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

[Elfwreck]

On the one hand, any school library is going to have to limit its selection; they've got a much more focused purpose than a general library. They need not only age-appropriate books, but books that connect well to various aspects of education--a school library isn't supposed to be "a sampling of all forms of literature of every sort," but "a curated selection suitable for educational purposes."

However, educational purposes includes "discover that some people are very different, or very weird, or downright perverse." Any good education includes exposure to ideas that the local community doesn't like.

There are limits to that. Perhaps school libraries shouldn't have books on bomb-making, or novels about drug-dealers that go into great detail about how they procure their stock; while this info is widely available, it doesn't need to be handed to students directly. Certainly, a school library doesn't need to spend its limited funds and administration skills managing books that would likely encourage crime in young readers.

There's a difference between "this book would inspire crimes" and "this book would teach about crimes," and someone should be making that judgment call. There are cases of "this book is too mature, too complex, for most of our readers, so we're not carrying it;" that's different from "this book's themes are based on values we don't like" or the even worse "this book acknowledges that sometimes behavior we don't like isn't immediately and harshly punished."

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

"Wesley Scroggins, a Republic resident, challenged the use of the books and lesson plans in Republic schools, arguing they teach principles contrary to the Bible."

That is a well thought out process?

Scroggins was not, in any way, involved in said process. He wasn't on the school board.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by frquixote

Sorry, but the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

I don't see anything that says Congress was involved in this decision.

The First Amendment applies to state and local governments via the doctrine of incorporation, usually via the 14th Amendment. It has been so since the 1940's. Relevant First Amendment cases include Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) 310 U.S. 296, Everson v. Board of Education (1947) 330 U.S. 1 and many subsequent cases citing those.

The right to free exercise and no state establishment (and many other constitutional rights included in the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th amendments) would mean little to most of us if states and local governments could make laws infringing upon those rights.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

Scroggins was not, in any way, involved in said process. He wasn't on the school board.

Scroggins initiated the process by complaining about the books in the first place.

[DiapDealer]

Scroggins initiated the process by complaining about the books in the first place.

That's the way I understood it as well.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

"Wesley Scroggins, a Republic resident, challenged the use of the books and lesson plans in Republic schools, arguing they teach principles contrary to the Bible."

That is a well thought out process?

You obviously didn't read the article.

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.

I'm thrilled the school chose to keep the book that talks about date rape. It's an important subject and, well, it's very age appropriate.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

It's the parents responsibility, not the school system. If Wesley Scroggins doesn't want his children to read Slaughterhouse Five, more power to him. Don't tell me what my children can read.

Who are you to tell me what my children MUST read? That's the other option here. It was a question of "do we include this in the curriculum or not?" Your children can seek out and read this book, and even use it for study at that school.

While I wish they would carry the books in the library (the only part of the process I truly disagree with), the school is within rights to decide not to teach a particular book.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

"Age appropriate" blankets are not something you can drape over large, diverse groups of individuals.

How do you propose that curricula be determined, if not based upon age appropriateness? If there's anything other than a 1:1 ratio of student:teacher, then there will always be the problem of what is 'appropriate' to teach a wide variety of children concurrently.

People don't learn the same way, they don't learn at the same speed, and what one child can handle doesn't mean another can handle the same thing. I read Stephen King at age 11, and my parents were ok with this. Sex, swearing, Scary Things. Does this mean the school should teach King's books in the 5th grade, and parents who object be damned? Of course not! (For the record, I did some independent study on King's books in high school. And got A's.)

waiting for the "bu-bu-but, King's not literary enough to be taught in schools!!!" argument

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Scroggins initiated the process by complaining about the books in the first place.

But wasn't involved in the decision by the board beyond that. As the old saying goes, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (I went to high school in a rural school in Missouri. This doesn't surprise me at all. In fact, it is a fairly enlightened sort of thing - for Missouri. It's surprising to me they allow any books in the school library at all, other than the Bible. Never live in a place where family trees don't branch out.)

[Daithi]

I'm loath to ban any books, but I'm going to agree with queentess. I think there are some books that should not be taught in school. As an extreme example, imagine if you found out your son's freshmen English teacher was "teaching" from A Modern Look at Pedophilia: Children Deserve Love Too. Like I said, an extreme example and not very likely, but it makes the point that some books shouldn't be used as teaching material.

The board members that decided to ban the books actually read the books in question, and decided whether or not they were appropriate based on age approriateness and the degree of explicit language, drug use, promescuity, etc. I really don't have a problem with the boards review of the books. They even decided that one of the books, Speak, was outstanding and should be taught in school (I agree with them here too; the book is outstanding). However, like queentess, I disagree with banning any of the books from the school library. It is one thing to ban "teaching" the book, but something different to ban the book entirely (and banning a classic like Slaughterhouse Five from the library is rather stupid).

[anamardoll]

Seems like there's two different discussions here with people talking past each other -- I think most people agree that the school can teach what it feels is appropriate but shouldn't remove books from the library simply because Christy McChristerson is offended that the book exists. Is that the long and short of it?

As for "age appropriate"... meh. I still can't believe that "The Hunger Games" and "Series of Unfortunate Events" and "Harry Potter" don't get more parental flack. Those books are fairly deep, all things considered. And when I was a kid, I was reading Grimms fairy tale collections and Arabian Nights and Wells' "The Time Machine"* because 'classics' were an unadulterated good for kids. Heh.

* For those who don't know, the book is about a future society where the remaining human groups are divided into sweet, child-like frail humans that live during the day and hairy, night-dwelling ape-beasts that kill and eat the cute child-like people. NOT a kids' book, but it's a 'classic', so.......

In other news, NONE of these teaching/library decisions should be made on religious grounds. My religion is offended by Christy McChristson's religion, thankyouverymuch.

[DiapDealer]

However, like queentess, I disagree with banning any of the books from the school library. It is one thing to ban "teaching" the book, but something different to ban the book entirely (and banning a classic like Slaughterhouse Five from the library is rather stupid).

The banning from the library has been my whole beef. What part of age-appropriate blah, blah, curriculum, blah, teaching, blah, blah, blah has to do with that? They removed the books from the library because of pressure from near-sighted (but probably prominent) community members. Face it, they were never going to actually teach with Slaughterhouse Five in a small town public high-school in the first place. So all that age appropriate hooha was just to distract from the fact that they were banning a book from the shelves.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Seems like there's two different discussions here with people talking past each other -- I think most people agree that the school can teach what it feels is appropriate but shouldn't remove books from the library simply because Christy McChristerson is offended that the book exists. Is that the long and short of it?

You got it.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The banning from the library has been my whole beef.

Me too. That's an absolute no-no.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Face it, they were never going to actually teach with Slaughterhouse Five in a small town public high-school in the first place.

Why not?

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They removed the books from the library because of pressure from near-sighted (but probably prominent) community members.

That, unfortunately, comes with living in a small town. Wrong, to be sure, but it happens when you have a very small, (likely) very religious, (likely) very conservative community. (As a matter of fact, I grew up in a small, conservative farming community. So yes, I know a bit about these things.)

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Seems like there's two different discussions here with people talking past each other -- I think most people agree that the school can teach what it feels is appropriate but shouldn't remove books from the library simply because Christy McChristerson is offended that the book exists. Is that the long and short of it?

So it seems! Good thing too. I never find myself disagreeing with DiapDealer, so I was a bit perturbed.

[queentess]

Curious... why has no one commented about the other banned book, Sarah Ockler's Twenty Boy Summer? I hadn't heard of that one before. I'm sure the title alone was enough for some to want it banned