THE "C" WORD

Oh Arizona...

2012-02-27T01:09:00.000-08:00

Oh Arizona! How I wish I wasn't blogging about you so constantly. Often when one is featured often, it is (hopefully) for good things, such as when Meryl Streep wins her third Oscar. But in this case, Arizona is just being disgraced on a constant basis, similar to the many mentions of Rick Santorum each day running up to the 2012 US elections. First it was the banning of various texts on an individual basis, then the dismantling of the Ethnic Studies programs in Tucson, and now teachers may be in trouble if they bring books into their classrooms that aren't on pre-approved lists.

Kellie Mejdrich reports in the Tucson Sentinel that "Teachers could have their licenses revoked if they bring any supplemental books into the classroom that aren’t pre-approved by the district and posted on a website for parental view." Teachers, understandably, are not too pleased with this development. They are even less impressed, however, that Bibles may become mandatory to have in classrooms, violating what many consider a necessary separation of education from biased religious teaching.

The article goes on: "Currently, Arizona law requires the school board to “exclude from school libraries all books, publications and papers of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character,” state statute says. But if the bill were to pass, an exception would be included for the Bible as well as any materials for this elective course. Disciplinary action over religious preaching in the classroom would also be softened—from the outright revocation of a teaching license, to providing teachers immunity from liability as long as they teach the class 'in good faith.'"

Many consider this a violation of constitutional rights, being that the Christian Bible will be used to the exclusion of other religious texts or even other versions of the Bible that include extra books, as in the case of the Catholic version which contains Maccabees, Judith, Tobit, and others.

Anjali Abraham of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona agreed that introduction of the Bible as a state-sanctioned religious text to the exclusion of others was a serious violation of constitutional rights.

“In designing a curriculum to familiarize students with recorded history of the bible, schools are going to have to decide what counts as recorded history and our concern is that invariably means embracing a particular religious viewpoint or a couple of religious viewpoints and then as a consequence rejecting others and that's a real First Amendment problem,” Abraham said.

Abraham added that the lenient language for chastising preachy teachers as well as the establishment of a specific Bible course to the exclusion of other texts was problematic.

While I have no problem with the Bible being taught in school, except when it is included in classrooms while other religious texts are excluded. Some of those in favor of the legislation say that the Bible is the most important religious text in Western culture, so that is the main reason. Professor John Ulreich had the following to say in regards to focusing on a text such as the Bible:

“The Bible teaches you whatever you want to learn. You want to learn that men should dominate women? You can find it in the Bible. You want to believe that god hates gay people? You can find it in the Bible. You can also find places in both testaments that tell us that the fundamental spiritual and moral obligations are to love God and love our neighbors,” Ulreich said. “The Bible can be inspiring but it offers rich examples of very bad behavior. People who believe that the bible is all good for you, just haven’t really read the Bible.”

And as I said before, the legislation is also attempting to keep other texts out of the classroom: "legislators are trying to keep other speech out of the classroom, and threaten revocation of licenses for teachers engaged in 'uni-partisan activities' in the classroom, using FCC-defined obscene language, and bringing in books not pre-approved by the school board."

Arizona representatives who are in favor of this legislation make me so angry!! The last year or so has seen the emergence of ridiculous, explosive, and religiously destructive legislation and politicians. While up here in Canada I watch it as some sort of spectacle, I understand how terrible it is that these sorts of decisions are taking America into a very scary, overly-conservative and incredibly biased age, mostly based on erroneous understandings of religious doctrine. In light of this, I worry greatly over the teaching of the Bible in elementary, middle, or secondary school classrooms. I can only hope the legislation does not go through, or that Arizona is finally encapsulated under an indestructible bubble that will discourage the spread of such horrendous ideology.

I apologize if this post doesn't make as much sense as some, or if I sound like I'm rambling too much, but it's late, and this sort of news makes me quite frustrated.

Thanks for reading!

School District Ordered to Stop Censoring LGBT Sites

2012-02-16T09:44:00.000-08:00

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 15, 2012

CONTACT:
Robyn Shepherd, ACLU national, (212) 519-7829 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Debbie Read and Anthony Rothert, ACLU of Eastern Missouri, (314) 669-3420; tony@aclu-em.org

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – A federal district court ruled today that the Camdenton R-III School District must stop censoring web content geared toward the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities through discriminatory filtering software. The ruling orders the district to not block content based on the viewpoints expressed by the website.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Eastern Missouri filed a lawsuit against the district in August 2011 after repeated warnings that its custom-built filtering software discriminates against LGBT content. The filter has a category that blocks LGBT-supportive information, including hundreds of websites that are not sexually explicit in any way. The filter does, however, allow students to view anti-LGBT sites that condemn homosexuality or opposed legal protections for LGBT people.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a Camdenton High School student and LGBT organizations whose websites are blocked by the filter: PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays), the Matthew Shepard Foundation, Campus Pride and DignityUSA, a Catholic LGBT organization. The plaintiffs were also represented by Thompson Coburn LLP.

“The court correctly recognized the constitutional rights of all students to viewpoint-neutral access to information,” said Joshua Block, staff attorney with the ACLU LGBT Project. “It is absolutely possible to protect children from sexually explicit content while also protecting their First Amendment rights. Like thousands of other school districts across the country, Camdenton R-III will now begin using a filtering system that blocks pornography without discriminating against LGBT-related content.”

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri said that the district’s filtering system “systematically allows access to websites expressing a negative viewpoint toward LGBT individuals by categorizing them as ‘religion,’ but filters out positive viewpoints toward LGBT issues by categorizing them as ‘sexuality.’” Although the district argued that it would unblock individual websites upon request the court held that “students may be deterred from accessing websites expressing a positive view toward LGBT individuals either by the inconvenience of having to wait twenty-four hours for access or by the stigma of knowing that viewpoint has been singled out as less worthy by the school district and the community.”

The court also concluded that other filtering systems are available that “are much more effective” at filtering out pornography “and do so without burdening websites that express a positive viewpoint toward LGBT individuals.”

“The filtering system that had been installed at Camdenton R-III was arbitrary, ineffective and discriminatory,” said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri. “Today’s ruling affirms that students will be free to search for resources for their gay-straight alliance, seek support against bullying and research history as it pertains to LGBT people, just as they would for any other subject.”

Walk-outs and Teach-ins: How Students are Taking a Stand in AZ

2012-02-09T23:07:00.000-08:00

This is really amazing to see. Students walking out of schools and staging Teach-ins to show the Tuscon Independent School District that not only were they irresponsible for getting rid of the Ethnic Studies program, but also that the students actually want to learn. Let me say that again, because sometimes it's hard to believe: These students want to learn! Check out this news footage:

Here's a great quote from the video (cited from the official transcript of the newscast posted on The Real News), if you don't have time to actually watch the clip:

NOLAN CABRERA, PH. D., COMMUNITY ACTIVIST: When students do walk out its frequently framed in the media as these students just don’t want to be in school, they’re cutting class it’s like senior skip day, and so really what the students did was they went and they created their own school, the school of ethnic studies, the teaching of the forbidden curriculum, and so it was on Jan 24 it was their big act of both educational activism and civil disobedience they had well over 100 students from across the district show up at that event and having personally attended it it was absolutely beautiful seeing students who were so engaged and willing to fight for their own education because educational apathy is something endemic in this country, these students were fighting for it.

