal, packed the board meeting last night. More than 6,000 Odessa residents had signed a petition supporting the class.
Some residents, however, said the school board acted too quickly. Others said they feared a constitutional fight.
Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review.
The board had heard a presentation in March from Mike Johnson, a representative of the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, who said that coursework designed by that organization is not about proselytizing or preaching.
Not about proselytizing or preaching? Yeah, Mike…it’s about selling Bibles, isn’t it?
Let’s face it folks, when elected officials feel empowered to openly call for censorship of classics that have been staples of public school libraries, we’ve turned a dangerous corner. I can’t believe the President himself hasn’t sent a team of advisers down to Alabama to stomp on this freak’s head. WTF is happening in this country?
UPDATE: Although I agree that the Bible is a miraculous book with important cultural significance, and that as such it has a rightful place in the public schools (alongside the Koran and Torah and other religious texts), constant reader Bernard Tomtov noted the following about the organization claiming its advocacy is not "about proselytizing or preaching":
After googling on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, the group behind the Odessa effort, I find that they are backed by Center for Reclaiming America and American Family Association .
Anyone who thinks these organizations are just interested in teaching the Bible as a literary work might want to check their web sites.
You might also want to check out this article about Elizabeth Ridenour, head of NCBCPS.
Nice work Bernard.
You missed Elizabeth Bishop.
Not to mention Plato’s Socratic dialogues, and most Classical literature.
I believe that also rules out some of the Cheney family’s oeuvre, as well….
And if they ever find out about David and Jonathan–my, what a pickle they’ll be in then!
I missed a lot of the women, rilkefan…Willa Cather, Alice Walker (characters in work), Dorothy Allison, and on and on…Lynn freakin’ Cheney, for chrissake, had lesbian characters in her book “Sisters”
Why not just let them? Of course I think it’s stupid. But one of the fundamental dicta of human experience is that you have to let people be stupid and learn the consequences. You can’t just tell people something is stupid or bad. They’ll just call you a coastal blah cultural elite in your ivory blah tower blah and dredge up more self-righteous outrage. Let them be stupid and figure out what it’s like to not have their kids get into a good college because they don’t know who Plato, Socrates, Bacon, or Whitman are. Or see what it’s like to have all of their good teachers leave because they can’t teach Keynes, Woolf, or Turing.
You do more damage trying to fix someone than you do letting them break on their own.
What gets me:
Go to a library, any library, and you’ll be surrounded by books by people about whom you know nothing. Is R.L. Stine straight? Are they going to start sending letters to every publisher, asking for a list of gay authors?
Hilzoy – The idea of this maroon reading the Symposium makes me chuckle. Then vomit. Then chuckle again. He thinks plato is that stuff his kids eat that comes in the little cardboard cans.
Bleagh.
You know, it’s a damned shame that we can’t teach the Bible in the schools. It is, after all, the primary source material for a hell of a lot of the literature you read in English class. It’s really important to study it, and be familiar with it.
That said, does anyone doubt that an open minded study of the Bible as literature is absolutely *not* what would happen in Odessa, TX? I happen to be in the middle of Friday Night Lights at the moment, which squares very well with memories of Plano. Forget it.
But..but…Michael Moore is FAT!!!!!1
But why, sidereal, why not aim both guns at the little pr*ck and blow his political career to smithereens.
If he had proposed banning all books by black writers, there’s no doubt he’d be crucified. Why is it OK to single out and demonize gays in this country?
Newton reportedly having been a homosexual, I’m wondering if ignorance of the laws of motion and gravity will work out to anyone’s advantage.
Oh, I’m sure that the Bible course will be chock-full of redaction criticism, the discussion of the J, E, P and D authors of the Pentateuch, the controversy over the Q gospel, the Infancy Gospel, and all that.
Er . . . not.
sidereal,
I understand your point, but the victims are not the morons who institute this sort of thing but their children, and the children of Alabamians who don’t support this. They are the ones whose education will suffer.
Adults can reject evolution, or calculus for that matter, and beyond considering them idiots it won’t really bother me. But when they start imposing their ignorance on the education system they are doing real harm to other people.
You just wait, Bernard. Today it’s the homosexual authors; tomorrow it’ll be the atheists, agnostics, and those who slept with their wife’s sister.
Not sure if that last one puts a serious dent in any collective intellectual capital, but you never know.
What’s happening to this country?
Nothing.
This kind of misguided buffoonery has been going on every year since I can remember. If you tried to keep up with every stupid bill some idiot in some state introduced you wouldn’t have time for anything else in life.
“But why, sidereal, why not aim both guns at the little pr*ck and blow his political career to smithereens.”
Does he represent this will of his constituents? That’s all that matters in regards to the strength of his political career. I have a passing familiarity with Alabama, and I would not be at all surprised if the people in his district supported his plan enthusiastically. Sure, you can pocket this and use it later if he ever tries to put together a national political career, but right now his political career isn’t blastable.
“Why is it OK to single out and demonize gays in this country?”
It isn’t okay. The question is what you can do about it. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s important to call it out, because it gives gay and moderate Republicans one more thing to think about in regards to their choice of political party and the bedfellows it comes with. But when you say Bush should run down and stop him, I think that’s exactly the wrong result. I’d like to think the shrill victimhood of the poor heterosexual Christians in this country has reached an apex, but I very much doubt it.
Years ago my ex-brother-in-law taught a high school Bible-as-literature class. The clas was discontinued because a nearby fundamentalist church objected. Their basic argument was that the Bible was the true word of God, not literature, and they didn’t want it discussed or analyzed in those terms.
If a certain recent book is to be believed, nothing by or about Abraham Lincoln either. No Gettysberg Address, no Second Inaugural, no Emancipation Proclamation, nothing about the Civil War that might mention him, etc. etc. etc.
Of course, people try to get books banned from school libraries all the time, but I don’t think I’ve heard of a state legislature trying something like this before.
Maybe Garald Allen may well be ignorant, but you all are too.
William Burroughs in a Jr. High or High School?
I think not! And no Hunter Thompson either, for that matter!
What is the freaking matter with you people! Aren’t there any parents of high school kids here??
Willa Cather is awesome.
“But when they start imposing their ignorance on the education system they are doing real harm to other people.”
Well, there’s a long tangent there in regarding how much control people have over their own children, even if it’s long-run damaging. We probably don’t want to get into it too much, but my stance is that barring literal abuse, parents have the freedom to stunt their children, because the only alternative is the state telling you how to parent, and that’s horrible.
If you mean the children of other parents who disagree with this stance, I’m pretty confident they could take a lesson from the fundies and educate their children at home in areas of education that their school is lacking. Also, I would setup a few secular private schools that teach the full gamut of liberal arts education. Flip the model.
Not only is the President not stomping on his head, but if I remember correctly, Allen got invited to the White House shortly after he introduced this bill.
“If he had proposed banning all books by black writers, there’s no doubt he’d be crucified.”
In Alabama? Don’t count on it.
By the way, I would wholeheartedly support teaching the Bible as literature or mythology in public schools (provided, of course, that it not be represented as and/or confused with/for science or history).
“If he had proposed banning all books by black writers, there’s no doubt he’d be crucified.”
In Alabama? Don’t count on it.
By the way, I would wholeheartedly support teaching the Bible as literature or mythology in public schools (provided, of course, that it not be represented as and/or confused with/for science or history).
“If a certain recent book is to be believed, nothing by or about Abraham Lincoln either.”
See, that’s another benefit of secretly hoping this guy gets his way. I’d get a perverse joy out of the inevitable council that would come together to determine who was and who was not gay. We could all send in amicus briefs with proof of Alexander’s and Lincoln’s gaity. Wouldn’t that get their knickers in a knot. They might even come to realize a few things.
Their basic argument was that the Bible was the true word of God, not literature, and they didn’t want it discussed or analyzed in those terms.
Not surprised. A well-taught course on the Bible, with students and teachers capable of critical thinking and the asking of hard questions, would not make a fundamentalist church very happy. A Jesuit, maybe, but not a fundamentalist. :>
I’m reminded of a laugh-out-loud funny scene in episode 7 of Firefly:
Shepherd Book: “What are we up to, sweetheart?”
River: “Fixing your Bible.”
SB: “I, um…(alarmed)…what?”
R: “Bible’s broken. Contradictions, false logistics – doesn’t make sense.” (she’s marked up the bible, crossed out passages)
SB: “No, no. You – you can’t…
R: “So we’ll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God’s creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah’s ark is a problem.”
SB: “Really?”
