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

[J. Strnad]

Wesley Scroggins sounds like one of those "I only need one book, the Good Book" sorts.

I agree with Scott, though, that the banning is probably the best thing to happen to Slaughterhouse-Five. (I should be so lucky.) The banning also will teach the kids a very important lesson, that their elders are idiots.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by queentess

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.

I'm not telling you any such thing. I don't want you (the generic you) telling me what is age appropriate for my children. You make your choices and I make mine. I always get a laugh when I'm told to "think of the children". They are not just limiting curriculum. They are removing the books from the library.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

The banning also will teach the kids a very important lesson, that their elders are idiots.

And isn't that the most important one? Teach them to think for themselves!

The tone of the article almost made it sound like the one guy was encouraging the students select the book for independent book reports. If I were in that high school, that would have been the book I gravitated towards. Gots to see what all the hub-bub is about!

[queentess]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

I don't want you (the generic you) telling me what is age appropriate for my children.

Erm, but schools make that decision every day with every single lesson plan. The school district leaders (and local community) decide what's 'best' for the children to learn. The only thing exceptional (and exceptionally stupid) here is that they also removed the books from the school library.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by queentess

Erm, but schools make that decision every day with every single lesson plan. The school district leaders (and local community) decide what's 'best' for the children to learn. The only thing exceptional (and exceptionally stupid) here is that they also removed the books from the school library.

Ok.. (calmly)... We're talking past each other here. While I do think that age appropriate lesson plans are needed, hiding books (removing from the library) is wrong and in the long run counter-productive.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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

ahh, I thought they began the article with a giant photograph of his face to show his lack of involvment.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by queentess

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

Oh good. It wasn't just me then.

[OtterBooks]

Citing crude language and adult themes, Minor said "Slaughterhouse Five" was more appropriate for college-age students.
"The language is just really, really intense," he said. "I don't think it has any place in high school ...

No, you illiterate yokel, it has every place in high school, and no place in college. Well, maybe community college. It's not "too intense," Clem, you're just a dullard.

Look at the photo of the "Scroggins" guy. Really, the name and photo could not have been made-up any better. He looks a fraction of a gene away from Down's.

[anamardoll]

Haha, Queentess, I figured that was it.

As for why it was "never going to be taught", I have to think it's just plain not old enough or "classic" enough to make the cut on the standardized tests that are oh-so-important these days. Certainly I was never taught Vonnegut in high school; was anyone else in this thread? But, yeah, removing it from the library entirely is a bad move.

Twenty Boy Summer. Heh.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Ok.. (calmly)... We're talking past each other here. While I do think that age appropriate lesson plans are needed, hiding books (removing from the library) is wrong and in the long run counter-productive.

I don't think we're talking past each other. The school is making a decision about what is 'age appropriate', including what is age appropriate to carry in the school library. It's not the same as a public library banning a book, or a government trying to censor a book. The school is, actually, leaving the decision up to the parent. If the parent thinks their child should read that book, the school will allow the child to "select those books for classwork as long as they have signed parent permission".

I agree with you that it's counter-productive and stupid, but as Elfwreck said:

Originally Posted by 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."

[queentess]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Citing crude language and adult themes, Minor said "Slaughterhouse Five" was more appropriate for college-age students.
"The language is just really, really intense," he said. "I don't think it has any place in high school ...

No, you illiterate yokel, it has every place in high school, and no place in college. Well, maybe community college. It's not "too intense," Clem, you're just a dullard.

Look at the photo of the "Scroggins" guy. Really, the name and photo could not have been made-up any better. He looks a fraction of a gene away from Down's.

You've convinced me with your winning attitude and acceptance of others.

[anamardoll]

Mea culpa for not reading the full article (I'M TOO LAZY), but seems like there are some confusing elements here. Were the "offending" books:

1. Already available in the library, but removed permanently? (Students can check it out elsewhere for book reports with parental permission.)

2. Already available in the library, but stashed under the checkout counter where students can access them with parental permission?

3. Not in the library, but on the "to buy" list; now sadly struck from consideration because of their age-inappropriateness?

4. Not in the library, and never intended to be, but now are banned from inclusion in the library, just in case someone tries to will a copy to the library?

Some of these are, I think, worse than the others. My understanding so far was of #1. Queentess, I feel like you are coming from #2?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Haha, Queentess, I figured that was it.

As for why it was "never going to be taught", I have to think it's just plain not old enough or "classic" enough to make the cut on the standardized tests that are oh-so-important these days. Certainly I was never taught Vonnegut in high school; was anyone else in this thread? But, yeah, removing it from the library entirely is a bad move.

Twenty Boy Summer. Heh.

I had Dickens and Shakespeare shoved at me in high school. (Rather enjoy Shakespeare. Dickens bored me.) We did get to read Brave New World though, so that was awesome.

I can't help thinking of the movie Footloose...

Mr. Gurntz: He was trying to teach that book.
Mrs. Allyson: Slaughterhouse-Five, isn't that an awful name?
Ren: Yeah it's a classic... Slaughterhouse-Five, it's a classic.
Mr. Gurntz: Tom Sawyer is a classic! Do you read much?
Mrs. Allyson: Maybe in another town it's a classic.
Ren: In *any* town.

[anamardoll]

I *do* think that permanently removing a book (that already existed) from the library is an act of censorship, regardless of the "age appropriateness" of the book. Some students will not have any other way to access the book.

Shoving it under the reference desk and requiring parental permission is slightly better than removing it entirely, but does still run into the "what if Susie wants to read it but her parents won't let her because of religious reasons" problem.

*My* parents wouldn't let me read Patricia C. Wrede because dragons are representations of Satan. I'm still annoyed about that. I do think that young adults deserve some privacy and agency in what they choose to read. <invoke Roald Dahl's Matilda here>

[queentess]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Mea culpa for not reading the full article (I'M TOO LAZY), but seems like there are some confusing elements here. Were the "offending" books:

1. Already available in the library, but removed permanently? (Students can check it out elsewhere for book reports with parental permission.)

Some of these are, I think, worse than the others. My understanding so far was of #1. Queentess, I feel like you are coming from #2?

I also read it as #1. I just don't think removing a book from a high school library and saying students are allowed to read it for homework is quite the sin others do. The kids can still go to the local library, bookstore, or any ebook store and get the book. And read it for school credit. In my high school the teacher had to approve all books that were to be read independently, even in the 'advanced' programs. Was it different at other schools?