This is so important. In this case it's not only academics, scholars, teachers, and politicians who are making a stand against the stupidity of this whole situation. The students are fighting for something important: their right to learn, and not only to learn, but to learn about what is relevant and necessary in a multicultural nation!

Of course the most infuriating part of this whole scandal, to me at least, is the reaction of Superintendent John Pedicone of the TUSD stated that he thinks the outcry against the decision to remove the program is just a distraction, according to AlterNet. He also refuses to comment on why the books have been removed from display and library shelves as well as from classrooms. According to the AlterNet article, "the violation-ridden Tucson school district under [Pedicone's] leadership will apparently celebrate next week’s centennial without any textbooks or special recognition of Mexican American history and heritage or the Mexican American founder of Tucson public schools, Estevan Ochoa."

Pedicone even went so far as to write a letter to University Faculty members who helped the students with their Teach-in, basically scolding them and blaming them for the students skipping classes in protest. He then proceeded to make sure that students were punished, by first attempting to assign them janitorial work. After realizing what a terrible move that was, he changed the punishment to detentions, stating that suspension would be the next step for students who continue to skip classes in protest. The fact that he actually scolded university faculty members for helping students to learn what should be in the school curriculum is laughable! But if you want to read the whole letter, you can get to it here.

Many well-known authors, scholars, and activists have been out in force trying to get the program reinstated, or at least get the books out of the warehouse where they are sitting uselessly, gathering dust, instead of being used to teach. As Norma Gonzalez stated, the program is needed so that "Tucson children can learn their state’s full history and rich heritage." Noam Chomsky even chimed in. While in Tucson this week, Chomsky "referred to Tucson’s removal of Mexican American Studies books and curriculum materials as an 'international disgrace.'"

Henry Giroux, noted education scholar, had a few things to say in an article posted this week on Truth Out. He concluded the piece with a very stern warning:

The Arizona censorship of ethnic studies, the destruction of associated knowledges and the silencing of dissent is one of those events that flash before us in ways that might at first suggest nothing more than a silly, irrational or anomalous happening. But that is far from the actual case. Placed within a long view of history, it clearly signals the formation of those antidemocratic forces waiting in the shadows for an opportune moment to enshroud the entirety of the United States in what the philosopher Hannah Arendt once called, “dark times.”

It is truly unfortunate that these events are taking place to begin with, and every time I start reading the news about Tuscon specifically, and Arizona generally, I find my insides beginning to boil. I want so badly for the school district, especially the superintendent, to see reason and figure out a way to bring the program back. I want to see those protesting students see a resolution for their efforts! At least there are people out there, like Henry Giroux, Christ Crutcher, Norma Gonzalez, Debbie Reese, and so many others, who are working their asses off to make change, and I can't thank them enough for doing what I can't do from outside of the country!

And now, before my blood starts to boil and I get overwhelmed with the craziness, I will sign off for the night. Thanks, as ever, for reading and for caring.

For Immediate Release...

2012-01-30T12:48:00.000-08:00

Press Release from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression:

Joint Statement in Opposition to Book Censorship in the Tucson Unified School District

January 30, 2012

The undersigned organizations are committed to protecting free speech and intellectual freedom. We write to express our deep concern about the removal of books used in the Mexican-American Studies Program in the Tucson Unified School District. This occurred in response to a determination by Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal that the program "contained content promoting resentment toward a race or class of people" and that "materials repeatedly reference white people as being 'oppressors...' in violation of state law." The books have been boxed up and put in storage; their fate and that of the program remain in limbo.

The First Amendment is grounded on the fundamental rule that government officials, including public school administrators, may not suppress "an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." School officials have a great deal of authority and discretion to determine the curriculum, the subject of courses, and even methods of instruction. They are restrained only by the constitutional obligation to base their decisions on sound educational grounds, and not on ideology or political or other personal beliefs. Thus, school officials are free to debate the merits of any educational program, but that debate does not justify the wholesale removal of books, especially when the avowed purpose is to suppress unwelcome information and viewpoints.

School officials have insisted that the books haven't been banned because they are still available in school libraries. It is irrelevant that the books are available in the library - or at the local bookstore. School officials have removed materials from the curriculum, effectively banning them from certain classes, solely because of their content and the messages they contain. The effort to "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, [or] religion" is the essence of censorship, whether the impact results in removal of all the books in a classroom, seven books, or only one.

Students deserve an education that provides exposure to a wide range of topics and perspectives, including those that are controversial. Their education has already suffered from this political and ideological donnybrook, which has caused massive disruption in their classes and will wreak more havoc as teachers struggle to fill the educational vacuum that has been created.

Book-banning and thought control are antithetical to American law, tradition and values. In Justice Louis Brandeis's famous words, the First Amendment is founded on the belief:

that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile;...that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination...Believing in the power of reason as applied through public discussion, [the Framers] eschewed silence coerced by law...Recognizing the occasional tyrannies of governing majorities, they amended the Constitution so that free speech and assembly should be guaranteed.

The First Amendment right to read, speak and think freely applies to all, regardless of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, or national origin. We strongly urge Arizona school officials to take this commitment seriously and to return all books to classrooms and remove all restrictions on ideas that can be addressed in class.

American Association of University Professors Cary Nelson, President 1133 19th St., NW, Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 202-737-5900 cnelson@illinois.edu

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Chris Finan, President 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 212-587-4025 chris@abffe.org

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011-0148 602-773-6006 ameetze@acluaz.org

Antigone Books Trudy Mills and Kate Randall, Owners 411 N. 4th Ave. Tucson, AZ 85705 520-792-3715 info@antigonebooks.com

Association of American Publishers Judith Platt Director, Free Expression Advocacy 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 202-220-4551 jplatt@publishers.org

Association of American University Presses Peter Givler, Executive Director 28 West 36th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 212-989-1010 pgivler@aaupnet.org

Atalanta's Music & Books Joan Werner, Owner 38 Main Street Bisbee, AZ 85603 520-432-9976

Authors Guild Paul Aiken, Executive Director 31 East 32nd Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 212-563-5904 PAiken@authorsguild.org

Center for Expansion of Language and Thinking Dr. Kathryn F. Whitmore, President N275 Lindquist Center The University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242 319-335-5434 Kathryn-whitemore@uiowa.edu

Changing Hands Bookstore Gayle Shanks, Bob Sommer and Cindy Dach, Owners 6428 S McClintock Drive Tempe, AZ 85283 480-730-0205 inbox@changinghands.com

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Charles Brownstein, Executive Director 255 West 36th Street, Suite 501 New York, NY 10018 212-679-7151 charles.brownstein@cbldf.org