R: “We’ll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat.” (rips out page)
See, that’s another benefit of secretly hoping this guy gets his way. I’d get a perverse joy out of the inevitable council that would come together to determine who was and who was not gay. We could all send in amicus briefs with proof of Alexander’s and Lincoln’s gaity. Wouldn’t that get their knickers in a knot. They might even come to realize a few things.
Hah! There’d probably be all sorts of talk about things they consider “icky.” “Well, he had sex with a man once, but later said he didn’t enjoy it. Gay or not Gay?”
Good point. I’m not sure if this is quite as nonintrusive as making pi officially identically equal to 3, though. Now, if they required it to be 3 in the textbooks, there’s some room for mischief.
I had no idea; I thought they were talking Edgar Rice Burroughs. Either way, same reaction: I’m neither surprised nor unsurprised.
I’ll defend the Bible class — it’s absolutely appropriate to teach the Bible, which is among the foundational documents of Western Civilization (if not the foundational documents). So long as it’s optional and not an overtly religious class, I see no problem. (Indeed, my left-leaning college-town HS had a “Bible as Literature” class.)
As for the banning-gay-authors-thing: How freakin’ gay. 😉
(Alternatively: What Ed said.)
William Burroughs in a Jr. High or High School?
I think not! And no Hunter Thompson either, for that matter!
What is the freaking matter with you people! Aren’t there any parents of high school kids here??
With all due respect, you may wish for your children to remain uninformed, but you have no right to limit the potential of other children to become the next Nobel Prize winning writer or find a cure for cancer. If a child seeks out a writer because of natural ability to comprehend their work, they should have access to it. Period. We’re talking about LITERATURE here, not pornography. Bill Cosby stated it brilliantly: If they’re old enough to ask the questions, they’re old enough hear the answers.
If a certain recent book is to be believed, nothing by or about Abraham Lincoln either
No, you know perfectly well that the banned book would not be anything by Lincoln, but rather the book that made the claim that he was gay. See? Never happened. Look over there! Kerry’s got French hair and wants to gay-marry Saddam!
Actually, certain people in Alabama probably wouldn’t have a problem with banning anything by or about Lincoln, what with “the recent unpleasantness” and all (AKA “The War of Northern Aggression”).
I have no problem with the Bible being taught as literature, but think back to your high school days. You had “American literature” and you had “World literature.” Did you spend an entire year (as most high school course, as opposed to shorter college courses, are) reading one book though?
I read the book of “Job” in a literature course and thought it was perfectly appropriate….IN THAT CONTEXT. But a “Bible Course” before the university level is prosteltyzing, I’m sorry.
“William Burroughs in a Jr. High or High School?”
What, we read Naked Lunch in high school. Of course, we also dropped acid. I blame the Godless public school system.
Re: WSBurroughs for junior high schoolers –
the scene in NL where the boy is simultaneously hung and penetrated by a huge razor-sharp steel dildo and dies while climaxing for the enjoyment of a gathered crowd…well, that might be strong beer for the tween set. I don’t know where that puts me in the censorship brigade, but, just to be honest, if I see my daughter’s reading that book before she is, say, 14, I’m going to slap it out of her hands and hide it on a high shelf.
As for me, I read it when I was in 6th grade, but I am completely f**ked up, so I might not be the best example.
Part of the offensiveness of this is the assumption that children will be contaminated by the thoughts of a gay person even if the thoughts are not related to sexuality. After all, most gay writers don’t confine themselves to the subject of gay issues. The authors mentioned upthread wrote about all sorts of things, yet we are to believe that their sexual orientation renders their views on all aspects of the human experience out 0f bounds.
Ah, see. . I sense a theme here. Raise your hand if you were a screwed-up deviant in high school but are absolutely convinced that your child will never be a screwed-up deviant in high school (i.e. are delusional)
They can read it in college.
you have no right to limit the potential of other children to become the next Nobel Prize winning writer
If Naked Lunch is your idea of Nobel Prize winning quality, well, … ah wait, Yasser Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize, so I guess cutting up sentences and pasting them together in random ways does qualify for a Nobel Prize.
I really do not think people have common sense anymore.
the fact that you don’t want your daughter to read it suggests your not “completely f**ked up,” st, but it also suggests that neither would she become so by reading it.
Actually, Hunter Thompson is only enjoyable in High School, if you ask me. But then my parents let me read “Ball Four” when I was 11.
Speaking of writers who I liked better when I was 16, maybe we could tell the Ala. Legislature that H.L. Mencken was straight and racist. That way he could become required reading.
If Naked Lunch is your idea of Nobel Prize winning quality, well, … ah wait, Yasser Arafat got a Nobel Peace Prize, so I guess cutting up sentences and pasting them together in random ways does qualify for a Nobel Prize.
I really do not think people have common sense anymore.
Common sense tells me that the folks here reporting they read Naked Lunch in high school turned out to be very conscientious adults. Methinks you’re underestimating your children, DaveC.
my stance is that barring literal abuse, parents have the freedom to stunt their children, because the only alternative is the state telling you how to parent, and that’s horrible.
But that doesn’t mean they are not doing them harm. The point you raised earlier was that the people who institute this policy will suffer from it. I disagree. The harm will be to others.
If you mean the children of other parents who disagree with this stance, I’m pretty confident they could take a lesson from the fundies and educate their children at home in areas of education that their school is lacking. Also, I would setup a few secular private schools that teach the full gamut of liberal arts education. Flip the model.
Some could. Some couldn’t. Some have the education and the time and the money for books and materials needed to do home schooling and others don’t. The same applies to paying for private schooling. You seem to be assuming that only well-educated upper middle class types will object. I don’t agree.
I wonder if we can get Giblets and Fafnir to weigh in on this, I’m sure they will come up with a good explanation.
sidereal that must have been windowpane “not specificly good” so’s you’re all cramped up and messed up. Should have stuck with Mr. Natural.
Raise your hand if you were a screwed-up deviant in high school but are absolutely convinced that your child will never be a screwed-up deviant in high school (i.e. are delusional)
Ooh! Me! That’s me! Right here!
So we get this in Alabama and Margaret Spelling, our Sec. of Ed on the front page of the Times today calling the people in CT challenging NCLB “Un-American”. Just what we need, Roy Cohn as Sec. of Ed.
It’s getting to be more bizarre by the day.
and that goes for the rest of you too!
Sorry, I want my kids to be as innocent for as long as possible. They are not the same as small adults.
Raise your hand if you were a screwed-up deviant in high school but are absolutely convinced that your child will never be a screwed-up deviant in high school (i.e. are delusional)
Are you kidding? My kid is /already/ a little hellion, and he’s only 4. :> School age is going to be a special kind of torment for us.
I wholly reject the notion that children need to be protected from literature. It’s anti-intellectualism and puritanism wrapped up in one self-delusional form of what borders on child abuse. I’m not saying you shove material they’re not ready for into their hands, but if they seek it out, that suggests they’re ready for it.
If I found my 12-year-old nephew reading Genet, I’d be alarmed, yes, but I’d suggest, matter-of-factly, that there are mature themes in that book he might want to ask me about and I’ll be happy to explain the best way I can. Openness, not censorship.
Some of the arguments here would have been considered regressive in the Dark Ages, when most of the “children” we’re talking about here would be having children of their own.
Think back people. Was there anything in Naked Lunch you and your friends weren’t already joking about when your parents weren’t listening?
If your kids are anything like me, DaveC, they’re going to do their level best to escape innocence. Why, I recall when I was in 3rd grade, I happened upon someone’s cache of Playboy and Penthouse magazines. Good reading, that. The articles, I mean.
So long as it’s optional and not an overtly religious class, I see no problem.
I’ll bet you $10 that neither of those conditions will be fulfilled.
“So long as it’s optional and not an overtly religious class, I see no problem.
I’ll bet you $10 that neither of those conditions will be fulfilled.”
I’d take the bet on “optional” in the sense of not being required to graduate. On the other hand, the few who do not take it will find that social relations with the remainder of the student body is also optional.
On the other hand, the few who do not take it will find that social relations with the remainder of the student body is also optional.
well put!
And I suppose the school computers should be able to access any site whatsoever with no restrictions. Yeah, that’ll educate ’em.
And I suppose the school computers should be able to access any site whatsoever with no restrictions. Yeah, that’ll educate ’em.
Dave, I made a clear distinction between literature and pornography.
Ah, see. . I sense a theme here. Raise your hand if you were a screwed-up deviant in high school but are absolutely convinced that your child will never be a screwed-up deviant in high school (i.e. are delusional)
Wait a sec. There’s a lot to be said about not reading books until you’re mature enough to appreciate them. I’m a huge fan, for instance, of Paul Bowles. I sincerely think that he ranks up there with Camus as one of greatest existentialist writers of all time. Everyone should read the “Sheltering Sky” and his short stories. Yet, I wouldn’t exactly suggest “Pages from Cold Point” as HS reading. Or “A Distant Episode,” for that matter.
