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

[EatingPie]

The whole thing started because of the person complaining about the books being anti-Bible. Reading this thread, I thought the whole issue centered on that, and that was the beginning and end of the debate. However, that is not at all the reality of the situation.

I highly recommend a reading of the article. Specifically the statements about the procedure and decision on removing the books. It had just about nothing to do with religion (contrary to the suggestion of most of this thread).

In making a recommendation to remove the two, Minor explained that "numerous individuals have read the three novels and provided their feedback." He conceded there wasn't always consensus about what step to take.

"We had some differences of opinion, I'll be honest with you," he said.

Minor said the process took a while because the 4,500-student district didn't want to look at the three books "in isolation." Instead, a task force was convened to develop book standards for elementary, middle and high schools.

The panel reviewed existing board policy and the public rating systems that already exist for music, TV and video games.

"We very clearly stayed out of discussion about moral issues. Our discussions from the get-go were age-appropriateness," he said.

"The discussion we've been having was not are these good books or bad books ... It is is this consistent with what we've said is appropriate for kids."

The board adopted the standards -- which cover language, violence, sexuality and illegal substances -- in April and those standards have since been applied to the three books.

With the thread talking so much about fundamentalist religious beliefs, I was surprised to see how that played no role in the ultimate decision! The crux of the matter was "age-appropriateness."

Every society has morals. It looks like there were specific morals applied to these books, and they were removed. Certainly in that regard, morals can either be a catalyst from, or overlap with, religious beliefs. But the fact of the matter is morals exist, and they made a decision based on said morals, not the religious source of those morals.

I oppose banning books. But I do not personally see this as book banning. It is either delaying children from reading the books due to "age-appropriateness"; kids can read the books later when they are more mature. Or, if parents individually decide a book is okay, they can allow their kids to read the book now. I find this a perfectly fair solution. And I do not see how this comes anywhere near to "book burning" in any form.

-Pie

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The whole thing started because of the person complaining about the books being anti-Bible. Reading this thread, I thought the whole issue centered on that, and that was the beginning and end of the debate. However, that is not at all the reality of the situation.

I highly recommend a reading of the article. Specifically the statements about the procedure and decision on removing the books. It had just about nothing to do with religion (contrary to the suggestion of most of this thread).


With the thread talking so much about fundamentalist religious beliefs, I was surprised to see how that played no role in the ultimate decision! The crux of the matter was "age-appropriateness."

Every society has morals. It looks like there were specific morals applied to these books, and they were removed. Certainly in that regard, morals can either be a catalyst from, or overlap with, religious beliefs. But the fact of the matter is morals exist, and they made a decision based on said morals, not the religious source of those morals.

I oppose banning books. But I do not personally see this as book banning. It is either delaying children from reading the books due to "age-appropriateness"; kids can read the books later when they are more mature. Or, if parents individually decide a book is okay, they can allow their kids to read the book now. I find this a perfectly fair solution. And I do not see how this comes anywhere near to "book burning" in any form.

-Pie

Agreed

[queentess]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

I highly recommend a reading of the article. Specifically the statements about the procedure and decision on removing the books. It had just about nothing to do with religion (contrary to the suggestion of most of this thread).

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The whole thing started because of the person complaining about the books being anti-Bible. Reading this thread, I thought the whole issue centered on that, and that was the beginning and end of the debate. However, that is not at all the reality of the situation.

I highly recommend a reading of the article. Specifically the statements about the procedure and decision on removing the books. It had just about nothing to do with religion (contrary to the suggestion of most of this thread).


With the thread talking so much about fundamentalist religious beliefs, I was surprised to see how that played no role in the ultimate decision! The crux of the matter was "age-appropriateness."

Every society has morals. It looks like there were specific morals applied to these books, and they were removed. Certainly in that regard, morals can either be a catalyst from, or overlap with, religious beliefs. But the fact of the matter is morals exist, and they made a decision based on said morals, not the religious source of those morals.

I oppose banning books. But I do not personally see this as book banning. It is either delaying children from reading the books due to "age-appropriateness"; kids can read the books later when they are more mature. Or, if parents individually decide a book is okay, they can allow their kids to read the book now. I find this a perfectly fair solution. And I do not see how this comes anywhere near to "book burning" in any form.

-Pie

TL;DR: This point has already been addressed.

Because, you know, government officials are always utterly honest and pure of intention. They would NEVER lie to cover up obviously unconstitutional behavior. Right?

[Namekuseijin]

We have a Christian co-worker here. Basically, he doesn't emit opinions, don't talk to anyone and in general just keeps locked inside himself in his rosy magical land away from the real world we tread...

well, I'm being unfair with Christians. He may be locked in the Bible, but how many of us are locked in alienating games, Famebook, Apple and other ego trips? There's so much choice out there for soul salvation in one form or another that people just hang out with those in their circles. Contrary opinions are just filtered away with a button. "Haters gonna hate"

[SCION]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

...I was surprised to see how that played no role in the ultimate decision!...

-Pie

How do you know religion played no role? You're going based on a statement released to the public? Come on. The fact that the person who filed the complaint said it was "anti-bible" is what got their attention.

Edit: The letter of complaint probably ended with "What would YouKnowWho do?".

[MrsJoseph]

I have a healthy amount of skepticism but can we all admit that no human is perfect?

If we can do that, we can take these school board members at their word: They wanted not to look at these books in isolation.

"In a perfect world" we would have everything open to everyone. But this is not a perfect world and I think that they did a great job with what they had.

[SCION]

I take public statements with a grain of salt. Too many reasons to cite from a historical perspective.