Freedom to Read Foundation, an affiliate of the American Library Association Barbara M. Jones, Executive Director 50 East Huron Street Chicago, IL 60611 312-280-4226 bjones@ala.org

International Reading Association Richard M. Long, Ed.D., Director, Government Relations 444 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite 524 Washington, DC 20001 (202) 624-8801 rlong@reading.org

Mountains and Plains Independent Booksellers Association Laura Ayrey, Executive Director 8020 Springshire Drive Park City, UT 84098 435-649-6079 laura@mountainsplains.org

National Coalition Against Censorship Joan Bertin, Executive Director 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 212-807-6242 bertin@ncac.org

National Council for the Social Studies Susan Griffin, Executive Director 8555 16th St, Ste 500 Silver Spring, MD 20910 301.588.1800 x 103 sgriffin@ncss.org

National Council of Teachers of English Millie Davis Senior Developer, Affiliated Groups and Public Outreach 1111 West Kenyan Road Urbana, IL 61801 800-369-6283 ext. 3634 mdavis@ncte.org

National Youth Rights Association Alex Koroknay-Palicz, Executive Director 1101 15th Street, NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 202-835-1739 akpalicz@youthrights.org

PEN American Center Larry Siems, Director, Freedom to Write & International Programs 588 Broadway New York, NY 10012 212-334-1660 ext. 105 lsiems@pen.org

PEN Center USA Adam Somers, Executive Director P.O. Box 6037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 323-424-4939 adam@penusa.org

People For the American Way Debbie Liu, General Counsel 1101 15th Street NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20005 202-467-4999 dliu@pfaw.org

Reach Out and Read Anne-Marie Fitzgerald Senior Director of National and State Programs 56 Roland Street, Suite 100D Boston, MA 02129 618-455-0600

Reading is Fundamental, Inc. Carol Hampton Rasco, President/CEO 1255 23rd Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 202-536-3500

Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators Lin Oliver, Executive Director 8271 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048 323-782-1010 linoliver@scbwi.org

Spark Teacher Education Institute Educational Praxis, Inc. P.O. Box 409 Putney, Vermont 05346 802-258-9212

Student Press Law Center Frank LoMonte, Executive Director 1101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 1100 Arlington, VA 22209-2275 USA 703-807-1904 flomonte@splc.org

TESOL International Association John Segota, CAE Associate Executive Director for Public Policy & Professional Relations 1925 Ballenger Ave., Suite 550 Alexandria, VA 22314 703-518-2513 jsegota@tesol.org

"Shredding" the Public School Curriculum

2012-01-28T15:07:00.000-08:00

As of January 1, 2012, New Hampshire has passed a law declaring that "school districts must adopt a policy that creates 'an exception to specific course material based on a parent’s or legal guardian’s determination that the material is objectionable.'" What does this mean? It basically means they every time a parent objects to something that their child is learning--whether that be evolution, sex education, or the laws of gravity--the school district has the responsibility to come up with a custom-tailored curriculum for that student. According to the Nashua Telegraph,

Once a complaint is made in writing, the school district is required to come up with an alternative lesson plan agreeable to both parties that meets state curriculum requirements for that particular subject. Any extra expense would be incurred by the objecting parents.

Sure, the parents cover extra costs, but the school district is now responsible for coming up with custom lesson plans for every singe student whose parent(s) object to anything at all in the curriculum. The article goes on to state that

Apparently, the previous law wasn’t good enough for Rep. J.R. Hoell, R-Dunbarton, who introduced the bill early last year. Hoell said parents should have the opportunity to object to any material, not just those used in sensitive classes such as sex education.

The inherent problem with that approach is that it’s based on a faulty concept: that parents always act in the best interests of their children. You don’t need a degree in sociology to know that parents many times do just the opposite – much to the detriment of their child’s development.

There is a reason that teachers have degrees and teaching certificates, and well-trained educators and academics are put in charge of putting together curricula for school districts. No curriculum is ever going to be perfect, but that's not the point of public education. The point of public education is to teach a diverse range of concepts and themes that will reach as wide an audience as possible. Parents have ideas of what they want their child to learn in school, but what they need to realize is that certain values are to be taught at home, not in a school where there are a multitude of different backgrounds--whether racial, religious, political, or otherwise. The idea that now every student must get a special lesson plan when mom or dad doesn't like the lesson plan for the whole class is just ridiculous and puts much unnecessary strain on the school district, as well as teachers who will be stretched even thinner than they already are.

I am more disturbed every day as I hear about the measures being passed in US school districts by politicians who seem to have no clue about how education should or can work: the fiasco that came of implementing slavery into math word problems in Georgia; the dismantling of the Ethnic Studies program in Arizona; and now the disregard for the very basis of public education by Republicans.

For a more complete and very interesting objection to the Bill, written by professors of the Department of Education at the University of New Hampshire, click here. To conclude, I will quote the closing words of the Nashua Telegraph article, which states:

Even supporters of the new law, in a bid to tamp down criticism, acknowledge few parents will take advantage of it. One lawmaker even speculated it might be used by a miniscule “one-10th of 1 percent.”

If that’s the case, the Legislature would have been better off to reject this pointless bill and left well enough alone.

What do you think of this scenario? Do you think this sort of law is really going to help matters or just make things worse? Leave your questions, comments, or concerns in the comments section!

Thanks for reading! Oh, and for other articles on the topic, please check these out:

The New York Times
Seacoast Online
Death and Taxes

ACLU Texas Issues Annual Report on Banned/Challenged Books

2012-01-25T18:09:00.000-08:00

According the reports from the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom put out by the Office of Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association, reports from 750 school districts across Texas were compiled by the ACLU and put into their 15th Annual Report on Banned Books. The report notes that 17 books were banned from schools between 2010 and 2011, and numerous other books became restricted, only accessible by certain age groups or by parents of students. In total, 67 books were subjected to challenges with the largest number occurring in the Round Rock Independent School District, though in the end, all 6 books were kept in the library.

The most common reasons for book challenges according to the report were as follows:

Politically/socially/racially offensive
Offensive to religious beliefs
Drugs and alcohol
Violence and horror
Profanity/poor language
Sex or nudity

The books that were banned are as follows:

Steve Alten - The Trench
Carolyn Coman - Bee & Jacky
Caroline Cooney - The Terrorist
Lynne Ewing - Into the Cold Fire
Chris Lynch - The Slot Machine
Carolyn Mackler - Tangled
Joe Meno - The Great Perhaps
Lauren Myracle - Kissing Kate
Francesca Lia Block - Echo, Weetzie Bat
Eric Jerome Dickey - Drive Me Crazy, Dying for Revenge
Phyllis Reynolds Naylor - Alice on the Outside
Sean Cliver - Disposable: A History of Skateboard Art
Sarah Parvis - Creepy Castles
Mike Reiss - The Boy Who Looked Like Lincoln
Andy Riley - Book of Bunny Suicides

For a full list of the books that have been restricted, including Merriam-Webster's Visual Dictionary, check out the full report. Included are interviews with Francesca Lia Block and Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, as well as a full list of the books that were challenged in each school district and summaries of each of the challenged books.