This doesn’t always have to do with “deviancy” (or the lack thereof), by the bye.* F’instance, I’ve always thought that “Red Badge of Courage” is utterly wasted on everyone under 18. (On the other hand, Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” could probably be taught in junior high.)
von
*Although Bowles’ “Pages,” for all its tell-by-not-telling, is in some respects more deviant and disturbing than “Naked Lunch,” which tells you everything (and then some). (You’ll know what I mean if you read “Pages.”)
Hey, what about David’s love for Jonathan, surpassing the love of women?
Can we please get these disgusting copies of the Book of Psalms out of the libraries?
I confess to never having read Naked Lunch, nor ever having happened across it in a bookstore. Or seeing the movie, for that matter. Honestly, if I’d had any idea, I’d have been all over it. So to speak.
Ah, the angelic innocence of children.
Hey, we need cannon fodder for wars, and mouthbreathers to man our WalMarts. If Alabama wants to condemn its children to that, go for it. Less competition for my kids.
Wait a sec. There’s a lot to be said about not reading books until you’re mature enough to appreciate them.
totally agree…the thing is that if you are mature enough to appreciate them, you should have access to them, no?
And for the record, I agree that children are not the same as adults. Just we tend to idealize them in very unrealistic ways.
the scene in NL where the boy is simultaneously hung and penetrated by a huge razor-sharp steel dildo and dies while climaxing for the enjoyment of a gathered crowd…well, that might be strong beer for the tween set.
It would give them the context they need to comprehend Abu Ghraib.
Was there anything in Naked Lunch you and your friends weren’t already joking about when your parents weren’t listening?
Er, yes. See previous comment re: steely dan. I was, like, 11. There was LOTS of stuff in that book I hadn’t thought about yet.
Some of the arguments here would have been considered regressive in the Dark Ages, when most of the “children” we’re talking about here would be having children of their own.
Not sure what you mean here – just because sexual innocence was nigh-impossible during a brutal, pre-technological age of starvation and violence does not mean that such innocence has no value, or that parents that seek to protect it, or at least not be implicated in its loss, are all prudish troglodytes.
Besides which, lurking in the background is the undeniable fact that I am just too big a coward to have a frank, open discussion with my 11-year old daughter about the themes of the Naked Lunch. I could probably swing Catcher in the Rye, or maybe even Tropic of Cancer on a good day, but the water of Burroughs’ harrowing, violent, drug-addled psychosexuality is just too deep for me in that context.
But, as sidereal illustrates, it’s all denial. I have the book on my shelf, and if she reads it, she reads it. I don’t anticipate her telling me about it over the dinner table. I certainly didn’t mention it to my parents.
I think we’re missing somthing important here.
Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture.
No-one is being required to take this class.
Oh, but the peer pressure! She canna take much more o’ this!
No-one is being required to take this class.
So long as they also offer elective courses on the Koran and Torah (etc.) as “literature and history,” I’m all for it.
So long as they also offer elective courses on the Koran and Torah (etc.) as “literature and history,” I’m all for it.
Yeah. I’d have no problem with, for instance, a Comparative Religion class or some such.
The debate is largely a waste of time. After elementary school, few kids read much of anything anymore. They play video games – mostly “Halo 2”. Microsoft and the Bush Administration teaming up to prepare the next generation for invading Iran, as far as I can tell.
Edward,
Given that every year thousands of people die horribly over questions of whether or not God begets and who exactly is to be recognized as a prophet, it stands to reason that school kids ought to get introduced to religious ideas so they know what’s going on.
MacAllen is dead right on the whole gay author thing. People introduce stupid legislation all the time. It’s not a larger sign of anything. If every bill that got introduced into a legislature were an indication of creeping whatever, American politics would be much, much weirder.
We would, for example, be employing privateers in the WoT.
Argh!
elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East
Great, so understanding geography is elective?
Let’s not confuse content with authors. Sure, there is material people legitimately want to keep their kids away from. But why the assumption that this is what homosexual authors necessarily write? Just a look at the list in the post proves that this is not so.
Andy Nguyen and von,
The issue is not whether the course is elective. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching sectarian religious courses, and that’s what this is going to be.
And slarti, you can sneer at peer presure if you like, but it’s real and powerful.
Given that every year thousands of people die horribly over questions of whether or not God begets and who exactly is to be recognized as a prophet, it stands to reason that school kids ought to get introduced to religious ideas so they know what’s going on.
Agree…so long as it’s pan-religious.
MacAllen is dead right on the whole gay author thing. People introduce stupid legislation all the time. It’s not a larger sign of anything. If every bill that got introduced into a legislature were an indication of creeping whatever, American politics would be much, much weirder.
Again, if this State Representative had advocated banning all books by women, or Jews, or African Americans, or whatever, he’d be drawn and quartered in the sphere of public opinion.
Because it’s gays he’s targettting, he’s a “misguided” buffoon or something equally comical, but harmless, to many people.
That’s even more alarming, if you don’t mind my saying so.
Riiiight. When’s the last time you saw anyone getting ragged on because of their course electives?
When’s the last time you saw anyone getting ragged on because of their course electives?
Not recently, but I bet you could get your a** kicked in Texas or Alabama for taking Edward’s projected Koran class.
Probably wouldn’t get hassled about takin’ Jesus 101, though. Interesting, that.
When’s the last time you saw anyone getting ragged on because of their course electives?
You mean, besides band? 😉
Because it’s gays he’s targettting, he’s a “misguided” buffoon or something equally comical, but harmless, to many people.
That’s even more alarming, if you don’t mind my saying so.
Well, my thoughts for what they are worth arethat this guy’s a moron, but his bill’s probably not even going to make it past the very first stage of whatever committee it’s been introduced into and he’s in a different state from me, and so there’s not a lot for someone like me to do but think, “idiot,” and go about my business.
I think if he were talking about something to do with other races or religions, I’d probably have the same thoughts.
The time to get outraged is when there’s stuff going on that’s part of a concerted effort that has real chance of passing. So getting furious about this nonsense over in Texas makes sense–it impinges upon a lot of people’s rights and is a symptom of a large, well funded movement.
A grandstanding buffoon out in the middle of BFE, though, is not worth the effort.
Possibly. But, possibly, you could also get your assets kicked for taking band, in those places (h/t crionna).
The issue is not whether the course is elective. Public schools shouldn’t be teaching sectarian religious courses, and that’s what this is going to be.
Not to go all “Great Books” on you, but: You may despise or disagree with it, but you cannot understand Western Civilization or Culture without at least having at least a passing familiarity with the Bible. It absolutely should be taught.
“Wait a sec. There’s a lot to be said about not reading books until you’re mature enough to appreciate them.”
I appreciate where you’re coming from. . I certainly didn’t get everything out of Pale Fire or even that godforsaken Wuthering Heights when I read them in high school. But I think they certainly did some good regardless, and I would say that the correct solution to that conundrum is to read them young and read them at least once more as an adult, so you make up for your innocence (except Wuthering Heights. Never read that again).
Not recently, but I bet you could get your a** kicked in Texas or Alabama for taking Edward’s projected Koran class.
Probably wouldn’t get hassled about takin’ Jesus 101, though. Interesting, that.
I think that you are overestimating the political/religious involvement of teenagers by an enormous degree.
You mean, besides band? 😉
Well, there was this one time, at band camp…
“So long as they also offer elective courses on the Koran and Torah (etc.) as “literature and history,” I’m all for it.”
I’m pretty sure (though I can’t be bothered to look it up right now) that the Torah is actually a subset of the Bible.
Either way, the Bible has clearly had a larger impact on our culture than most religious texts. It’s also the best-selling literary work of all time. I think it’s worth teaching students about.
——-
The idea of banning books by gay authors from school libraries is a bad idea. First of all, as lots of people have pointed out, that includes a significant portion of U.S. and World literature. But it’s also denying students the ability to seek information. They aren’t arguing about whether to teach these works in classrooms. They aren’t arguing about whether to give these works to students. They are talking about taking it off library shelves — where only students who are specifically looking for it will find it anyway. Removing the books doesn’t protect anybody, because either way they are only accessible to students who:
(a) Already know they exist and
(b) Already know enough about them to want to read them.
Denying those students access to the information they seek accomplishes nothing.
Yeah, that’s pretty dumb, and I’d oppose it–much as I thought the people who wanted to ban Huckleberry Finn from school libraries because it used a certain six-letter word starting with “n” deserved to be slapped down. There are plenty of nuts out there who want to ban books, and neither side of the political spectrum has a monopoly on them.
