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

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

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.



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.



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 ...

In the states in which I have lived the entire community is invited to every single school board meeting. Every single one. If the community was so concerned about these books, someone would have showed up and made a case.

When I was a student in high school a parent tried to get sex ed cancelled due to religious reasons. The parents and other member of the community had the agenda shut down. Parents also tried to have the high school name changed at one time - and the community had the agenda shut down. I can't imagine that this community has less power than the bible belt town I grew up in.

These books were not burned. These books were not banned. No one will go to jail for reading them. The student needs parental permission. That is not a big deal. Reading this thread someone would think that the school board had secret meetings in a windowless basement that culminated in a book burning.

[tubemonkey]

I don't live there, so I really don't care what they do.

[mldavis2]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Reading this thread someone would think that the school board had secret meetings in a windowless basement that culminated in a book burning.

... and we don't know that didn't happen, either, except that it was reported, so someone knew of it, after the fact. I guess it's instructive to note that it was of adequate significance that someone saw fit to report it and publish the fact that it happened as newsworthy and to bring it to public attention.

Read what you like and like what you read.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by mldavis2

... and we don't know that didn't happen, either, except that it was reported, so someone knew of it, after the fact. I guess it's instructive to note that it was of adequate significance that someone saw fit to report it and publish the fact that it happened as newsworthy and to bring it to public attention.

Read what you like and like what you read.

*sigh* I was being sarcastic.

[EatingPie]

Something we should always consider when a thread like this gets started is the larger picture. The ALA maintains statistics on banned books. Here's a graph I think most relevant to this thread:


Ironically, the threads about banning books that I've seen really gain traction are those accusing religious groups of said banning. Seldom do we discuss the #1, #2, #3 and #4 reasons for banning books. From the original article, #1, #2, #3 and #4 are actually the reasons cited for the banning we're discussing, but the primary blame has been erroneously placed on "religion."

Religion ranks extremely low, but takes up the majority of "bandwidth." It illustrates that it's a hot-button issue more than an actual issue.

Another thing worth noting. We all have "major belief systems" (I don't have a good general term, sorry) -- things we're offended by, or think are socially imperative -- be we agnostic, atheistic, Christian, Jewish, racist, anti-racist, offended by language, etc. No matter your belief system, you can be assured of two things:

1) Someone sharing your belief system has successfully requested a book banning in the name of that belief system.

2) Someone opposed to your belief system has successfully requested a book banning because a book espoused your belief system.

-Pie

[DiapDealer]

If a religious group challenges a book because of offensive language, what challenge reason does the ALA record?

Funny... I find the numbers, the history and the graph largely irrelevant to this thread I started. I wasn't accusing any particular religious group (although I still think religion played more of a part than the school board is willing to admit here). I started the thread because I think it's completely ridiculous that anybody would have a problem with anyone over the age of thirteen reading Slaughterhouse 5. I still think that.

I was accusing the school board of kowtowing to a vocal minority (in its reason for re-examining the book in the first place). Do they only re-examine the appropriate-ness of books after complaints are made? That hardly feels like a legitimate review system based solely on quantifiable criteria to me.

With regards to your graph, how do we define the "challenger/challenge" elements in this particular case? If the challenger is deemed to be the initial complainant, then religion is certainly one of the reasons it was "challenged"... regardless of what reason was given for its "removal." Or should we simply ignore the fact that the challenge was issued in this particular case by someone who had clear religious differences with the book and allow the challenge reason to be tailor-fitted after the fact? Being able to pick and choose what the challenge reason was in each case sort of negates any trends that your graph might happen to show.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who started this whole ugly affair... this is why we did it."

No, the book may have been removed for all the correct-sounding, politically sanitized, legal reasons that this schoolboard can came up with to be able to sleep better at night, but--make no mistake--it was challenged for all the same old nefarious reasons that books have been burned for in the past.

Plus, I'll never understand the attitude that just because it's determined that someone is within their legal rights to do something, that all discussion on said subject should simply cease. "Hey, it's legal and doesn't fit the strict definition of 'banning' or 'censorship' so everyone should just pipe down!" That dog won't hunt.

[Skibble]

The re-assessment of books in schools, and their subsequent removal from the curriculum and libraries, is not uncommon.

In every region in which I have worked as a teacher, books were selected by individual teachers and then approved by departments. The members of the school board, in most cases, had no idea which books were being taught to which grades. (They were busy with other things, and left all but the most sweeping curriculum decisions to the departmental heads and faculty.) Selecting books in this manner expedited things, and most of the time led to decisions that pleased all parties.

But differences in opinion did sometimes arise, and when they did, this was the protocol for handling them:

1. Parent calls teacher and complains about book.
2. Teacher speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to department head.
3. Department head speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to school administrator.
4. Administrator speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to school board.
5. School board, as ultimate representative of the community, reviews book and discusses in meeting open to the community, in which all members of the community are invited to give feedback. School board renders final decision.

