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

[EatingPie]

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.

And yet, the ALA has many, many books showing banning as due to religious reasons.

Your argument presumes dishonesty. You really have nothing to base it on. The ALA gave stated reasons, and that's what we have to go on.

And in terms of the "up hill battle," the Missouri issue began with a stated offense due to religious beliefs. However, the ban did not result because of those beliefs. So in the example at hand, religion was stated with no concern about the difficulty of the "battle," so it does not follow that people just lied.

-Pie

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

So it is not logical at all to say it was the source of the ban, as the stated reasons for the ban were age appropriateness etc.

What does the word source mean to you?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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.

At this point, there is no way to have a reasoned debate. You must throw out all evidence provided simply because you don't know the people. That is not a rational position to take. It is exactly the same as me saying that I do not know Richard Dawkins, and therefore I do not trust his opinions or assertions at all. You think I might be taken to task for saying something like that?

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

This is exactly what I was thinking. I think EatingPie is just unfamiliar with how religious conservatives act. My father grew up in a very conservative family (I'm sure my grandmother would disown us if she knew we have been going to a church that allows women to speak in front of the congregation and even plays instrumental music!). Luckily for me, he learned the error of those ways and raised me better.

I am not ignorant the way people act -- be they liberal or conservative, religious or atheistic -- please do not state or imply that I am.

The religious conservatives are very good at word games. They have to be to justify their strange beliefs.

At this point, you are merely slinging vitriol at "religious conservatives." This is also an unreasoned standpoint to take as it offers nothing substantive to the debate... except to get it pushed out of public viewing on mobileread.

On the topic of the new information coming out, it seems to be even worse than the first article indicates.

The new information cited was a comment by a person who we must assume is involved in the case. Why should we believe that person any more than those cited in the article?

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What does the word source mean to you?

It would have been better if you left my quote in the full context. The following is imperative, which you cut, and explains what I meant:

"Religion was the source of the re-evaluation not of the ban."

A better question would be what you think the word "source" means, as you were the first to use it. Does it mean "cause"; "caltalyst"; "starting point?" It could be any of those, as your context is unclear.

-Pie

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The new information cited was a comment by a person who we must assume is involved in the case. Why should we believe that person any more than those cited in the article?

Why should we believe that person any less?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It would have been better if you left my quote in the full context. The following is imperative, which you cut, and explains what I meant:

"Religion was the source of the re-evaluation not of the ban."

A better question would be what you think the word "source" means, as you were the first to use it. Does it mean "cause"; "caltalyst"; "starting point?" It could be any of those, as your context is unclear.

-Pie

This is the reason why I asked. I was the person who used it first, and I used it with the meaning of starting point, which seemed clear to me since I said that it was what raised the question in the beginning.

It doesn't seem like you assign the same meaning to the word, so I'm asking you to tell me what you mean.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Eating Pie

At this point, there is no way to have a reasoned debate. You must throw out all evidence provided simply because you don't know the people. That is not a rational position to take. It is exactly the same as me saying that I do not know Richard Dawkins, and therefore I do not trust his opinions or assertions at all. You think I might be taken to task for saying something like that?

It's not exactly the same thing and you know it. We both don't know these board members, but we both know Dawkins. "Know" as in background or track-record.

And I didn't throw out any evidence, anyway. I don't know them, sure, but I'm not throwing them to the wolves based on that alone. I'm using that plus the opinion that anyone who truly believes that Slaughterhouse Five is inappropriate (because of language and sexual content) for high-school aged kids to read isn't thinking rationally. So I'm left with an irrational decision or a decision based on "other" facts not in evidence. Because nothing else makes remote sense to me.