And slarti, you can sneer at peer presure if you like, but it’s real and powerful.
Slightly OT, but I firmly believe that one of the most important things you teach your kids is how to understand peer pressure, the insecurities behind it, and how to thwart its alleged power.
[We now return you to the regularly scheduled episode of Fahrenheit 451]
Most or all of the Old Testament, it is. But I doubt if you’d get rabbinical scholars to agree that the various Old Testament interpretations are the same as the Torah. Plus, the Torah, technically, is only the books of Moses, while in a broader sense it’s inclusive of the books of the prophets as well.
Not to go all “Great Books” on you,
And another thing–anyone jumping all over this issue who has ever let the phrase “dead white males” cross their lips as anything but a contemptuous retort to the left-wing nuts who use it in all seriousness, is a hypocrite of the first order.
OT, but since Catsy mentioned Firefly, the trailer for Serenity is up.
Serenity NOW!
Sorry…Seinfeld flashback.
The time to get outraged is when there’s stuff going on that’s part of a concerted effort that has real chance of passing.
You mean efforts like this one in Texas, or this in Maine, or this in Virginia, or this in Louisiana?
None of these is limited to the issue of “marriage” either…they’re about other rights, like the right to make contracts or be free from discrimination or be a foster parent. There are a lot of “grandstanding buffoons” out there hellbent on making life more difficult for me and mine. When is it OK for me to be outraged?
Well, there was this one time, at band camp…
Ahhhh, memories.
Slarti,
Nobody’s going to get ragged on for taking French instead of Spanish. Religion is a different matter. There are places in this country where fundamentalist religion is very strong, almost suffocating, and this in fact carries over into the schools. In that kind of environment there will be pressure to take the (badly taught) Bible class. Absolutely.
Von,
Nothing wrong with what you say in the abstract, but as a matter of practical reality the Bible is just not going to be studied in a neutral, scholarly way. You’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise. What happens when the teacher mentions that Genesis, or the whole Bible, might be allegorical, or that there were various authors, or…And if the teacher doesn’t discuss those things then it’s religious indoctrination, not a literature class.
A. Reeves –
And I think you are underestimating “by an enormous degree” the drive of teenagers to seize onto anything that makes someone different and smash them over the head with it.
“godforsaken Wuthering Heights”
A correct description, which is what makes it great. Love that book, and my taste runs to Celine and Naked Lunch. Perhaps you haven’t realized how dark it is.
Thread drew a crowd, one of them blog clusters. Point is, point is, point is homophobia is way way too acceptable in ths country, and seems to be an accelerating fashion accessory among the drooling crowd.
That’s a word I usually reserve for when I know. So, can I assume that this is true of you, or that you have different standards?
Uh, Edward, my point of the last entry was the stuff going on in TX and other states on gay adoption &c. *is* the sort of thing to get outraged about, but that the whole author issue was a sideshow.
It would be interesting to know what arguments were put forth at the meetings in Texas. My bet is that the proponents of this Bible class do not want it to be taught as literature or analyzed within a context.
Parts of the Bible are included in our tenth grade textbook, along with parts of the Koran, some Tao poetry and a few snippets from other traditions. I have taught the Bible sections to classes which had fundamentalist students. The first thing they say is that every word is true. The next thing that happens is some other student challenges literal interpetation. This isn’t a problem here in mellow Western Washington where the fundamentalist students are African American and not haters, but in Texas I can see how the teacher would be under pressure, from parents as well as students, to take sides. As I mentioned before, an experiment in teaching the Bible as literature over in Eastern Washington(red state part of our state) failed because parents insisted that the Bible be taught like a conventinal textbook ie memorize data, believe it all, get tested on facts, no discussion of historical context. The purpose of the class is critical, and that depends on the attitude of the parents.
Point is, point is, point is homophobia is way way too acceptable in ths country, and seems to be an accelerating fashion accessory among the drooling crowd.
Bingo!
Every opportunist with an eye on a political career is finding some new law he/she can sponsor demonizing gays. Next thing you know, they’ll be drafting legislation to ban clothes designed by gays, or music written by gays, or TV shows with gay characters, or Christmas songs with the word “gay” in them, and ALWAYS with an eye toward “protecting their children.”
The irony about this particular effort is that there are most definitely children who stand to be hurt by this. And not just the straight children who will get second-class educations, but the gay children of Alabama, who, like I did, will search desperately for books that help them cope in an otherwise hostile environment. Books that show them they are not alone. Books by GREAT writers, who just happen to be gay.
That was a crucial part of my development as a teen. Denying that to Alabama’s gay youth is child abuse.
And another thing–anyone jumping all over this issue who has ever let the phrase “dead white males” cross their lips as anything but a contemptuous retort to the left-wing nuts who use it in all seriousness, is a hypocrite of the first order.
Really? I have always found the whole “dead white males” thing to be a pretty wrongheaded and simplistic chunk of PC blather, but I never heard it employed in the service of actually banning the works of said dead white males. Rather, that tired phrase tended to get rolled out as part of an argument against limiting the canon only to such authors. So I don’t really see how someone arguing to extend the canon beyond a single category can be compared to someone who is seeking to eliminate an entire category from consideration. I certainly don’t see how the former can be considered “a hypocrite of the first order” for condemning the latter.
Ted Barlow: Go to a library, any library, and you’ll be surrounded by books by people about whom you know nothing. Is R.L. Stine straight? Are they going to start sending letters to every publisher, asking for a list of gay authors?
Given that the Texas bill against gay foster parents apparently provides for investigations into the sexual orientation of current and potential foster parents, this might not be such a stretch.
After googling on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, the group behind the Odessa effort, I find that they are backed by
Center for Reclaiming America and American Family Association .
Anyone who thinks these organizations are just interested in teaching the Bible as a literary work might want to check their web sites.
You might also want to check out this article about Elizabeth Ridenour, head of NCBCPS.
As far as my use of “absolutely” goes, I would say I use it not just when I know, but sometimes when I only know. Soas a theoretical matter is it conceivable that there will not be the pressure I describe? Yes. But I consider the probability negligible.
Ah, bob’s found his place as the Savage opposition.
The other night I was driving back to work, late, and Savage Nation was where my radio station was tuned. It was sort of like an accident in progress; you just watch in wonder while this major catastrophe of logic unfolds. Savage’s thesis is that young women, seeing the carefree, partying homosexual lifestyle, are more inclined to just have fun. And aren’t becoming mothers because those girls just want to have fun. Which, you know, is the root cause of declining birthrate here and in Europe.
And he’s saying declining birthrate like it’s a bad thing. I can see that it’d be a bad thing if there were only, say, a couple of hundred thousand people in the world. Anyway…every once in a while I have to listen to Savage just to see what the lunatic fringe is up to. The thesis goes unsupported, as you’d expect, but just having it put out there made me embarrassed that he was the same species as I.
Nice work Bernard.
Slightly OT, but I firmly believe that one of the most important things you teach your kids is how to understand peer pressure, the insecurities behind it, and how to thwart its alleged power.
Sure. But it’s not easy and not everyone succeeds, or even tries very hard. And in these situations it’s not a classmate trying to get your kid to smoke a cigarette. It might well include a large majority of classmates, and even teachers.
… dead white males …
Back in 1991 the Capitol Steps did a PC duet that included the lyric
My point is, PC was a laughing stock even back then. To take Political Correctness seriously has always seemed silly to me. I don’t mean that no one was serious about it, just that it was never a serious threat. This, on the other hand, is part of an openly declared “culture war.” It’s not [yet] a shooting war, as noted by Judge Rogers Brown, but the rhetoric is troubling.
So I’m curious: has anyone reading this blog ever used the term ‘dead white males’, other than (a) sarcastically or (b) as part of some sort of forensic exercise? Though I am liberal and feminist and all sorts os scary things, I have not. For one thing, I’m much too fond of Kant, especially his views on -> autonomy <- (I'm sure there's a connection to my political views lurking there somewhere, but where?) And for what it's worth, in a world in which teaching was teaching, I'd favor teaching the Bible, but in the present world, in which one could not do so without creating a firestorm, I am unfortunately not. A pity: back when I was a teenage Christian, and thus knew the Bible backwards and forwards, I took an advanced seminar on Milton; this would arguably have been a mistake (half the students were grad students, and I was the lone freshman) had it not been for the fact that my background in the Bible, which no one else had, compensated for my lack of background in everything else. Which is a long way of saying: it's a very real advantage when you're trying to understand our cultural antecedents, and ideally everyone would study it.
using the term “dead white males” as part of a forensic exercise–you mean like trying to sort through the victims at a multiple homicide scene? Nope, never done it.