Also included in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom are explanations and explorations of some more prominent attempts to ban books from libraries, schools, and universities. For example, in Tavares, Florida, Lake County Commissioner Jimmy Conner wants the Gossip Girls series removed from public libraries in the area due to what he says are excessive occurrences of sexual activity, drug use, violence, and crude language. Conner said that portions of the book he read were "so vulgar you couldn't read it right there in the commission meeting without being extremely embarrassed." He went on to say later, "What I read was pornography without pictures." Though Conner is obviously extremely opposed to the books, County Library Services Director Thomas Merchant said that no one has filed a request for reconsideration to have the books removed or relocated to the Adult section of the library.

What do you think of the above list of banned books from the Texas ISD's? What about the example of book challenges related to Gossip Girls? Please leave your comments, questions, concerns in the comments section. And as always, thanks for reading!

Arizona Disgraced

2012-01-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

Two school districts in Arizona have recently come to the forefront of book banning news, one because it has begun to pack up and ship out boxes of texts, and the other because there are already those trying to keep books from being bought for classrooms and libraries for various (ridiculous) reasons.

The first of these school districts is the Tucson Unified School District, which recently closed down its Ethnic Studies/Mexican American Studies program. The program has been lauded for being innovative and much more instructional than previous programs attempted in various districts. The governing board of the school district, much to the public's chagrin, voted 4-1 in favor of termination and the books will now be boxed up and shipped out to textbook warehouses. The reason for terminating the program? Debbie Reese, blogger and professor, writes: "Opponents of the program argued that the classes were promoting resentment toward a race or class of people. That race or class of people is white." People are actually frightened that the classes will teach resentment toward other races and classes of people... as if that isn't happening already outside of classrooms on a national and international level!!! Reese continues, in her blog post, saying:

I'm pretty sure that Laura Ingalls Wilder's Little House on the Prairie is not on the list. Towards the end of that story, Pa learns that the federal government wants squatters (he doesn't use that word) to get off of Indian land. They load the wagon and as they drive away, they look back and see that that "their little log house and the little stable sat lonely in the stillness." Pa says that it is a great country, "but there will be wild Indians and wolves here for many a long day." Books like Little House teach readers to resent a race or class of people, too, but I doubt it is being removed from classrooms....

In his Huffington Post article, Jeff Biggers cites Miguel Ortego, a community leader who ran for a position on the school board last year:

"In the 90's we asked why our students were last to be considered for an ethnic studies program.... Now we ask why we are the first to lose it. After successfully creating the Mexican American Studies program at TUSD in 1998, we knew we would need smart, ethical and courageous leaders to protect it. That fact hasn't changed. We just need to do a better job of understanding that the need for proper leadership to protect what is ours is constant. After last night's vote we should all realize that this need never changes."

I am having to take breaks every few minutes while writing and researching this post as the whole ordeal frustrates me and causes quite a lot of anger and sadness to boil up inside me. I am even more aghast that a Federal judge refused to halt the implementation of the law banning the Ethnic Studies program, instead saying that a lawsuit to challenge the law could proceed if desired. While I am hopeful, as is Jeff Biggers, that the program will return in time, I am still outraged that Tea Party state officials were able to influence enough people to pull this off in the first place!!!

In case you, dear reader, are interested to know what texts are being removed, here is a list provided by Debbie Reese:

Shakespeare's The Tempest (REALLY?!)
Suzan Shown Harjo's "We Have No Reason to Celebrate"
Buffy Sainte-Marie's "My Country, 'Tis of Thy People You're Dying"
Joseph Bruchac's "A Friend of the Indians"
Cornel Pewewardy's "A Barbie-Doll Pocahontas"
N. Scott Momaday's "The Delight Song of Tsoai-Talee"
Michael Dorris's "Why I'm Not Thankful for Thanksgiving"
Leslie Marmon's "Ceremony"
Wendy Rose's "Three Thousand Dollar Death Song"
Winona LaDuke's "To the Women of the World: Our Future, Our Responsibility"
Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States
Jonathan Kozol's Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools
bell hooks' Feminism is for Everybody
Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson's Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years

I will end this section of the post with a quotation directly from an audit of the program undertaken in May 2011. After reading this, I seriously have to wonder what sort of society wants to take away programs that actually improve the critical thinking skills of students, programs that actually help students understand social issues and problems. It makes my head hurt. But as I said, here is a quotation from the audit:

[A] Tucson Unified School District audit found its Mexican American Studies program gives students a measurable advantage over their peers. The audit was conducted by David Scott, the district’s director of accountability and research. In it, he wrote, quote, "Juniors taking a Mexican American Studies course are more likely than their peers to pass the [state’s standardized] reading and writing ... test if they had previously failed those tests in their sophomore year," and that "Seniors taking a Mexican American Studies course are more likely to persist to graduation than their peers."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On another note, in the Dysart Unified School District (also in Arizona), Representative Jack Harper has decided that he doesn't like some of the books on a list that has been prepared for purposes of acquiring new materials for classrooms and libraries. I will say first that I understand there has been no move as of yet to remove the books, but it is still important to bring to your attention the sort of ridiculous reasons that are being used to remove books from school systems. Mr. Harper has declared his list of 11 objectionable titles may be considered inappropriate because some are anti-Christian, gay, transsexual, or promote drug-abuse. Some of the books of concern were: "Should Marijuana Be Legalized?," "The Genius of Islam," "You Don't Know About Me," "OyMG," "We All Fall Down," "Rich and Mad," "Pink," "Jumpstart the World," "In Trouble," "I Am J" and "Transparent: Transgender."

It turns out, of course, that Mr. Harper viewed the wrong list of books, many of which weren't actually on the list created by the District administration. And I realize that since nothing was actually removed and because he made a stupid mistake and started shooting his mouth off, but the fact remains that a politician is barging in a deciding what books he thinks are appropriate based on his own personal ideology, rather that looking at the good of the entire School District and the incredibly diverse student body. For a much more descriptive and official article, see Amy Wang's write-up in The Arizona Republic.

Your comments, concerns, and disagreements are always encouraged. And, as always, thanks for listening (or reading, I suppose, would be the more appropriate verb here.)

Superintendent Forced to Rethink Decisions

2012-01-01T06:00:00.000-08:00

Plymouth-Canton Community Schools interim superintendent Jeremy Hughes said community outcry changed his mind. (see the official statement from Hughes here)

-Peg McNichol (Canton Patch)

Interim Superintendent Jeremy Hughes decided to repeal his original decision to remove the book, Waterland (Graham Swift), from classrooms in order to go through proper channels and have the book reviewed by a committee. Hughes stated, in the Canton Patch article, "my decision to remove the book without instituting the complaint-and-review processes provided for in our district’s Administrative Guidelines" sparked overwhelming objections from the community.