I spent a decade at one school (PK-12), and during that time saw 12 books reviewed by our board in this manner. Some were kept; some weren't. Those that weren't were often dropped for reasons that were uncovered in the open discussion at the board meeting, rather than the original parental protest. None of the board meetings were acrimonious.

I'm not sure there is a better way to handle this, at the moment. The parents have input into what their children are being taught, the community has a chance to give input, and the books are being reviewed in earnest. Even in cases in which the books end up removed from the curriculum and school library, there is no actual ban -- students are still welcome to read them and even have copies of them on campus. Not providing a book is not the same as banning it. (Or perhaps I am mistaken, and my local library is in fact the greatest book-banner in the history of mankind.)

[Sil_liS]

From the comments on the article:

For those who are not familiar, here are the greater problems:

1) A committee was created, which included the HS English Department Head and the School Librarian. That committee voted to keep all three books in the curriculum. THEN Dr. Minor tells them a second "committee" would be created to get a different opinion. No one knows who served on that committee, nor has anyone seen any minutes from these supposed committee meetings.

Unfortunately, jobs have been threatened over this, and we're talking both teacher AND administrator jobs. In this economy, the Republic faculty cannot risk their salaries. It's up to other stakeholders, like parents and recently-graduated students, whom RSD cannot directly affect, to force the RSD, Dr. MInor, and Dr. Cook to stand by their decision and show us exactly how this decision was made.

2) At Republic, 12th grade English has now been consumed by a year-long senior project. This senior project, although a great idea in theory, consists of "free-writing" for an entire semester. Are the kids reading anything? Nope. Are they learning about grammar and spelling? Nope.

So what does this matter?

Because all of the literature that was supposed to be taught in 12th grade has now been pushed down to 11th grade. That is double the workload for 11th grade English teachers, and now we run into this problem. Two of the books that were previously in the curriculum (Slaughterhouse Five and Twenty Boy Summer) are now gone, and the English teachers must replace them. Not a problem, except Curriculum Director Dr. Amy Cook has told them this is not their year to buy books, so now the English teachers much teach literature, with no books. Why not use the books previously used for 12th grade literature? Because there aren't enough for each student to have one.

The issue isn't the books themselves. The issue is how poorly the entire situation was handled.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by Skibble

The re-assessment of books in schools, and their subsequent removal from the curriculum and libraries, is not uncommon.

But differences in opinion did sometimes arise, and when they did, this was the protocol for handling them:

1. Parent calls teacher and complains about book.
2. Teacher speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to department head.
3. Department head speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to school administrator.
4. Administrator speaks to parent; if complaint persists, refers to school board.
5. School board, as ultimate representative of the community, reviews book and discusses in meeting open to the community, in which all members of the community are invited to give feedback. School board renders final decision.

I spent a decade at one school (PK-12), and during that time saw 12 books reviewed by our board in this manner. Some were kept; some weren't. Those that weren't were often dropped for reasons that were uncovered in the open discussion at the board meeting, rather than the original parental protest. None of the board meetings were acrimonious.

One part of the problem is, even if that was the standard procedure, that didn't happen in this case. The parent who lodged the complaint doesn't have children who attend the Republic schools, and while they're a teacher, they do not teach for Republic schools. The person who lodged the complaint skipped straight to the district admin.

[Skibble]

Apologies; I didn't mean to imply that I felt this particular case was handled properly. It absolutely wasn't. (Although, for the reasons stated above, I would still hesitate to call the result a true ban.)

I was merely trying to give some insight into how it is normally done, and how often, as the discussion seemed to be as much about the general practice of removing books from schools as it was this specific case.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If a religious group challenges a book because of offensive language, what challenge reason does the ALA record?

Reading their explanation of challenges, most books have received multiple reasons for being banned. On the graph, they have a criteria for "religion" and one for "language," so there is no reason to think they would quantify it as only one thing, rather than doing the more likely and listing it as both.

Funny... I find the numbers, the history and the graph largely irrelevant to this thread I started. I wasn't accusing any particular religious group (although I still think religion played more of a part than the school board is willing to admit here). I started the thread because I think it's completely ridiculous that anybody would have a problem with anyone over the age of thirteen reading Slaughterhouse 5. I still think that.

Not to why you started the thread (I never claimed that), but the majority of specific accusations made in this thread.

The numbers are indeed very relevant. The reasons given in the article fall under the first 4 most common reasons given in the graph. Yet, the primary accusation in this thread has been religion.

I was accusing the school board of kowtowing to a vocal minority (in its reason for re-examining the book in the first place). Do they only re-examine the appropriate-ness of books after complaints are made? That hardly feels like a legitimate review system based solely on quantifiable criteria to me.

Why is it illegitimate to review a book after a complaint? "You don't like the book? I'm sorry, we do not think it's legitimate to examine appropriateness of books after a complaint." ???

They developed criteria in April and applied those to the books. The article does not say anything beyond that, but the implication is that any books incoming will have to pass through the filter of those standards.