Agreed about the Bible, though. Furthermore, if understanding Milton doesn’t seem intrinsically worthwhile to you, then you should read it because you’ll get *so* much more out of Philip Pullman that way! (Yeesh–talk about a steady cultural decline…).
After googling on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, the group behind the Odessa effort, I find that they are backed by Center for Reclaiming America and American Family Association .
Anyone who thinks these organizations are just interested in teaching the Bible as a literary work might want to check their web sites.
You might also want to check out this article about Elizabeth Ridenour, head of NCBCPS.
Oh, and btw, is it too early to start talking about the “secret fundamentalist agenda” in this country? I mean, if they have to sneak the Bible into classrooms under the guise of wanting to do so for literary and historical purposes, they understand that their real objectives are not shared by the majority of the country. It’s like the Bush administration’s continual development of dog whistle rhetoric. If your objectives are that unpopular, if you have to be that furtive, you’re not really serving the majority, now are you?
Riiiight. When’s the last time you saw anyone getting ragged on because of their course electives?
Just the band kids. But they were all dorks anyway.
Go to a library, any library, and you’ll be surrounded by books by people about whom you know nothing. Is R.L. Stine straight? Are they going to start sending letters to every publisher, asking for a list of gay authors?
And what about the dead authors? Sure he was married, but are we absolutely sure that Shakespeare wasn’t gay?
Great, so understanding geography is elective?
It (frequently) is in the US, which explains a lot…
Sure he was married, but are we absolutely sure that Shakespeare wasn’t gay?
Actually, Allen had wanted to include Shakespeare, but faced too much opposition…
That last bit’s my favorite. This chump considers himself qualified to dictate what students should be reading.
Actually, Allen had wanted to include Shakespeare, but faced too much opposition…
Well it’s understandable: there’s a fairly extensive body of literature on homosexuality in the sonnets. I’m sure that a lewd and lascivious eye, such as undoubtedly possessed by Allen, could find it elsewhere.
My particular favorite part of that article, though, is the update:
It’s the opposition-that-is-not-opposition. How very Zen.
This whole discussion reminds me why I am so opposed to a federal Department of Education, why I have lived in a fricking shack to send my kids to a private K-8 (also because they tried to force Ritalin on my son), and why I don’t have cable TV. Too many adults are totally irresponsible when it comes to kids. Now, my son was in in a small professional opera production of “The Turn of the Screw” when he was 12, and a had a gay director. Somehow, this guy was totally with it about how to deal with kids. And the whole experience has really very very good, and we were quite comfortable, even with the creepy subject matter of the play. On the other hand, for a dinky little church fundraiser, when my daughter was 12, she had a single transgendered lady running the whole thing who was absolutely clueless. So they’re rehearsing the nth time at around 12:45, ON A SCHOOL NIGHT, when one of the other little girls passes out on stage. So look, OK, you don’t want goofy religious people to censor books, and I don’t want childless goofs like the young school social worker who was NOT a psychologist and NOT a psychiatrist giving me some ultimatum that I have to medicate my boy because he fidgets too much. Hell, forget about federal level, maybe state school funding and control is too far out of the hands of the people who really have concerns about their children. Now you may call me a homophobe or a religious nut, but you don’t know what your talking about. Like I told hilzoy on another I’m paying for my son to go to Macalester, even though they are a bunch of goofs up there that remind me of this here crowd. But the thing is that he is an ADULT, well, sort of. Man, I am so frosted I think I’ll run for school board on some kind of library temperance platform!!!
Every once in a while a newspaper will run a story on “Chuckleheaded Laws of the Past, Some of Which are Still on the Books.” And while we’re giggling, we’ll wonder what those idiotic legislatures were thinking when they passed those dumb laws.
Well, wonder no more.
DaveC–
I think I’m with you on this one, though I’m not entirely sure I follow all of your lines of complaint. But these parts resonate:
“Sorry, I want my kids to be as innocent for as long as possible. They are not the same as small adults.”
“Too many adults are totally irresponsible when it comes to kids. ”
I think Edward is completely right-on in opposing censorship of libraries, and in particular in his being outraged at anti-gay censorship.
However, I think people on this thread are not being very realistic about child-rearing when they flirt with the position that every kid should be allowed to read every book at every age.
As a parent, this just strikes me as clueless. It’s just not a caring attitude to take towards your children.
Yes, you expose them to more and more of the world as they get older. Yes, you want them to mature and grow an outer skin. But you do it in a calibrated way, not to the rhythm of their own naive thrill-seeking. Kids are ready to hear the answer to every question they ask? Hello? As though kids’ questions are ever that determinate–the most interesting ones are open-ended, and need to be answered at a level of specificity that helps them get to the next stage in their understanding.
If you want your kid to be able to lift heavy weights when they grow up, you start them on very light weights as a small child, and work up very slowly. You don’t throw a hundred pound barbell on them and then say “they’ll have to face it sooner or later”. That’s the route to herniation, not strength.
I don’t see that sort of sensitivity to real child-raising being reflected in the comments on this thread.
Furthermore, even from a purely political stance, I shudder to think about the ammunition that many of you are giving to the book-banners. “Look!” they can now say, “these people don’t simply want to keep Shakespeare and Keynes and Plato in the library, they want very little kids to read Naked Lunch! These people clearly cannot be trusted with our children!”
I’m as liberal as the rest of you guys–honest, we can show off our credentials some time–but I think some sensitivity to what it’s like to be raising kids in the current culture would be a real addition to the liberal platform.
You want to get somebody’s back up, even the most mild mannered person, then go ahead, and tell a parent “I think We know better how to raise your children” Yeah, that’ll set ’em off.
I DONT CARE IF YOU ARE DR. BENJAMIN FREAKIN SPOCK YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TELL ME WHAT’S BEST FOR MY CHILDREN.
So there.
I agree with Tad on this one. And it’s not about prudishness: my Mom is a person who just loves books, and since she’s also very generous, she naturally wanted to share as many of them as possible with her kids. I am the oldest, so most of her odder decisions (age-wise) were with me. Reading Lord Jim at nine put me off Conrad for a decade.
Tad, I think, conveyed the message a little more reasonably than I did, but I think that my reaction might be a little bit more common among the general populace.
However, I think people on this thread are not being very realistic about child-rearing when they flirt with the position that every kid should be allowed to read every book at every age.
I guess I didn’t see a lot of flirting with that position. What I saw was objections to the idea that because a book was written by a homosexual it was automatically inappropriate. I think it’s possible to object vigorously to that notion without disagreeing with DaveC or Tad.
To reiterate: it appears that this bill didn’t pass, Edward, so you might want to update the main post to reflect that (after an independent confirmation, natch).
What I want to know is whether Biblical translations authorized by (and, colloquially, bearing the name of) gay kings* are also affected by Allen’s proposal…
*To be anachronistic about the whole thing. Of course there was no conception of sexual orientation in the seventeenth century. Whether or not it existed before we invented it is, of course, a subject for all sorts of interesting discussion, but not really on topic.
Well, the bill didn’t pass. So I guess that “Our Town” is safe for the drama department. Hmm, now might be a good time to roll out that Jean Genet production for the 8th grade play.
Laura Ingalls Wilder was gay?
Oh Lord! Little Laura, what next? ;^)
I’m not sure if LL Wilder was gay, but I *am* sure that her father was a world-class flake and loser. Of course, the stories are told through her hero-worshipping eyes, and she never saw through him. But if you read them as an adult, it becomes clear that the guy could never hold a job, could never organize a farm into a profitable business, was always thinking that the next venture would pay off after he had screwed up the last one. He reads like an Al-Anon profile in the drunken dreamer.
Mr. Yomtov–
” What I saw was objections to the idea that because a book was written by a homosexual it was automatically inappropriate.”
Thanks–I’m glad to have the chance to reiterate my strong agreement with that objection, and with Edward’s outrage.
But if you read back through, there was also a curious tough-guy strand about “I read shocking book X younger than you did and wasn’t I messed up as a result and isn’t that funny.” Fair enough for dorm-room conversations, but it sounds real different when you’re a parent. (Actually, I note that st also objected to having a sub-14 yr old read Burroughs).
I *am* sure that [Pa] was a world-class flake and loser.
He was always playing that fiddle. You know how musicians are.
He was always playing that fiddle. You know how musicians are.
Q. What do you call a musician without a girlfriend?
A. Homeless.
Which Wilder are we talking about? Thornton, Laura, Billy, Gene?