[mldavis2]

There are some great posts here, adding additional insight. Per @Sil_lis, jobs threatened, initial professional recommendations overturned by an ad hoc oversight 'committee;' and per @Hellmark, the initiating complaint coming from a person not associated with the school, parents or students. The plot thickens... Then we have the spot-on post from @DiapDealer questioning the graph found by @EatingPie, which effectively suggests that the stated reasons for banning are often a superset of an ulterior undercurrent (we shouldn't be using the "R" word in this forum). It's sad that professional educators here have possibly been held hostage to their own jobs by a vocal but apparently powerful and influential community person or minority who didn't like the first decision and made up his/her/their own committee to change the verdict.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

it's obvious that getting rid of books for controversial content may not be censorship; it could just be that the library can get better use out of that space with a book that's accessible to more students.

Yes, you're right. Slaughterhouse 5 is a real shelf-breaker, right next to War and Peace If it's on the shelf, it's accessible to students. If it's removed, it's effectively banned by that school. I would suggest that books not on shelves are not banned by their absence, but if they had been on the shelves and were intentionally removed to avoid student access, then they have effectively been banned, regardless of what label we use.

If it looks like duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck ...

Good thread. I'm going back to my novel ...

[Sil_liS]

From an editorial by Wesley Scroggins (the one who started this), a description of Slaughterhouse Five:

In English, children are also required to read a book called "Slaughterhouse Five." This is a book that contains so much profane language, it would make a sailor blush with shame. The "f word" is plastered on almost every other page. The content ranges from naked men and women in cages together so that others can watch them having sex to God telling people that they better not mess with his loser, bum of a son, named Jesus Christ.

The article ends with:

I confronted the school board with these issues at the June school board meeting. As far as I know, nothing has been done to address these issues to date. This is unacceptable, considering that most of the school board members and administrators claim to be Christian. How can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality? Parents, it is time you get involved!

Editor's note: Republic Superintendent Vern Minor pointed out that the curriculum is abstinence-based and that students can opt out of sex education classes. He also said "Slaughterhouse Five" has been removed, and that "Twenty Boy Summer" is being reviewed. Some of the issues raised by Scroggins were before the start of the school year and were complicated by the timing and renewal process of teachers' contracts, Minor said.

TL;DR
The thing that makes me raise an eyebrow is the part at the end, because, seriously, what does the "timing and renewal process of teachers' contracts" have to do with the evaluation of age-appropriate reading material.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Why should we believe that person any less?

Persons cited in the article: verified working for the school board, and interviewed and covered by an independent 3rd party, the press. We can be reasonably sure they are who they claimed to be in the article. We can be reasonably sure they presented what happened to the author of the article. We can be reasonably sure the article author had the opportunity to independently verify claims made by interviewing others and cross-referencing said claims.

Person commenting on article: a random comment by someone whose identity cannot be independently confirmed, nor can we be sure they were even present at any hearing, or events occurred as they claimed. There was no independent review or examination of their claims.

Regardless, I was facetiously referring to this because of a claim of distrust of people he doesn't know, though I misinterpreted that claim to some extent.

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It's not exactly the same thing and you know it. We both don't know these board members, but we both know Dawkins. "Know" as in background or track-record.

I misinterpreted, string two sentences together inappropriately. I thought you were saying you didn't trust the school board members because you didn't know them. But you distrust them because of their conclusion about Slaughterhouse 5. So my accusation about loss of rational debate was not legitimate. My apologies!

And I didn't throw out any evidence, anyway. I don't know them, sure, but I'm not throwing them to the wolves based on that alone. I'm using that plus the opinion that anyone who truly believes that Slaughterhouse Five is inappropriate (because of language and sexual content) for high-school aged kids to read isn't thinking rationally. So I'm left with an irrational decision or a decision based on "other" facts not in evidence. Because nothing else makes remote sense to me.

The evidence I was referring to was the evidence presented in the article, basically the only evidence about this situation that we have. (Though there is now a comment, and an editorial quoted in the thread.)

