Missouri public school bans Kurt Vonnegut's 'Slaughterhouse Five'.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That must be it.

But seriously, I'm having a heck of a time imagining how anyone could construe anything contained within its pages as deviant and/or explicit sex. And I'm erring on the side of PC-ness.

My only guess would be the sex that takes place between Billy Pilgrim and Montana Wildhack while on display in the Tralfamadoran "zoo." But there's no description of any kind concerning that particular carnal act(s)—other than the fact that you are made aware that sex was had while aliens were watching.

As far as violence goes... well a big part of the overall point of the book is to expose the atrocities of war, so... yeah.

The Sierra-created Laura Bow 2 (DAGGER OF AMON RA!!) game was more explicit than that.

OK, raise your hand if you think the "age-appropriateness" is a smoke screen for "My Religion Doesn't Like It". I'm just curious.

Originally Posted by mldavis2

None of you seem to be from Kansas, Texas or Oklahoma in the heart of the Bible belt. No argument to any of these comments ... just sayin'.

I am.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but it's a fun fact that there are a lot of liberal pockets in the southern states, particularly in big cities and college towns. It's one of the reason why I find these "community standards" decisions noxious -- I do NOT believe that 100% of the community wanted this book removed, but rather I believe that the most vocal part of the community wanted it removed and the liberal members of the community has to choose when to fight their fights and when to withdraw.

(See also the people in the thread saying "Well, at least the kids will read it now..." That sort of thing. You can only join so many school boards in your free time, ya know?)

[pagansoul]

For a free PDF of S5

Link deleted by moderator

[DiapDealer]

That pdf link violates copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pagansoul

For a free PDF of S5

Moderator Notice
Please do not post links to pirated books. If you do so again, you will be immediately banned from MobileRead without notice. We will not tolerate such actions.

Thank you.

[anamardoll]

My Wikipedia blackbelt dug this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaught...ip_controversy

The U.S. Supreme Court considered the First Amendment implications of the removal of the book, among others, from public school libraries in the case of Island Trees School District v. Pico, [457 U.S. 853 (1982)], and concluded that "local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to 'prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'" Slaughterhouse-Five is the sixty-seventh entry to the American Library Association's list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990-1999.

So it seems that "age-appropriateness" is even more of a necessary screen. If they came right out and said "our community doesn't like this book", it wouldn't be legal (?) to remove it from the library?

[HarryT]

Surely a school library can stock whatever books they wish, can't they? We may not like their choice of reading matter, but it's their choice to make, is it not?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely a school library can stock whatever books they wish, can't they? We may not like their choice of reading matter, but it's their choice to make, is it not?

Apparently not if (a) it was already on the shelves and (b) the removal is politically / religiously motivated.

This makes sense to me because "the school" is serving the community and just because some people want a book removed doesn't mean that ALL the community does. Also, unless "the school" is a private school, their library is at least partially funded by tax money. So removal of existing books on political / religious grounds is thorny.

That's how I interpret that SC quote, anyway.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely a school library can stock whatever books they wish, can't they? We may not like their choice of reading matter, but it's their choice to make, is it not?

Yes I don't think anyone would say a word if no one wanted to teach the book or if the school library simply decided not to purchase it. You can't purchase a copy of every book on earth anyway. But removing it is another story preventing it form being taught is another story.

Censorship in any form is the sort of thing that flames the passions of many Americans, especially when there's a government entity like a school board involved.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Surely a school library can stock whatever books they wish, can't they? We may not like their choice of reading matter, but it's their choice to make, is it not?

I have absolutely no problem with a school library sitting down and deciding before-hand what titles they want to include. But I do take issue with removing existing titles for nebulous reasons. Did it suddenly become age-inappropriate?

I agree that there is no "official" censorship going on in this particular case. I just find their decision distasteful, unnecessary and very sad.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Apparently not if (a) it was already on the shelves and (b) the removal is politically / religiously motivated.

This makes sense to me because "the school" is serving the community and just because some people want a book removed doesn't mean that ALL the community does. Also, unless "the school" is a private school, their library is at least partially funded by tax money. So removal of existing books on political / religious grounds is thorny.

That's how I interpret that SC quote, anyway.

Let's also remember that there are other books on the shelves that weren't removed despite being objectionable in some way. Suppressing this book when the next shelf over you'll no doubt find The Prince, (Machiavelli was an amoral bastard) confuses me.

They targeted something they don't like.

[anamardoll]

Well, and to riff off of Iphinome, since apparently NO OTHER BOOK in the library was subjected to an "age-appropriateness" review, it looks like a religiously motivated action that is specifically illegal, if I understand the Wiki page correctly. That is an issue.

What criteria were used in the age-appropriate determination? Are there plans to apply those criteria systematically to every book in the school library? Etc. Singling out a single book -- a single book that the SC says you're not supposed to single out SO CUT IT OUT GUYS -- is a problem.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

OK, raise your hand if you think the "age-appropriateness" is a smoke screen for "My Religion Doesn't Like It". I'm just curious.

I don't really think it is, in this particular case. But it's all a matter of opinion Some overly-zealous religious nut decided something wasn't 'appropriate' and that triggered the review, but I don't think it was a guidance for what to include.

What I'm more interested in is if the school has a copy of the bible in it's library. Filled with violence, arguably age inappropriate...

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Not that I'm disagreeing, but it's a fun fact that there are a lot of liberal pockets in the southern states, particularly in big cities and college towns.

Big cities are almost always more liberal than surrounding areas. But this doesn't sound like one of those places!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

since apparently NO OTHER BOOK in the library was subjected to an "age-appropriateness" review, it looks like a religiously motivated action that is specifically illegal, if I understand the Wiki page correctly. That is an issue.

Actually, the way I interpreted the article, there were three different books targeted for age-appropriateness review. Two of the three were deemed inappropriate and removed, one was vindicated and remains on the shelf.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Well, and to riff off of Iphinome, since apparently NO OTHER BOOK in the library was subjected to an "age-appropriateness" review, it looks like a religiously motivated action that is specifically illegal, if I understand the Wiki page correctly. That is an issue.

What criteria were used in the age-appropriate determination? Are there plans to apply those criteria systematically to every book in the school library? Etc. Singling out a single book -- a single book that the SC says you're not supposed to single out SO CUT IT OUT GUYS -- is a problem.

But three books were selected for specific review, and one was specifically allowed to stay in the curriculum! Doesn't this disprove the idea that one single religious person was making the decision? If he was, that book would be gone too.

However, since they were phrasing it in the article as a system-wide look at what is 'age appropriate', they damn well better start going back over every book in the library and applying those same criteria. If this isn't true, then I disagree with the entire premise upon which the decisions were made to pull the books.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Apparently not if (a) it was already on the shelves and (b) the removal is politically / religiously motivated.

This makes sense to me because "the school" is serving the community and just because some people want a book removed doesn't mean that ALL the community does. Also, unless "the school" is a private school, their library is at least partially funded by tax money. So removal of existing books on political / religious grounds is thorny.

That's how I interpret that SC quote, anyway.

I think you're coming from a false premise here. The school did not remove the books because they were religiously offensive. Someone who found the books religiously offensive raised the issue, the school said "let's revisit what's considered age appropriate", and standards were set independent of religious views. Just because a religious question started the process doesn't mean that's what determined what stayed and what was removed.