He continues: "As a former high school English and Latin teacher, I am certainly aware that much of modern literature contains sexual material. It was my judgment, however, that the passages I read from Waterland had crossed the line in terms of graphic portrayal of sexual activity," he wrote. "Although it has been argued that I took action solely on the complaint of one parent, it was my judgment at the time that the majority of parents in Plymouth-Canton would have a similar objection if they read what I read."

The problem with Hughes' decision is that he based it upon an assumption that others would see the book in the same way. This is obviously not entirely true, judging from the outcry that followed the banning of the book from English AP classrooms at the school. Some parents may agree with Hughes. In fact, the majority might end up agreeing with Hughes. The problem here is that he simply assumed that they would agree with him, and then he removed the book without following proper procedures, including a review of the book by a formed review committee, consisting of parents, teachers, and others from the school district.

The removal of this book, and the challenge to Toni Morrison's Beloved, are both the result of complaints from (drum roll please!) one parent! Again, why so much action from one parent's complaint? There are so many options besides removing a book from classrooms, libraries, and other modes of instruction. Texts are often (though not always) chosen for some merit beyond a teacher simply thinking that a particular book might work because they read it once. So, if the books are being chosen for a particular purpose, why is it that they are so easily removed after a single complaint? Why can that parent not simply have their child read a different book?

If nothing else, at least Waterland is being reviewed following proper guidelines now, and hopefully Beloved will be reviewed in the same way. All I can hope for is that other parents see the slippery slope of removing books just because they discuss sex and just because one parent thinks the book is not suitable for their own child. No book will be perfect for all students and parents all of the time, but if it is suitable for the majority, much of the time, then in a public education system, it is probably a suitable choice.

End Rant.

P.S. If you think students are being destroyed by depictions of sex and sexuality in the novels they read for school, just read the following comments from a former student of the AP English course (from the Canton Patch comments section):

Aaron 1:47 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
As a student who took this class, I am offended by the move to remove these books from AP english. All students who take this course are at least in eleventh grade (17 years old), and most students are seniors. It seems silly to ignore that the majority of students in the course are legally adults. Forgetting this crucial piece of information, the sexually "graphic" scene in Waterland is far from the focus of the book, but is merely a small part of outstanding piece of literary fiction. Waterland became my favorite book in AP English, and has has yet to lose that title. It would be a real shame to see it removed from a great course as a response to an ignorant parent's misplaced squeamishness.

I feel the same way about Beloved that I do about Waterland, and truthfully don't remember the graphic descriptions the first poster mentioned. Several years removed, I do remember that Beloved taught me new ways to think about race and the legacy of slavery in the United States. Coincidentally, Beloved was the topic of an essay prompt on the AP English exam which I took for college credit my senior year of high school.

Christmas Hiatus

2011-12-15T11:15:00.000-08:00

Seeing as it is the Christmas season, I (along with most of the world) am getting into holiday mode. Seeing as I haven't posted for a while, I'm thinking you probably already assumed I am taking a break. This is my official notice to let you all know that I will be posting once again in January, when the holiday craziness settles down a bit. Thanks, as always, for reading, commenting, and keeping the Freedom to Read in your thoughts.

Have a Merry Christmas Everyone!

_rob

Banned Books Advent Calendar: Day 1

2011-12-02T08:20:00.000-08:00

Day 1, Banned Books Calendar from Entressen kirjasto on Vimeo.

Other Challenges to Literature [a case study]

2011-11-08T11:07:00.000-08:00

This blog was created not only to explore specific and general cases of censorship, but other challenges to literature, including challenges to those institutions that provide literature for public consumption. In this case, I am speaking about public libraries, and specifically in response to an opinion piece that the Vancouver Sun allowed to run a week or so back. The article, titled "We should shut our libraries," was written by a british librarian who has not worked in a library since 1994.

Mr. McTernan attempts (and I say "attempt" purposely because I believe he does a terribly poor job of actually saying anything meaningful) to address reasons to keep libraries open, shooting them down one by one and finally claiming that libraries just aren't needed anymore. The same was said when radio first started up and later when television became big and then when electronic books started coming out. Has the library folded? No. Is it expensive? Yes. Does that mean we need to get rid of them? Heck no!

In the week following the publication of Mr. McTernan's article, numerous letters were sent to the editors at the Vancouver Sun from outraged librarians from the BC Library Association and the Canadian Library Association. Let's take a look at why librarians got so fired up about the issue (and why I got pretty darn upset as well):

Take reference services, once the core of the public library's educational role. Access to information has been transformed by the Internet. Google a subject and you can become ridiculously well-informed ridiculously quickly. Engrossing lectures from the planet's best minds are freely available on university websites, from the TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) conference series, or on BBC iPlayer. Channels such as BBC Four or Sky Arts provide a wide range of high quality documentaries across a multitude of subjects. We live in an information-rich society - so we should celebrate its availability, not yearn for a time when you had to go to the central library for it.

Perhaps Mr. McTernan has not been to a library recently, but in my area there is always a line-up of people asking librarians questions at the information desk. The questions are most definitely different than they once were, but that does not change the fact that people still go to the library for reference purposes. Yes, the average person might be able to find some information on the internet using Google. But are they necessarily finding the best information? Have they come up with good keywords and search terms? Librarians are constantly helping people (students especially) formulate a good series of keywords with which to utilize internet searches to their maximum capacity. The questions have changed, but the service is still necessary.

Then there's the argument that your local library is the gateway to a national and international network of literature and education. So it is - but so is your computer. Time was, to get hold of a particular book, you would have to go to a library and ask. Now, with AbeBooks and Alibris, almost all the second-hand bookshops in the world are available to search. This is as true for new books as for old: More than 130,000 titles were published in the United Kingdom in 2009, and 330 million new books were purchased.

Alright Mr. McTernan, I will concede that the using a computer at home is more convenient at times, but I cannot tell you how often I have used a library (from home) to access databases that I would otherwise have to pay hundreds of dollars per year to access. How often does the average student actually spend money to access online databases to look for articles. How many people in this day and age can afford to buy all the books they need instead of getting them for free?

The final defence of the public library is that it is a place for the pupil who has nowhere else to study and revise. Once again, this is the 21st century. Virtually every kid has a desk at home, even if it often has a games console on it. And libraries at secondary schools are, in my experience, uniformly good and open places for young people. Few institutions are timeless. Most reflect the period when they were created, and have to change as society changes if they are to survive. The crisis in our libraries is not because of the "cuts" - it's because they are needed less.

Let's get to some statistics now. Perhaps the situation is different in England. In fact, I know it is. But the point here, is that Mr. McTernan's article was published in British Columbia, the most active and well-utilized library network in Canada. And we are to believe that libraries should be cut? Another article, published in the Vancouver Sun on November 4th took a good look at stats in relation to McTernan's claims and came up with the following:

About 2.7 million British Columbians hold public library cards. Hundreds of thousands more don’t have cards but visit the library regularly – in some cases, every day. Last year, B.C. libraries received more than 30 million in-person visits, a 10-per-cent increase from 2009. That is clear evidence of the growing and sustainable demand for libraries. Beyond that, there were 27 million virtual visits. For many people, losing their library access would mean losing a vital
part of their lives.