“I think people on this thread are not being very realistic about child-rearing when they flirt with the position that every kid should be allowed to read every book at every age.”
Where was that flirting? How did we get from high school students reading Naked Lunch to preschoolers browsing Hustler?
You want to get somebody’s back up, even the most mild mannered person, then go ahead, and tell a parent “I think We know better how to raise your children” Yeah, that’ll set ’em off.
That is exactly what you are doing when you support the idea that other people’s children should be denied the opportunity to read authors because they are gay, or because you wouldn’t want to have to explain the subject matter to your children, or whatever other reason that makes you think you should get to decide what other parents’ children read. You don’t like it when it is done to you, but you support doing it to others. What kind of logic is that?
You take care of your kids, let other people take care of theirs, OK? What is so hard about that?
No, Naked Lunch is not good subject matter for kids, because it is really hideously written, a waste of talent. Junkie, or Exterminator, however…well the guy knew how to write, when he chose to.
The reasonable middle ground, of course, is to have the library stock everything, and let the parents choose the restrictions…sorry Timmy, “My Pet Goat” was written by a suspected homosexual, you will need your parents’ signatures…
Sidereal–
I have always thought of “Hustler” as a magazine rather than a book (correct me if I’m wrong). So my claim was about books. And it was a question of “reading”, so we are only talking about school-age children, i.e. old enough to read, not pre-schoolers. So “preschoolers browsing Hustler” are not condoned either by me, or by the people I was objecting to.
I don’t want to pick on Edward, because I agree with the primary, and important, point he was making in his original post. But here’s what he said further down:
“I wholly reject the notion that children need to be protected from literature….if they seek it out, that suggests they’re ready for it.”
So–suppose that my eight y.o. tells me that he has heard that Naked Lunch is a really wonderful book, and that he really wants to read it.
Is he seeking it out? If so, Edward rejects the notion that I should protect my eight year old from reading it.
That strikes me as equivalent to the policy that every kid (i.e. every kid of reading age) should be allowed to read (not browse the pictures in) every book (not magazine) at every age (i.e. age at which they can read).
And that seems like an unrealistic policy, uninformed by extended contact with kids or the demands of raising them.
(If we decide that my son is not seeking it out, we can only do so by a process of second-guessing that Edward might find just as paternalistic and offensive as the flat decision to withold it–but I’d like to hear his own thoughts on the question.)
Again, part of the out-of-touchness is the very idea that kids have any idea of what they are “seeking out”. Of course they want to expand their range of experiences. But exactly because of their lack of experience, they have *no* idea what they may encounter, or what they’re ready for. Edward’s rule seems to me like saying “if they can turn the door handle, then they can survive anything that may come through the door”. And this just doesn’t seem like a well-thought-out policy.
felixrayman–
” you support the idea that other people’s children should be denied the opportunity to read authors because they are gay”
I don’t remember DaveC saying this. Nor would I say this.
So–suppose that my eight y.o. tells me that he has heard that Naked Lunch is a really wonderful book, and that he really wants to read it.
You could choose what he reads – you’re a parent. That is not what this is about. Suppose you decide someone else’s eight y.o. shouldn’t read Naked Lunch, because you don’t like it. That would be closer to what this is about, but not quite. For the law would not be about the majority of the writings of Terry Southern, or Henry Miller, or Charles Bukowski. No, suppose you didn’t want someone else’s children to read a book with harmless, inoffensive subject matter, merely because the author was gay.
That’s what this is about. We can sidetrack to offensive subject matter, and I will defend libraries right (and obligation) to stock those books, but that is not what the law in question is about.
I don’t remember DaveC saying this
Some people have longer memories than others, I suppose.
felixrayman–
“some people have longer memories than others, I suppose.”
If you can remember it, then you can document it. And that will help me to remember it, too. Just direct me to the text.
As to your 11:19 post, I think you’re just confusing me with someone else altogether. I have never expressed any support for this bill, and I have expressed support for Edward’s position on it. I’m glad you reject it, too, but I don’t know why you preface your rejection of it with a quotation from one of my earlier posts.
but I don’t know why you preface your rejection of it with a quotation from one of my earlier posts.
Because you seem, in effect, to equate the idea of libraries stocking certain books with the idea of libraries forcing your children to read certain books. And the effect of that is doing what you claim not to want to do – telling parents what their children may not read.
There can be a good discussion, among moderates, of ways that parents and libraries can cooperate in making sure that children do not read subject matter that the parents find objectionable, while allowing more liberal parents the opportunity to raise their children in an open environment. But that can’t happen if the books aren’t in the libraries to begin with. That’s what we’re talking about here.
felixrayman–
You know, the guy you’re disagreeing with seems like someone I’d disagree with, too. Oh–in fact, I *did* disagree with him, in my 9:14 post, when I said:
“I think Edward is completely right-on in opposing censorship of libraries, and in particular in his being outraged at anti-gay censorship.”
Since we both disagree with him, let’s just skip all that stuff about how I “seem, in effect, to be equating” something I never said with something else I never said.
I’d much rather hear you start that “good discussion” of how parents and libraries can cooperate. I think we’re on the same page about the other stuff, so we can now proceed to details.
(Only I hope you’ll excuse me if I don’t answer for a while, cause now I need to proceed to bed).
I’d much rather hear you start that “good discussion” of how parents and libraries can cooperate. I think we’re on the same page about the other stuff, so we can now proceed to details.
That’s all the easy stuff though. The library stocks everything, parents can get their kid a library card that can check out anything, or a card that can check out only things marked children friendly, or a card that can check out only things marked anti-gay bigot friendly or whatever, that’s all easy stuff. No problem with that. That’s how they do it here, I really don’t care if your kids read Naked Lunch or can read Naked Lunch if they want to, or if you can decide your kids can only read anti-Naked Lunch screeds.
But Naked Lunch for damn sure better be in the libraries, cause that’s what they’re for.
Not that I am into that….like I said, Junkie or Exterminator is more my style.
It’s the living white male [fiction] authors (Foster Wallace, Eggers, Franzen, Safran Foer) who disgruntle me much more than the dead ones.
Hilzoy: So I’m curious: has anyone reading this blog ever used the term ‘dead white males’, other than (a) sarcastically or (b) as part of some sort of forensic exercise?
Hm. Well, I can’t swear to everything I’ve ever said, but as a concept, it’s something I might have said. That is, the concept that Great Literature consists only of “dead white males” with a tiny sprinkling of dead white females most of whom apparently only wrote one book, or one poem. (See Joanna Russ’s How to Suppress Women’s Writing.) But the concept that people should read more widely, should not accept the canon of “dead white males” is so far from being the same as the concept of limiting what people should be allowed to read, that I really do not understand what M. Scott Eiland is trying to do in linking the two concepts.
Tad Brennan: However, I think people on this thread are not being very realistic about child-rearing when they flirt with the position that every kid should be allowed to read every book at every age.
Well, Tad, my parents between them owned more books than many small school libraries have, and it would have been very difficult for them to keep the books “unsuitable for children” away from their three offspring, all of whom were early and voracious readers. My mother in fact did believe, strongly, that if a child was ready to read a book – to seek it out of his or her own accord, and to read it start to finish – that she or he ought to be allowed to read it. (Further, she got me an adult library card aged 10, on discovering that I had read my way through all the books I liked in the local children’s library, and was beginning again – at which point what I read really passed completely out of her control.)
And my feeling was, she was absolutely right. I don’t think being able to decide for myself what I wanted to read did me any harm at all.
Not that I disagree with the concept that parents should be allowed to decide for themselves what their rules are about what their child should read. But if you raise a child to like reading, s/he is going to read – and unless the child is completely cut off from books outside the family home, their parents do not have absolute control over what their child decides to read – and shouldn’t, in my view, even try.
Doesn’t the Bible itself contain some gay characters? And shouldn’t some allowance be made for the attitude of author towards homosexuality?? I mean, say I wanted to write a book warning the good children of Alabama about the perils of homosexuality, and say I wanted to dramatize my opinion. It would be difficult to do this without at least one gay character (though imagining a play focused around the awfulness of gay people without any actual gay people on the character list seems like an interesting dramatic thought exercise). It seems, um, counterproductive for such a work to be banned. So I would think that whatever board is maintaining the canonical index librorum should look into whether the work’s tone was accomodating or incriminating.
I think at least some of the ruderlessness of the post-colonial left is explained by the fact that it seems difficult both to be a liberal and to have an allergy to dead white males.
You take care of your kids, let other people take care of theirs, OK? What is so hard about that?