With regards to your graph, how do we define the "challenger/challenge" elements in this particular case? If the challenger is deemed to be the initial complainant, then religion is certainly one of the reasons it was "challenged"... regardless of what reason was given for its "removal." Or should we simply ignore the fact that the challenge was issued in this particular case by someone who had clear religious differences with the book and allow the challenge reason to be tailor-fitted after the fact? Being able to pick and choose what the challenge reason was in each case sort of negates any trends that your graph might happen to show.

Indeed, religion was the reason the book was initially challenged. But it was not the reason the book was removed from the library. I do not know the ALA criteria in this case. However, as I stated, the ALA lists multiple reasons for many books (some books practically have pages of challenge reasons listed), so they can and do count all reasons in a banning.

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain who started this whole ugly affair... this is why we did it."

In your accusation about ignoring the reason for the challenge, have you been reading this thread? Almost all the discussion focused on religion. That was why I posted the graph.

Religion was the initial challenge, but the reasons for the removal were specifically the 4 most common reasons cited by the ALA. I am not suggesting we don't discuss religion, I am suggesting that we discuss the other 4 reasons which bear more weight than religion.

No, the book may have been removed for all the correct-sounding, politically sanitized, legal reasons that this schoolboard can came up with to be able to sleep better at night, but--make no mistake--it was challenged for all the same old nefarious reasons that books have been burned for in the past.

Let's take this as an example, and apply it to the thread.

As I said, regardless of your belief system, you have had banning perpetrated against your system. The Nazi's are the most famous book burners, and it was an anti-Jewish, and therefore anti-religion.

But, you can say that religion is the same old nefarious reason books were burned in this case; the Nazi's burned books because of religion. But saying it that way is a misdirection. The real reason the Nazi's burned books were because they hated Jews, they were anti-religion. That's an imperative in the discussion, since it is far more accurate than just throwing it under the blanket of "religion."

Similarly, this thread has spent most time accusing religion as the reason for the book banning. But, again, it's a misdirection. The question was raised because of religion, but that was not why they were banned. Indeed, the reasons given for the ban are the 4 most common reasons books are banned! But we have spent hardly any time discussing any of those 4 (some talk of language and age appropriateness). Those 4 reasons are the imperative in this case, and we barely even breach them.

If you are opposed to book banning (as I am), I would think we'd be better served to discusses the real reasons books are banned instead of focusing on a far less common reason.

Plus, I'll never understand the attitude that just because it's determined that someone is within their legal rights to do something, that all discussion on said subject should simply cease. "Hey, it's legal and doesn't fit the strict definition of 'banning' or 'censorship' so everyone should just pipe down!" That dog won't hunt.

You have twisted my words beyond recognition. I would never stop discussion. I am pointing out that people went overboard on the religion issue, when in actuality that was not the reason for the banning.

In this thread, the dog may be hunting, but it's hunting the entirely wrong animal.

-Pie

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The question was raised because of religion, but that was not why they were banned.

Without religion, the question wouldn't have been raised, and the books wouldn't have been banned. So logically, the source of the banning was religion.

[Hellmark]

One thing to consider, may be the difference between stated reason, and true motive or belief. Yeah, the ALA shows that most aren't openly due to religious belief, but they don't track what may be the reason behind what was stated. You can still have religious reasoning as to why something may be inappropriate for an age group, or may be that you're simply claiming it is inappropriate for an age group as an easier way to get something blocked. If you come straight out and say that you want something blocked or removed because your religious beliefs are offended, you're going to fight more of an up hill battle than if you say you believe it isn't appropriate for children.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

You have twisted my words beyond recognition. I would never stop discussion. I am pointing out that people went overboard on the religion issue, when in actuality that was not the reason for the banning.

Sorry, that part wasn't directed specifically at you. There were several other posts that suggested there was absolutely nothing to see here. They were well within their rights so everyone should just move along.

I do agree with you that if religion did not honestly play a part in the book's removal, then religion need not be discussed—and in fact may be confusing the issue. Unfortunately, in order to accept the fact that religion only kick-started the process and wasn't used as review criteria, I have to take the word of people I don't know. And frankly, I just don't trust anyone who determined that Slaughterhouse Five wasn't age appropriate reading material for 13-17 year-olds—based on content alone. Period.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

One thing to consider, may be the difference between stated reason, and true motive or belief. Yeah, the ALA shows that most aren't openly due to religious belief, but they don't track what may be the reason behind what was stated. You can still have religious reasoning as to why something may be inappropriate for an age group, or may be that you're simply claiming it is inappropriate for an age group as an easier way to get something blocked. If you come straight out and say that you want something blocked or removed because your religious beliefs are offended, you're going to fight more of an up hill battle than if you say you believe it isn't appropriate for children.

Banning books because of religion is bad. If a person requests that a book should be removed because of religious reasons, nobody should take it seriously. It doesn't really matter if that was just an excuse.