True, not everyone uses libraries, but perhaps they don’t understand what they are missing. Libraries have been transformed with the times. A Rip Van Winkle who fell asleep in 1994 — the year McTernan’s career as a librarian ended — and woke up today would not recognize the thriving, wired libraries that are ready and able to serve an information-hungry population. With ebook readers, digital materials, and electronic reference transactions, libraries have kept pace and embraced the digital age.

Well, I think the rebuttal pretty much knocked Mr. McTernan's arguments to the ground without much hope of standing up again. Of course, part of the problem was the Vancouver Sun thinking it was a good idea to publish an article specific to the United Kingdom over here in BC in the first place. In any case, this post is to show how important libraries are, as places of learning, knowledge, and as social spaces. And of course, let's not forget the important work of libraries as spaces that hold high the idea of Freedom to Read!

Thanks for listening...

Defend the Freedom to Read: It's Everybody's Job

2011-10-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

I'm back from the dead! Okay, maybe not, but it feels like it after finally finishing up about 10 projects that I had on the go. And now that I'm back, what better way to start than with a movie!! This short video comes from the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom, which requests that we all do our part to bring attention to book challenges to Defend the Freedom to Read. After all, it's everybody's job...

So, now that you've seen that (hopefully) enlightening little video, it's time to talk about specific book challenges. In Borger, Texas, a book was recently removed entirely from the Borger Intermediate and Middle School Library. The book in question? Carolyn Mackler's Tangled. The book follows four young people as they vacation in a Caribbean resort. The reason that it was banned from the school district? This passage:

"I looked up and my heart plummeted, I swear, into my colon. Because there, standing above me and ripping off his shirt was the guy. The guy from the diving board. The guy with the muscular calves and, oh god, the swimsuit riding low enough for me to conjure up some serious imagery."

Really, is this so bad? I mean, okay, so a younger student might not be the best audience, but you can't tell me that middle school students are not thinking in these terms and that this passage is somehow so overly explicit that it's going to ruin a child for life. As one commenter on the ConnectAmarillo article wrote: "thats all the book said, pretty much? Newsflash, boys have penises and girls have vaginas. And I am about 99.9% sure that most middle schoolers know this." Is this passage really enough to have books completely removed from libraries these days? Apparently. Are we so easily offended by sexuality? Apparently.

It angers me that books are taken away from students for so little in this day and age when access to books should be celebrated and enjoyed. Why is it that suddenly anything remotely sexual is too much for teens to handle? Well, it's not, really. It's parental discomfort. Most of these concerns are from parents who, it seems to me, are much more afraid of sexuality than their children. Please, parents, let your children read and ask questions!! It doesn't help to shelter them when they already (probably) know more about sex than you do.

Anyway, thanks for listening. Let me know what you think. And keep your eyes peeled for challenges in your area, wherever you are! Remember, defending the right to read is everybody's job!

posting pause

2011-10-20T09:26:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the lack of posts recently! I am just finishing up my current degree and trying to get a few other projects sorted out. Until then, I am having to take a short hiatus from posting on this site. I will be back, however... I promise! Until then, keep reading those books!!

_rob

Books for Prisoners: What's allowed and what's not?

2011-10-09T13:17:00.001-07:00

The American Library Association asserts:

When the prison gates slam behind an inmate, he does not lose his human quality; his mind does not become closed to ideas; his intellect does not cease to feed on a free and open interchange of opinions; his yearning for self-respect does not end; nor is his quest for self-realization concluded. If anything, the needs for identity and self-respect are more compelling in the dehumanizing prison environment.

An article in The Huffington Post the current problem is a disconnect between what is constitutional and what prisons and wardens feel is allowable for inmates in terms of reading materials and access to information sources.

The Federal Bureau of Prisons regulations state that publications can only be rejected if they are found to be "detrimental to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution or if it might facilitate criminal activity." That description is generally understood to include content such as explanations on how to make explosives, martial arts training manuals and books containing maps of the prison and its surrounding area.

Yet according to a list compiled by the Prison Books Program, and seen by The Huffington Post, many correctional institutions censor materials far beyond these guidelines. Central Mississippi Correctional, for example, is stated as refusing to allow any books whose content includes anything legal, medical or contains violence, while Staunton Correctional in Virginia is claimed only to allow its inmates access to "non-fiction educational or spiritual books."

A 1980 US Supreme Court ruling states that "[p]rison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution," and that "a warden may not reject a publication 'solely because its content is religious, philosophical, political, social or sexual, or because its content is unpopular or repugnant.'"

Personally, I don't see books and access to general information as a problem, no matter what the crime committed. I believe that there should be consequences for inmates depending on what they have done, but keeping them away from books and the internet should, again in my opinion, only be a short term punishment, like denying access to television for a child's misbehaviour. Of course, this is me speaking from a restorative justice standpoint as opposed to a retributive justice model, such as is currently being utilized in North America.

In any case, I agree with the following guidelines from the American Library Association. According to the ALA "these principles should guide all library services provided to prisoners:"

Collection management should be governed by written policy, mutually agreed upon by librarians and correctional agency administrators, in accordance with the Library Bill of Rights, its Interpretations, and other ALA intellectual freedom documents.
Correctional libraries should have written procedures for addressing challenges to library materials, including a policy-based description of the disqualifying features, in accordance with “Challenged Materials” and other relevant intellectual freedom documents.
Correctional librarians should select materials that reflect the demographic composition, information needs, interests, and diverse cultural values of the confined communities they serve.
Correctional librarians should be allowed to purchase materials that meet written selection criteria and provide for the multi-faceted needs of their populations without prior correctional agency review. They should be allowed to acquire materials from a wide range of sources in order to ensure a broad and diverse collection. Correctional librarians should not be limited to purchasing from a list of approved materials.
Age is not a reason for censorship. Incarcerated children and youth should have access to a wide range of fiction and nonfiction, as stated in “Free Access to Libraries for Minors."
Correctional librarians should make all reasonable efforts to provide sufficient materials to meet the information and recreational needs of prisoners who speak languages other than English.
Equitable access to information should be provided for persons with disabilities as outlined in “Services to People with Disabilities.”
Media or materials with non-traditional bindings should not be prohibited unless they present an actual compelling and imminent risk to safety and security.
Material with sexual content should not be banned unless it violates state and federal law.
Correctional libraries should provide access to computers and the Internet.

Nabokov Under Attack in Russia; Teenage Awkwardness Under Attack in Bakersfield

2011-09-29T15:59:00.000-07:00

In Russia, there's trouble brewing for the works of Vladimir Nabokov and Gabriel Garcia Marquez, an article in the Globe and Mail states. "A senior Russian Orthodox official claimed Wednesday that novels by Vladimir Nabokov and Gabriel Garcia Marquez justify pedophilia and said they should be banned in the nation's high schools." While I do not want to get into a church vs state discussion, mostly because those against and those for will practically never be convinced to abandon their views, I do want to point out an interesting fact about the Orthodox Church that is working so hard to ban these books. According to the article, "polls have shown that only about 5 per cent of Russians are observant believers." Moreover,

Church and state are officially separate under the post-Soviet constitution, but Orthodox leaders seek a more muscular role for the church, which has served the state for much of its 1,000-year history.