You don’t believe this for a second, and I know you don’t. You and I both believe, for example, that public schools should teach the best available science in science classes, even when it conflicts completely with childrens’ and parents’ fundamental religious beliefs. We also both believe that schools should provide hot lunches, and most likely breakfasts, to all kids. Don’t suddenly adopt positions you don’t actually hold because they appear to make your argument stronger.
Jesurgislac–
“My mother in fact did believe, strongly, that if a child was ready to read a book – to seek it out of his or her own accord, and to read it start to finish – that she or he ought to be allowed to read it.”
Set aside the part between m-dashes for a second, and you have the claim that if a child is ready to read it, then they should get to read it.
I have never disagreed with that, and I do not disagree with that. I probably believe it as strongly as your mother did.
But notice that turning that into a policy, either for a library or (as I think is more to the point) for a parent, places all the burden on the assessment of readiness.
I mean, as far as the general conditional goes, I would also agree to “if a child is ready to perform open heart surgery, then they should get to”–it’s just that our method of assessing their readiness involves making sure they have a B.A., an M.D., and the requisite number of years as a thoracic resident, and so on. Yup, if they are ready, i.e. have done all that stuff, then I don’t care what age they are.
Ripeness is all, as a favorite bannable author once said. In fact, packed into the notion of “readiness” and its assessment goes all of the notion of protection that I found missing in Edward’s overly brief formulation.
I want kids to have access to all the books they are ready for, and I agree with your mother that if they are ready for a book, they should get to read it. And I also think they need protection from books for which they are not ready.
And I think it can tax the skills of a much better parent, and a much better reader, than I myself am, to tell when a child is or isn’t ready for a book. I think the parent has to try, however inadequate to the task they may be. But my point is that there is a real *job* here, and I would say a real *duty* for the parent. What led me to speak out was what seemed to me a hyper-permissive stance that said there is really no need for any parental supervision at all, or that any parental supervision at all would even be a bad thing.
Now to the stuff in m-dashes: “to seek it out of his or her own accord, and to read it start to finish”.
Is that still governed by the “ready” (as the “to seek” and “to read” suggests)? I.e., was your mother’s policy that if a child is ready to seek it out, and if the child is ready to read it start to finish, then that shows they are ready to read it, (and so should have access to it)?
If so, then once again that sounds fine to me. If they are ready to read all of the contents, then there must be no contents that they are not ready to read, and I say let them at it. (Now back to the task of assessing readiness).
Or was the material in m-dashes not governed by the “ready”, but instead offered as a complete test of readiness? I.e.: if the child seeks it out and reads it from start to finish, then the child is ready to read the book.
If that’s what you meant, then it does not seem to me a very good test of readiness. For one thing, the results always come back too late–we only find out whether they were ready after they have finished it or failed to finish it. Not wise parenting to test for peanut allergies by asking a kid to eat a jar of peanut butter.
But more than that, it seems to me perfectly possible that a child–my eight year old, again–could well seek out a book (“of his own accord”, whatever that means for an 8yo), could well read every word on every page, and yet be grossly un-ready for the book. I doubt that the nine-year-old Hilzoy skipped a single word; but she says she was not ready to read Conrad.
So–depending on how we take the stuff inside the m-dashes, I either agree or I don’t. I agree that if a kid is ready, they should get to read it. I disagree that seeking and completing is a very good test of readiness.
I don’t have any alternative algorithm. Again, it takes more parental skills than I have myself. I just try to muddle through, and it is getting harder as my kids read more, and read faster. All I’m arguing for is the view that there is a real job to be done, and that children do, as strange as it sounds, need to be protected from literature. They need and deserve access to all the literature they are ready for. Assessments of readiness involve parental protection.
Assessments of readiness involve parental protection.
This has been interesting thread, if a bit heated. However, it seems to me that any legislatively promulgated solution is going to automatically bypass parental protection. We can easily agree on the clear cases (no illustrated karma sutras perhaps), but placing the listing function at the national or even the state level moves the protection from the parent to some body that can either be manipulated or can provide the illusion of protection.
I’m not sure how it works now, but when I was a kid, children had a card that allowed them to only check out children’s books and if a parent wanted to allow a child to check out books from the adult section, they had to sign a form. Has that notion disappeared?
Liberal Japonicus–
I apologize for any heatedness. I tried to lower the temp., but may have raised it through inadvertence (or just by going on too long).
Tad: And I think it can tax the skills of a much better parent, and a much better reader, than I myself am, to tell when a child is or isn’t ready for a book.
I think the point I’m trying to make, a point that I think my mother recognized out of pure necessity, is that children who love reading will read. They’ll seek out books they want to read, and dive nose-first into them. There is a certain degree to which a parent really can prevent children reading some books, and it’s by not having those books in the house. In order to get to a library or to a bookstore, and to find books there, a child needs a certain degree of autonomy – and a certain will to find the books.
And there is a certain degree after which a parent really cannot prevent children reading whatever they want to read. Teach children to read, and teach children to love reading, and they will, you know they will, read books you wish they hadn’t read, learn about things you wish they didn’t know about, and develop opinions that you wish they didn’t have. And yes, when your child does that, you’re being a good parent: you’re rearing a child who is not your clone.
My mother decided that I was the best judge of whether or not I was “ready” for a book. And I think she was right. Who else could possibly know?
There is the additional point: Sometimes I read some things in books that upset me. Because my parents had never forbidden me to read any books, I always knew I could go to one or the other of them and say “I read this, it bothers me, can I tell you about it?” and I wouldn’t get into trouble for reading it.
When I was seven years old, my parents forbade me from reading certain comic book titles that I enjoyed because they felt that those particular titles were far too violent and mature for me. (And my father was in the Army, so, I mean, really.) Two years later, they were letting me check books out of the adult section of the library. They had a pretty good idea of what I was and wasn’t ready for, and after the age of nine or ten, they really didn’t put many restrictions on what I could read, view or listen to. But it was their prerogative to exercise, and not anyone else’s.
So I fall somewhere in between Tad and Jes on this stuff: If you know your child, you know there is stuff that is age-inappropriate, and it’s your responsibility to keep them from it until they’re ready. But once you know they’ve crossed a certain maturity and curiousity threshhold, let them explore, and be ready when they come to you with questions.
(The only time I remember really being freaked out by something I probably wasn’t ready for was when I read Vincent Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter at age 12, and slept with the lights on for weeks. My parents wouldn’t let me see Jaws when I was 7, but they let me see it on TV when I was 10. They were willing to let me watch a TV broadcast of The Exorcist at 11, but I never made it past Regan’s first conniption fit on the bed before fleeing the room in terror. I finally watched on my own on HBO at 14, after reading the novel.)
So–suppose that my eight y.o. tells me that he has heard that Naked Lunch is a really wonderful book, and that he really wants to read it.
Is he seeking it out? If so, Edward rejects the notion that I should protect my eight year old from reading it.
You’re not quite understanding me.
As in most aspects of growing up, parental guidance is king (or queen). You know your child best. If he is not ready for Naked Lunch, you’ll know it and should act find some way to convince him of that. If he’s asking you questions that Naked Lunch could answer much better than you could, however, you might consider handing it to him. Eight sounds young for it, I agree, but recall what Mozart was capable of at 4…YCMV.
Protecting your children is natural, but so is their seeking answers…it’s a natural part of growing up. Artificially keeping children innocent past their natural inclination toward it is unhealthy for them IMO.
Edward–
Thanks for your reply. I was concerned at several points that I might be misunderstanding you, and I hope my misunderstandings were not offensive.
I also want to apologize for getting the thread onto a somewhat different topic. You wrote about a deeply ridiculous piece of legislation, and I got off onto a tangent about parental obligations.
If it’s any consolation, I suspect that the thread got off onto a separate controversy in part because everyone so thoroughly agreed with your original point.
I also want to apologize for getting the thread onto a somewhat different topic. You wrote about a deeply ridiculous piece of legislation, and I got off onto a tangent about parental obligations.
Not at all. I think they’re related actually. If one takes Allen’s legislation at face value (I’m being overly generous here), it’s easy to imagine he is concerned about his parental obligations as well. His conclusions are ignorant IMO (anyone who would keep their children from reading Walt Whitman just because he was gay needs a broader worldview), but perhaps (perhaps, mind you), his heart is the right place.
Personally, I think his interest is solely in ensuring he can pass along his own brand of hatred, but that brings us back to the (C)Karnak(c) post.
felixrayman–
“some people have longer memories than others, I suppose.”
And Tad was the guy who read what I said carefully,and understood my points. What I originally said was that I did not recommend some of the listed authors, for instance William Burroughs, and then added another crazy heterosexual, Hunter Thompson, that I thought inappropriate for school libraries.
