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

[William F]

How it worked in my day was that Mr. Edwards would take me down to the school library, go into the back room where the questionable books were kept under the vigilant eye of the librarian and return a few minutes later with my book report assignment. Slaughterhouse Five happened to be one.
I don't imagine he did that with every student but I never heard that segregating the "adult" content from the masses caused any controversy either. It all seems rather silly to me. I certainly didn't WANT to read Slaughterhouse five then, not when there were Dungeons and Dragons rulebooks to devour.
Maybe that was old Mr. Edwards' point.

[AnneT]

Originally Posted by Scott Nicholson

I think it's awesome--what better way to drive kids to read great books than to publicly and loudly declare they shouldn't read them?

My mother often told about a particular poetry book (Maria Lécina, by J.W.F. Werumeus Buning), that used to be 'on the index' of books banned by the catholic church (the book is about a whore).
My mother went to a catholic school, and their Dutch' teacher, a nun, secretly advised her pupils to search for the book in public libraries (it wasn't in the school library of course), because it was among the finest contemporary (contemporary at that time) poetry...
Of course every single girl in her class read the book... not because it was fine poetry, but because the book was 'indexed'...

[frquixote]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

I'm a libertarian and i actually agree with your position.

not to be flippant but if one finds themselves at odds with their community, then move. just as the majority shouldn't trample on the minority, the majority also also shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a few of it's citizens.

I, too, am of libertarian bent and I fully agree with you. There is NOTHING that prevents an individual from reading this book nor is there anything preventing a parent from allowing their child to read this book. So, to those who have argued in this forum for their right to impose their standards on the community that is the subject of this discussion I say:

"Glory in your individual freedom, but recognize that others have a right to disagree with you about what is acceptable within their community without being insulted for their deeply held beliefs. Recognize, too, that you have no standing in this community School Board's decision and are entitled to neither vote nor say.

There are many communities in which conservatives have been castigated for their moral positions and have been forced to accept that the prevailing community standard allows for such materials as they might find objectionable. In EVERY case they are advised by those most vocally opposed to them to "just move." In this case, the shoe is on the other foot. Unless those supporting Slaughterhouse Five in the community can convince the School Board that they make up the majority position, they need to accept the decision and go buy their own personal copy from Amazon or just move."

The discussion here has really gone on for far longer than it is worth. Neither side is going to convince the other of the rectitude of their position. Let's leave it as it should be, a matter for the community to resolve.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by frquixote

Recognize, too, that you have no standing in this community School Board's decision and are entitled to neither vote nor say.

Entitled to no vote in the matter... I'll agree with you completely. But no say in the matter?? Well you're obviously just flat wrong, there. Everyone is entitled to voice whether or not they agree/approve/love/hate the decision that this community has made (whether they were perfectly entitled to make the decision or not). This small town is not an island. Its a part of a larger community that has every right to voice their displeasure over decisions such as this (or their pleasure). There is no guaranteed right to not be second-guessed.

The discussion here has really gone on for far longer than it is worth. Neither side is going to convince the other of the rectitude of their position. Let's leave it as it should be, a matter for the community to resolve.

If you mean discussions that revolve around religion and politics, I agree, but that's not why I started the thread. I started it because I am amazed that this sort of thing still goes on today (a classic book being challenged). I find it all a bit silly. And when I see something I consider silly, I point at it and laugh.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by taustin

Never live in a place where family trees don't branch out.

I couldn't get too much farther than this - but had to single it out. Never heard the expression before, but it's delightful and had me chortling.

Karma to you.

[mldavis2]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

... if one finds themselves at odds with their community, then move. just as the majority shouldn't trample on the minority, the majority also also shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a few of it's citizens.

Hmmm... tough to quit your job and move these days in a world of few job opportunities and drastic decrease in housing resale values ... an idealistic solution that would probably result in enormous financial losses in the interests of hopefully finding a community that shares majority values.

My earlier post questioned whether the censorship was a representative sample, or a vocal minority of school board members or administrators. I agree that, as stated "... the majority also shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a few of it's citizens." I think the question is, what was the majority community opinion and was it adequately represented? I also stand by my previous insistence that any such determination by school officials should be aired to the public in order to test majority acceptance, not simply knuckle under to the whims of a possibly self-empowered minority.

[vivaldirules]

"At that time, they were teaching that there was absolutely no difference between anybody. They may still be teaching that still."

[DiapDealer]

"At that time, they were teaching that there was absolutely no difference between anybody. They may still be teaching that still."

It's quite interesting how many of Vonnegut's own words from this book can be used in its own defense in this exact situation. Is that irony? I'm pretty sure it is.

[anamardoll]

Yes, the "if you don't like it, move" philosophy is silly. Many people simply CANNOT move for various reasons.

The counter-argument that rule-of-majority is rule-of-minority is silly. To the best of my knowledge, no one in this thread is arguing that the children should be forced to read the book -- they are simply saying it shouldn't be removed from the library entirely.

The belief that the appropriate "compromise" between book burning and NOT book burning is to move to a different community is silly. Assuming you invest everything you own to go start some nice little commune of your own, how are you going to prevent book burners from moving in until they reach a majority?

I always find the "majority SHOULD rule" arguments amusing because I live in an area where the majority of the populace now speaks Spanish as their first language. I've yet to hear anyone suggest that all the classes should now be taught in Spanish and the English-only kids will just have to catch up. Funny how "majority SHOULD rule" only ever seems to come up in religious arguments and not, say, cultural or language arguments.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'm a libertarian and i actually agree with your position.

You are not a libertarian.

not to be flippant but if one finds themselves at odds with their community, then move. just as the majority shouldn't trample on the minority, the majority also also shouldn't be held hostage to the whims of a few of it's citizens.

Rights are not whims, nor is moving a solution. This kind of thinking gives us Jim Crow, state sponsored religion, and censorship.

[SCION]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

... Funny how "majority SHOULD rule" only ever seems to come up in religious arguments and not, say, cultural or language arguments.

(non-alcohol of course )

[Vic333]

Originally Posted by frquixote

I, too, am of libertarian bent

Put up or move is not a libertarian stand point. You might want to re-label yourself.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

You are not a libertarian.

Rights are not whims, nor is moving a solution. This kind of thinking gives us Jim Crow, state sponsored religion, and censorship.

Thank you. Succinct and to the point. That should be a signature.

[RolandD]

You know, I was going to weigh in on this, but it's not worth the effort.

[DiapDealer]

but it's not worth the effort.

Not if we can't steer clear of politics and religion.