Some nonreligious Russians complain that the church has tailored its doctrine to suit the government, which has justified Russia's retreat from Western-style democracy by saying the country has a unique history and culture.

If so many Russians do not observe the Orthodox Church's doctrine and there is a separation of church and state in Russia, then how is it that this group thinks it has the right to decide what books are appropriate for everyone on the country? I understand the Russia has a very different social and political structure than Canada or the USA, and I do not claim that I know how to solve the problem, but at the core, freedom to read should be the same anywhere.

People deserve the right to read books and those who don't agree with the content can choose not to read the literature. Granted there are certain texts that go beyond common decency (the Pedophile's Guide to Love, for example), but these books are the exception to the rule and should be treated as such. Not every book about incest or pedophilia needs to be banned, because in the majority of cases, these themes are usually treated carefully by authors, and are usually not showing them as a "good thing."

In other news, a book in Bakersfield, CA is under attack by a few parents who believe the book is much too erotic to be on the shelves of school or public libraries. The book is What My Mother Doesn't Know by Sonya Sones and she writes about her disappointment in these attacks in the LA Times this week:

"Our young people should not have to be exposed to your erotic thoughts and feelings," one irate parent from Iowa wrote. "Your book should be removed from all junior high media bookshelves. That's what we will attempt to do here in Algona. We strive as a community to keep high morals and values."

And there were many other letters, including this one from a Texas woman:

"I am a 6th grade teacher, and had the unfortunate experience this past week of having your book discovered by a student in my classroom library. On any given page, vulgarity and filth can be found!... Freedom of speech and press doesn't give anyone the right to corrupt young, impressionable minds! I feel sorry for your children. Please stop writing such filth!"

The part of the novel that is being attacked most is about a young girl who presses her newly grown breasts against a frosted window. She is exploring her new body and feeling new sensations. It may be unorthodox to some, but is this really enough to consider a book filth? Sones writes about how she put such content in her novel because she wanted young girls to see that experiencing new sensations in a post-puberty body is normal and part of growing up. Of course many parents seem to find this offensive, to which I say, "then don't read this book. And don't push your boobs against frosted glass!" Sones finishes up her article succinctly and with no real need for further explication, so here it is:

One mother of a 12-year-old daughter wrote me to crow about her success in having "What My Mother Doesn't Know" banned in Virginia. "I saw to it that the school took this book off the shelf, as well as all the others that you have written," she wrote. "I am not a book burner, but this book does not belong in middle school and maybe not even in high school!"

I don't have a problem with her forbidding her daughter to read my book. But imposing her personal beliefs on every child at the school makes her no better than a book burner. As the playwright and journalist Clare Booth Luce once put it: "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there."

Banned Books in the Huffington Post

2011-09-25T08:28:00.000-07:00

Check out these words of wisdom and opinion from Molly Raphael, current President of the American Library Association. She brings together serious topics on censorship and the restriction of access to books and looks at the differences and similarities between the two. Well worth the read and definitely in the spirit of Banned Books Week!

[F]ar more often than we may realize, individuals and groups have sought to restrict access to library books they believed were objectionable on religious, moral, or political grounds, thereby restricting the rights of every reader in their community. For example, this summer the Republic (Mo.) school board voted to remove Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five and Sarah Ockler'sTwenty Boy Summer from the school library as a result of a complaint that the book "teaches principles contrary to Biblical morality and truth." More than 150 students and their families have lost access to those books; while a local and national outcry caused the school board to return the books to the library, the books are now on a locked shelf and unavailable to students absent the consent of a parent or guardian.

It's become popular in the last few years to argue that this kind of book censorship is no big deal. Isn't the decision to ban the books just a way of helping parents protect their children? What does it matter if a book is banned from a school or library if kids can obtain books from online retailers?

Such censorship is, in fact, a very big deal. Such censorship matters to those who no longer can exercise the right to choose what they read for themselves. It matters to those in the community that cannot afford books or a computer, and for whom the library is a lifeline to the Internet and the printed word. And it matters to all of us who care about protecting our rights and our freedoms and who believe that no one should be able to forbid others in their community from reading a book because that book doesn't comport with their views, opinions, or morality.

Click here to read the rest of this Huffington Post article. It's worth taking the time to check out!

Two [More] Titles from "Books Banned and Challenged, 2010-2011"

2011-09-18T11:02:00.000-07:00

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time (Doubleday)

Mark Haddon

Removed from the Lake Fenton, Mich. summer reading program (2010) after parents complained about its “foul language.” The book is about an autistic child who investigates the death of a neighborhood dog. It was a joint winner of the 2004 Boeke Prize and won the 2003 Whitbread Book of the Year award.

Source: Sept. 2010, p. 200.

The Dead Man in Indian Creek (Clarion Books; Sandpiper)

Mary Downing Hahn

Challenged at the Salem-Keizer School District, Oreg. elementary schools (2010) because of the drugs and drug smuggling activities in the book. The book was previously challenged in 1994 in the same school district because of graphic violence, examples of inappropriate parenting, and because it was too frightening for elementary students. The book has won awards from the International Reading Association, the Children’s Book Council, and the American Library Association.

Source: May 2010, pp. 105–6.

Differing Perspectives on Banned Books Week 2011

2011-09-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

"Banned Books Week is just hype." USA Today

The problem: None of this is remotely true. Banned Books Week is an exercise in propaganda. For starters, as a legal matter no book in America is banned, period, full stop (not counting, I suppose, some hard-core illegal child porn or some such out there). Any citizen can go to a bookstore or Amazon.com and buy any book legally in print — or out of print for that matter.

When the American Library Association talks about censorship of books, it invariably refers to "banned or challenged" books. A "banned" book is a book that has been removed from a public library or school's shelves or reading lists due to pressure from someone who isn't a librarian or teacher. In practice, this means pretty much any book that's pulled off the shelves of a library can be counted as "banned." Even so, that's very rare, which is why the ALA lump "banned" and "challenged" together. Moreover, it's crazy. If the mere absence of a book counts as a "ban," then 99.99% of books have been banned somewhere....

[Follow this link to USAToday.com for the rest of the article]

"'Banned Books Week' worth the hype." Peoria Journal Star

I winced this morning when I read Jonah Goldberg’s column about Banned Books Week, which takes place this year Sept. 24-Oct. 1.

Titled “Banned Books Week Overhyped Propaganda,” the opinion piece pokes fun at the annual effort by the American Library Association to throw a spotlight on attempts to force school and public libraries to remove books from the shelves that some people consider controversial.

For Goldberg, this effort is a bunch of lefty nonsense. There really is no danger of books being banned in the United States, he writes. This is just an effort to bully parents who are concerned about what books their kids may have access to....