The school board stated their criteria included language. I grepped the f-word, and the book had about 20 uses. Right there is proof that the book would be removed due to language, as stated. So there is nothing "irrational" about that: they had a stated criteria, and the book failed that criteria.

Originally Posted by mldavis2

Then we have the spot-on post from @DiapDealer questioning the graph found by @EatingPie, which effectively suggests that the stated reasons for banning are often a superset of an ulterior undercurrent (we shouldn't be using the "R" word in this forum).

Obviously I don't see it as spot-on. As I stated, the ALA had a specific metric for "religion" too.

And as I show above, the book certainly uses strong language, and since that was a stated reason for removing the book, there is no reason to believe they lied about it, or it fit a "superset of ulterior undercurrent."

As I stated in my first post here, the religion complaint started the process, but it was not the reason for the banning. So, why are we (a) assuming it still is the reason for the banning, and why aren't we talking about the actual reasons for banning?

If we are truly opposed to banning books, barking up the wrong tree gets us nowhere in terms of making any social change. And yet there is actual resistance to the idea of finding the right tree!

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Wanted to bust this out since I had a tl;dr above.

Here is the article statement about criteria for the books: "The panel reviewed existing board policy and the public rating systems that already exist for music, TV and video games."

Given that there were 20 uses of the f-word in the book, it would have obtained an R-rating in today's film market. That means nobody under 18 without a parent or guardian. That is exactly what the administrator states are the reasons for the book's removal (language, age-appropriateness), and the the criteria for being able to read it anyway: a parent can allow the student to read the book.

-Pie

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

We can be reasonably sure they presented what happened to the author of the article. We can be reasonably sure the article author had the opportunity to independently verify claims made by interviewing others and cross-referencing said claims.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

The evidence I was referring to was the evidence presented in the article, basically the only evidence about this situation that we have. (Though there is now a comment, and an editorial quoted in the thread.)

This is where we disagree. I don't see evidence in the article. It just said that Scroggins made a complaint last year because of religious reasons and the superintendent announced that 2 of the 3 books were banned because of the conclusion of the board where 3 out of 7 people were absent (for the whole year?). On the other hand, a person who gives the impression that they are employed by the high-school, talks about peoples jobs being threatened.

It's easy to google information. And if you do that, it actually seems like there is reason to believe the claims of the commenter (the article that I linked to before).

If you don't want to google things, let me help you:
The earliest complaint of Wesley Scroggins. that I could find on the subject. - May 2010
A 29 page manifesto - June 2010
A not-interview of Wesley Scroggins where if you pay attention you will hear the words "You mean the history of you not being able to get on the school board?" at 1:02.

[Hellmark]

I just did a quick search through the copy I have here (snagged it from the library), and there was 16 uses of fuck, or one of its variants. (sorry took so long to post, pie. tried getting it up before your posts, but net issues here).

Now, I can understand blocking it for vulgarity, but it isn't the way that Scroggins claims of "every other page". First usage was on page 31, and you have to jump to 77 after that. I wouldn't call 16 uses in a 159 page book that excessive, especially when you consider that the usage is almost exclusive to a single character.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Here is the article statement about criteria for the books: "The panel reviewed existing board policy and the public rating systems that already exist for music, TV and video games."

Given that there were 20 uses of the f-word in the book, it would have obtained an R-rating in today's film market. That means nobody under 18 without a parent or guardian. That is exactly what the administrator states are the reasons for the book's removal (language, age-appropriateness), and the the criteria for being able to read it anyway: a parent can allow the student to read the book.

-Pie

Ah, f-bombs and movie ratings. It all makes sense now. I assume they've instituted a procedure to remove all "R-rated books" from their curriculum/library in a timely manner, then? None of these things are reasons... nor are they valid. They are excuses and they are spin. I think Elfwreck put it best:

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That said--I think it likely that, in this case, "age-appropriate" is a code phrase for "doesn't make adults uncomfortable to think of kids reading it." Which is a very different standard from actual age appropriateness.