[pidgeon92]

I, personally, would like to thank the Republic school board for inspiring me to read Slaughterhouse-Five. I finished it last night, and it was awesome!

[mldavis2]

It appears that the reasons were well supported on paper (and thanks for including some of the original article text). However, before all traces of skepticism can be erased, the following points should be addressed, hypothetically at least for the sake of completeness:

What was the "task force?" Who chose or appointed the "task force?" Who was eligible and included in the "task force" - parents, students, teachers, librarians, clergy, etc.?

Who determined the definition of "age appropriate," and who applied the definition to a student body of 4,500 students? It appears that the school board made the decision, not the task force, which harkens back to the original point of composition and control.

I can understand, if a majority of parents from a specific class objected to the book being studied as a lesson, it might be excluded from that class. I do not understand having the book(s) in question completely removed from the school library.

That's all from this keyboard. I disagree that removing the books from the library is not the same as book burning. If the book is no longer available it makes no difference where it went or how it was disposed. To remove the book from the library, aside from the question of using the book as study material, assumes that not one of the 4,500 students, many of high school age, are "age-appropriate" to the material. That is censorship by the school, the question of being "right or wrong" notwithstanding.

Back to my salty old Viet Nam war novel -- which no doubt would be censored by that school board as well, due to its realistically explicit language - language which would have been heard by young soldiers of high school age drafted in the 1960's and killed by the thousands during military service.

[MrsJoseph]

This starting to be funny, actually.

So, the general consensus is:

1. That the community doesn't have any right to say if a book for school children that they pay for offends them


2. That the school board has no right to re-visit the books that they teach at particular ages

and

3. That the school board members - who says that they did not look at more than what they consider age appropriateness - are lying


Ok, are we all on the same page?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

I, personally, would like to thank the Republic school board for inspiring me to read Slaughterhouse-Five. I finished it last night, and it was awesome!

This makes creating the thread totally worth it.

So, with it so fresh in your mind... can you post some thoughts on what parts you think might be construed as age inappropriate for 14,15,16,17 year-olds? Possibly some chapter references? I'm genuinely curious and it's been so long since I've read it. Maybe I should just break down and read it again, but I'm still calling "silly" on this decision. There has to be countless books in their library that are more age inappropriate than this one.

The language, violence and sexual content claims just don't jive with me. It may look and sound like a perfectly valid review of a book that's probably been on their shelves for 30+ years, but I certainly don't buy it. A unanimous decision? What were the missing members opinions? Why weren't they there to vote on it? Sure smells like "spin" and "damage control" to me.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by SCION

How do you know religion played no role? You're going based on a statement released to the public? Come on. The fact that the person who filed the complaint said it was "anti-bible" is what got their attention.

Edit: The letter of complaint probably ended with "What would YouKnowWho do?".

Let me clarify my response.

The majority of posts I read here assumed that fundamentalist religious beliefs were the issue, period. However, this is against the statements made in the article; it specifically states such beliefs were not at issue in the decision. So you really should not be asking me how I know, but rather all the people posting attacks against fundamentalism. There is no evidence presented that fundamentalist beliefs were at fault; indeed, evidence is that it's entirely the contrary.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

I disagree that removing the books from the library is not the same as book burning. If the book is no longer available it makes no difference where it went or how it was disposed. To remove the book from the library, aside from the question of using the book as study material, assumes that not one of the 4,500 students, many of high school age, are "age-appropriate" to the material. That is censorship by the school, the question of being "right or wrong" notwithstanding.

The difference is removed from this school library versus removed from all libraries. Students still have full access to the books in question, just not at this specific library.

I, personally, do not favor removing the books from the library. However, I still do not see it anywhere near the same as destroying the books in a public manner and encouraging others to destroy the books as well.

Back to my salty old Viet Nam war novel -- which no doubt would be censored by that school board as well, due to its realistically explicit language - language which would have been heard by young soldiers of high school age drafted in the 1960's and killed by the thousands during military service.

People were drafted at the age of 18. At that point, the student could read whatever they wanted at the school because they would be considered adults.

And remember, from the article, if the parents said the book was okay, the student could read the book. As stances go, this isn't what I'd call hard-lined by any means!

-Pie

[mldavis2]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

1. That the community doesn't have any right to say if a book for school children that they pay for offends them

No, the "task force" report as interpreted, decided and dictated by the school board probably has little relation to the community as a whole. We're dealing with 4,500 students and hence thousands of family units. School taxes are paid by thousands of families, not by the school board members alone.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

2. That the school board has no right to re-visit the books that they teach at particular ages

No, the books were removed from the library and made inaccessible to all students of all ages. I don't recall that these books were being "taught" but merely made available as part of a well-rounded collection of literature in the library for optional check-out.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

3. That the school board members - who says that they did not look at more than what they consider age appropriateness - are lying

No. We have no idea what they looked at, merely what they stated was the main consideration. My concern is that they did not take all students and student abilities, maturity and "age appropriateness" into account and rather made a blanket decision that 'dumbed down' the level of literary appropriateness to fit their own definition and understanding of "standards" that they then applied to the entire school.

I have no quarrel with their perceived "right" or even their legal right to pick and choose their library contents. I'm simply saying that I believe that the literary interests of 4,500 students, of which perhaps 1/3 were high school age, were not being fairly considered by censorship. As I stated above in a previous post, I hope the specific titles were broadly and universally made available to parents in the interests of seeking them at alternate sources. There are 4 copies of Slaughterhouse 5 in my little public library. Perhaps I should picket my library, paid for with my property taxes, to destroy those books because adolescent patrons have potential access to them, because I don't think they are age-appropriate to all patrons ...