I did advocate Willa Cather and Thornton Wilder, because their heros are virtuous, if stoic, people that I would like my kids to emulate. I think it more important that my children grow up as virtuous people than as interesting people. I don’t want my son to be Neal Cassidy or Jim Morrison any more than I want him to be Alan Ginsberg or William Burroughs. And well, yes, maybe I don’t want my son to even be like Pa Ingalls.
“Interesting” is not the what parents want their kids to be.
Some personal information might clarify things here. My wife is a school librarian. My HS Assistant Principal hated me, because he thought I was a queer drug addict. This attitude filtered down to other parents and students, although of course my friend who really were gay had a more accurate assessment of me.
friendS
And my basic point that Edward_ and some of you other folks are a little out of touch about certain issues still stands. Sorry if the point was too strongly argued, but personally I think that Edward_ needs a good spanking from time to time.
“but personally I think that Edward_ needs a good spanking from time to time.”
Mr. Underscore has a significant other for those purposes 😉
Sorry if the point was too strongly argued, but personally I think that Edward_ needs a good spanking from time to time.
This is neither the time nor place for that sort of talk…really, what’s this place coming to? 😉
DaveC, we’re not as far apart on this as you seem to think we are. I’d much rather see my neices and nephews reading Whitman than Hunter. Whitman was a mensch, Hunter a misanthrope. Whoever they read, however, I have faith that the values instilled in them by their parents will enable them to make sound judgments about what they’re reading.
Sometimes you need some mean, angry conservatives to comment around here. Slart might get banned from Michele’s place but he’s too laid back here. Perhaps he will get on the anti-Baby Bratz bandwagon. As for von, if the the rest of you guys advocated nationalizing the cheese industry, he would probably go along with it. After all, President Reagan kind of did that sort of thing.
Sometimes you need some mean, angry conservatives to comment around here.
I sort of agree. No offense to the wonderful liberals who comment here, but if ObWi is going to live up to its potential, all of us need to tolerate various opinions a bit more openly.
But “mean” and “angry” is not the path. Flippant, glib, arrogant…all those can be useful, but “mean” will definitely be counterproductive.
Flippant, glib, arrogant…
You called?
Edward_,
“No offense to the wonderful liberals who comment here, but if ObWi is going to live up to its potential, all of us need to tolerate various opinions a bit more openly.
But “mean” and “angry” is not the path. Flippant, glib, arrogant…all those can be useful, but “mean” will definitely be counterproductive.”
Not quite sure if I’m reading you right, but I think we have enough conservatives whose primary contribution is being flippant, glib and arrogant (and I am not sure if naming names would be a posting violation, so I won’t). What we need are more conservatives who care enough about the issues we discuss to present a coherent argument and defend it on its substance when attacked, like Sebastian and von (to the extent von is conservative) do.
I don’t mind if school districts show some sense in their choices of books for their school libraries. It isn’t necessary for school libraries to have books that celebrate indulgence in any the seven deadly sins (that includes Fear and Loathing and Ayn Rand), but I would certainly want public libraries to have those books available.
I’ve found, as a parent, that I have been much more restrictive in managing movie watching, though still quite liberally, than I ever was managing my son’s reading list. If my son wanted to read it, he was allowed to. If he had questions, he could talk about it with me. Now that he is in high school, he recommends books for me to read, such as Foster Wallace’s Infinite Jest. Sadly, the style of 19th century authors tends to turn him off, so Huck Finn and Tale of Two Cities are still in his future.
Despite the delusions of parents, they are not all equally qualified to raise children and the ones who rejected Spock because they thought he was hopelessly indulgent are among the worst, not because indulgence isn’t bad, but because Spock wasn’t indulgent, he was sensible. The truly terrible and truly wonderful can demonstrate that within five minutes of meeting you, but most manage to maintain conventions in front of others and their qualities are hidden.
I’m also the type who refuses to sell the “drugs are evil” mantra by itself — kids hear this, and try them for themselves and find out that there is a lot of appeal to using illicit drugs and start to distrust everything that is told to them. Sensible discussion of the appeal along with the danger strikes me as a better way to treat children. It also has the advantage that you encourage trust rather than putting lies into the relationship.
(and I am not sure if naming names would be a posting violation, so I won’t).
I don’t see Katherine or Sebastian anywhere on this thread, so you probably would have gotten away with it.
(risks ban 🙂
You have to be careful about nodding heads. Like in church, you think they are nodding in approval, but the snoring soon gives it away.
Datheman…I’m not suggesting flippancy be the first approach toward a topic. Substance is infinitely preferable. But flippancy can be an avenue toward gingerly finding that elusive common ground. I’ve seen it work for me when I cast myself into the lion’s den of right wing sites.
What we’re doing here is inviting cats and dogs to sit down for lunch together. It’s not going to happen if we insist they leave their claws at the door. We have posting rules to protect folks from getting too cut up, but I’d much rather have folks feel they can scratch back rather than just pack it in and leave. YMMV.
The left here has successfully chased off a good number of interesting, if hard-core, rightwing folks. I miss them. I like to debate. I like folks to roll up their sleeves and dive into the thick of it earnestly. That’s not going to happen if the right or the left feels unwelcome here.
It goes in waves, but currently it’s the left that’s dominating. All I want is balance. Insisting everyone be a Sebastian or Von isn’t going to do that. Charles or Mac or Tacitus (wait for it!!!) have things to teach me and I want to learn them. I also have things to teach them, and so long as they feel welcome here, they’ll come around and if only by osmosis learn once in a while [;-p]. It makes some folks who are not used to being challenged so vigorously very uncomfortable (and it’s no secret that I’ve gone some serious rounds myself with folks on the other side), but in the end that’s more valuable to me than an echo chamber.
I realize I’m all over the map on this now, but I do think ObWi is at its very best when someone on the other side realizes that despite the flippancy, glibness or arrogance, they actually agree with an opponent more than they disagree.
What we need are more conservatives who care enough about the issues we discuss to present a coherent argument and defend it on its substance when attacked
The problem of course is that the above is often in the eye of the beholder. When people fall into the trap of valuing the contributions of those disagree with, or demand that they spoon feed those views into a form they find easier to swallow, it just ends up as a subtle form restriction or censorship.
You don’t believe this for a second, and I know you don’t. You and I both believe, for example, that public schools should teach the best available science in science classes, even when it conflicts completely with childrens’ and parents’ fundamental religious beliefs. We also both believe that schools should provide hot lunches, and most likely breakfasts, to all kids.
Neither of these are inconsistent with what I argued. I believe public schools should teach science in science classes. I don’t believe children should be forced to attend public schools (or schools at all). Same with lunches, no one should have them forced on their children, they should be available to those who need them. How you think either of these contradict what I said is unclear.
Well, that’s what I get for assuming, I suppose. Your response — I don’t believe children should be forced to attend public schools (or schools at all) — is surprising enough to me, and enough of what I would not have expected, that I rather find myself more or less in agreement with you.
A unexpected moment of pleasantry on a Friday!
Edward_,
I agree with 80-90% of what you said, and don’t believe I can discuss the rest without a ruling from the kitten on whether discussing the merits and demerits of other posters in this context would be a posting violation. I am happy to leave it there.
Dantheman,
It’s something that gives me (and the other ObWi writers) migraines. Mac nailed it, actually: it’s in the eye of the beholder. There are things I take for granted that strike conservatives as blasphemous and visa versa.
I agree that naming names won’t be helpful here. The thing is though, I’ve seen heroes on both sides cross the line. We’ll end up banning everyone eventually and what would we have then?
Speaking of unexpected moments of pleasantry on a Friday, I offer this one I imagine Edward wouldn’t expect. Enjoy.
Who is this “K. J. Lopez” and why isn’t he/she president?
Friday Gatling Blog
Buckle up. It’s that time of the week again.
“We’ll end up banning everyone eventually and what would we have then?”
satori
satori
Do you get those White Castle commercials where you are sidereal?
No, we live in a Dick’s Drive In Exclusion Zone, wherein the power and majesty of Dick’s burgers are so intense that all mentions of White Castle or In N Out swill just sounds like static.
And this from a vegetarian. I love them from afar.
that is a really scary website for a hamburger joint.
Do not arouse the ire of Dick!
My favorite section is “What makes Dicks So Special?”
I must say, though, this is a pretty cool photo.
It’s still there! A bunch of tall buildings hovering around it now, though.
Thats a great photo Ed 🙂
thanks mky
“how’s business?”
e
Bookburning
[Via Obsidian Wings In the wake of a truly absurd list of The Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries from the ultra-rightwing mag, Human Events (who helpfully but rather ironically provide links to the Amazon pages for each tome should y…