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

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Did it suddenly become age-inappropriate?

It almost sounds like the school didn't have 'age appropriate standards' until now? I could be wrong.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I just find their decision distasteful, unnecessary and very sad.

Yes!

[Penforhire]

I understand specific objections are what gets the ball rolling. I'm not surprised they don't do a whole-library review. Some new teacher will use some other controversial book in their curriculum and the book-burnng grill will be fired up again.

The internet and e-books will eventually steamroller the very idea of book banning. That is, unless .gov enables more ISP-based filtering in the future. Hmm, this topic seems to bring me closer to Giggleton's usual stance!

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by queentess

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.

Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant no other classic, already-existing-in-the-library book was reviewed.

The other two books -- at a glance -- looked relatively recently published, so I thought THOSE were less of a "take it off the shelves, or no?" and more of a "purchase it for the library, or no?"

This is dodging the issue, however. If the "age appropriate" label doesn't have a list of criteria and isn't being systematically applied to every book in the library, then it's a spot-pick on Books That Get My Knickers Twisted, and that's not appropriate. At least not according to the link I provided and my TOTALLY REAL law degree.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

High school students must be shielded from knowledge of the atrocities of war. Otherwise, they might be less inclined to sign up as cannon fodder, uh, soldiers.

I simply can not understand how someone can simultaneously be too young and tender to know about something and old and tough enough to participate.

[anamardoll]

In the same way, it's rather ludicrous that a book that deals frankly with losing one's virginity would be deemed not 'age-appropriate'. I'm pretty sure that losing one's virginity is -- for most people -- a major part of their late teens / early twenties.

I mean what "age" did "Twenty Boy Summer" or whatever weigh in at? 35?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by queentess

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...

Also adultery and incest.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Also adultery and incest.

The Bible has a LOT of Not For Children material. Eating human waste, magical abortions (depending on your interpretation and/or translation), and donkey semen are the least of that material.

I would venture that most translations would not pass ANY age-appropriate guideline for teens/YAs.

[AlbertaCowboy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

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.

This +1.
It seems that "Mothers Against Everything" have lobby power at least equal to that of Big Oil. Every time I read an article describing how someone has tried really, really, impossibly hard to be offended enough to force an unneccessary change, it makes me die inside a little.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

In the same way, it's rather ludicrous that a book that deals frankly with losing one's virginity would be deemed not 'age-appropriate'. I'm pretty sure that losing one's virginity is -- for most people -- a major part of their late teens / early twenties.

I mean what "age" did "Twenty Boy Summer" or whatever weigh in at? 35?

From the looks of things, the main character is 16. It also appears to me, from the parts I've read about it, the main character is trying to more come to terms with death of someone, and her friend (sister of the dead person), is pushing her to lose her virginity, and then the two have to come to terms with things when it is found out the main character liked the brother. It appears to me more about death and relationships than sex. From the portions I've read (admittedly, I've not read it yet, just skimmed it. Its in my TBR list), the main character also seems hesitant about it. Yes, sex is a subject that gets brought up, and discussed through out the book, but at 16 if kids aren't having sex, they're at least talking about it. The behavior of the two main characters isn't abnormal, and so if you're going to hold back stories that show behavior your think isn't age appropriate when that is how many kids act at that age, well there is something wrong with that.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

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.

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?)

From what I've seen, quite a few didn't agree with it. Ockler's website has had a lot of comments from Republic residents, most strongly against the actions. Various newspapers editorials and letters to the editor also seem to be largely against the schoolboard. Also make note of how 3 of the 7 board members weren't present for the vote. Who wants to bet those 3 were ones that didn't want to be voting for it, and piss people off (they do have to be elected by the people, you know), and at the same time not piss off the other board members.

What I find to be absolutely hilarious, is the teacher who issued the challenge for Republic's Schoolboard, doesn't work for Republic (He's a professor at Missouri State), and doesn't have children who attend Republic schools.

[Shimarenda]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

What criteria were used in the age-appropriate determination?

A general outline of the criteria was listed in the sidebar on the left of the article.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Shimarenda

A general outline of the criteria was listed in the sidebar on the left of the article.

So it was:

High school standards

In April, the Republic school board approved book standards. These apply to all reading materials for students ages 14-17:

Language
» Moderate language may be present.
» Minimal use of mature humor and suggestive themes may be present.

Violence
» Some depictions of intense violence may be present.
» No promotion or sensationalism of violence use exists.

Sexuality
» References to sexual themes presented in realistic situations are minimal.
» No promotion or sensationalism of sexual promiscuity exists.

Drugs, Alcohol, and Tobacco
» References to drugs/alcohol/tobacco may be presented in realistic situations.
» No promotion or sensationalism of drugs/alcohol/tobacco use exists.

The Bible definitely doesn't pass muster -- "promotion of violence" if nothing else.

The rest of this is so vague I think you could use it to arbitrarily pass/fail almost ANYTHING.

I also take issue with the "no promotion of promiscuity" line without a clear and unambiguous definition of what promiscuity is. Besides "more sex than I have had".

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

What I find to be absolutely hilarious, is the teacher who issued the challenge for Republic's Schoolboard, doesn't work for Republic (He's a professor at Missouri Stater), and doesn't have children who attend Republic schools.

Good catch.

[anamardoll]

Amusingly, the school's next plan is to ban R-rated movies from being shown in class.

Can anyone name me a single worthwhile "war" movie that comes in at PG-13 or under? I feel sorry for the history teachers.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Amusingly, the school's next plan is to ban R-rated movies from being shown in class.

Can anyone name me a single worthwhile "war" movie that comes in at PG-13 or under? I feel sorry for the history teachers.

That would be any number of John Wayne propaganda war movies.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

That would be any number of John Wayne propaganda war movies.

Heh. Those CLEARLY promote violence, though, and are NOT age-appropriate.