[Follow this link to PJstar.com for the rest of the article]

"Banned Books Week celebrates freedom to read." USA Today

Librarians have always supported a parent's right to decide what his or her family should read. But in our democracy, other families should be able to make different choices for their own families, not dictated by a particular political or religious viewpoint.

We need to remember that when one book is removed, this act of censorship affects more than one person or family. It affects the entire community. We need to remember that public libraries serve everyone, including those who are too young or too poor to buy their own books or own a computer.

Contrary to commentary writer Jonah Goldberg's assertion, librarians and library users celebrate Banned Books Week as a testament to the strength of our freedom in the United States. We celebrate the freedom to read because we all know that we are so fortunate to live in a country that protects our freedom to choose what we want to read. If you doubt this, just ask anyone from a totalitarian society. That is why we draw attention to acts of censorship that chill the freedom to read....

[Follow this link to USAToday.com for the rest of the article]

Two Titles from "Books Banned and Challenged, 2010-2011"

2011-09-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

Shooting Star (Atheneum)

Retained in the Broken Arrow, Okla. Sequoyah Middle School library (2010) despite a parent’s concern about several swear words in the text. The book is about a high school football player who, after becoming discouraged about his size, starts using steroids to bulk up, resulting in negative effects on his life and personality.
Source: Nov. 2010, p. 257.

Push (Vintage)

Challenged on an extracurricular reading list in the Horry County, S.C. school library (2011). The 1996 novel is based on the story of Precious Jones, an illiterate sixteen-year-old, who grows up in poverty. Precious is raped by her father, battered by her mother, and dismissed by social workers. The story follows Precious, pregnant with a second child by her father, through her journey of learning how to read and be on her own. The novel was made into a critically acclaimed movie, Precious, in 2009, which received six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, for the 82nd Academy Awards and Sundance Film Festival praise.

Source: May 2011, pp. 94–95.

Secret Locker Library

2011-09-05T10:09:00.000-07:00

This is a fantastic idea for those students who won't let ridiculous policies stand in the way of intellectual freedom. A recent article showcased the awesome work of a student (going by the name Nekochan) in a Catholic school who began running a banned books library out of her locker and the empty one next to it. She felt that the books being banned from classrooms and the library was a bit ridiculous and so she started lending the titles on the banned books list to other students.

Nekochan wrote about the recent book ban: “I was absolutely appalled, because a huge number of the books were classics and others that are my favorites. One of my personal favorites, The Catcher in the Rye, was on the list, so I decided to bring it to school to see if I would really get in trouble. Well… I did but not too much. Then (surprise!) a boy in my English class asked if he could borrow the book because he heard it was very good AND it was banned! This happened a lot and my locker got to overflowing with banned books, so I decided to put the unoccupied locker next to me to a good use. I now have 62 books in that locker, about half of what was on the list.”

You can also see the information Neko provided on Yahoo! Answers to see if anyone else had done anything similar, and what sort of repercussions she might expect if found out.

It's hard not to smile and cheer (at least on the inside, if you're in a crowded room) for someone like this, with guts to stand up to a ridiculous policy to keep books out of the hands of teens who might actually learn from them. These sorts of decisions are made in the name of protecting students, but protecting them from what? Really, I've never figured it out. Anyway, I hope this post is inspiring to some and a wake-up call for others. Not all young people are just going to side by and let institutions get away with policing the books they read, so watch out, more Nekochan's are waiting in the shadows, looking for their chance to make a difference.

Thanks for listening!

Gay sex is worse than suicide or drug use...

2011-08-29T17:47:00.000-07:00

A New Jersey school has dropped two popular books with—gasp! Gay sex scenes!—from their required reading lists, and apologized to parents for exposing their children to such a morally reprehensible act. The books? Haruki Murakami's Norwegian Wood and Nic Sheff's Tweak: Growing Up On Methamphetamines. The meth and mental instability and suicide that make up the other major themes in the books? Those are apparently just fine. (Gothamist.com)

It baffles me to think that we are still so hung up on sex as a taboo subject, while drugs and violence are still visible to a staggering degree. This actually reminds me of a recent incident in which the show Game of Thrones on HBO was criticized for showing too much female nudity, while absolutely nothing was said about the multiple beheadings in the season premiere, not to mention the themes of incest and rape. It was all about the boobies. (Though don't get me wrong, I'm in no way saying that the show is for kids!) So this report of a backlash against gay sex is not at all surprising in some respects. This does not mean that I am not appalled.

The fact that the two texts were part of list of books created by a group of teachers and approved by the Board of Education apparently means nothing.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council jumped on the book-banning bandwagon, telling Fox News that "Here we see the intersection of parental values being offended, the hyper-sexualization of our youth and the homosexual agenda being pushed. This just illustrates why a lot of American parents are not willing to entrust their children to the public schools anymore."

Apparently sex is the reason that American parents don't like the public education system. They would rather students remain entirely ignorant to sex and sexuality, because, as we all know, you never get pregnant or catch an STI because of ignorance... right?

Heaven forbid that history speaks of sexuality!

2011-08-25T13:15:00.000-07:00

Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl
Doubleday

Challenged at the Culpeper County, Va. public schools (2010) by a parent requesting that her daughter not be required to read the book aloud. Initially, it was reported that officials decided to stop assigning a version of Anne Frank’s diary, one of the most enduring symbols of the atrocities of the Nazi regime, due to the complaint that the book includes sexual material and homosexual themes. The director of instruction announced the edition published on the fiftieth anniversary of Frank’s death in a concentration camp will not be used in the future despite the fact the school system did not follow its own policy for handling complaints. The remarks set off a hailstorm of criticism online and brought international attention to the 7,600-student school system in rural Virginia. The superintendent said, however, that the book will remain a part of English classes, although it may be taught at a different grade level.

Source: Mar. 2010, pp. 57−58; May 2010, p. 107.

Banned Books Week Approaches!

2011-08-23T13:22:00.000-07:00

In the good ol' US of A, the countdown to Banned Books Week (BBW) has begun. BBW begins on September 24th of this year, and plans are being put into motion at many libraries in North America to prepare for both the celebration of the freedom to read as well as the inevitable contestations by conservative political and religious groups. In case you are reading this and don't know much about Banned Books Week, here is a brief explanation from the American Library Association website:

Banned Books Week (BBW) is an annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment. Held during the last week of September, Banned Books Week highlights the benefits of free and open access to information while drawing attention to the harms of censorship by spotlighting actual or attempted bannings of books across the United States.

In preparation for this even each year, Robert P. Doyle, in cooperation with a number of pro-freedom-to-read groups, puts out a publication highlighting some of the more visible and notable book challenges. The publication, Books Challenged or Banned, comes out every year in the summer and is available through the ALA's website. The 2010-2011 edition has recently been published, and as I did last year, I will be posting snippets each week (hopefully more than one if I'm not over-run with work) to highlight some of the more unusual or more public cases.

To start this cycle off, I bring you the case of Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology (Amy Sonnie, ed.)

Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology (Alyson Books)

Banned by the Rancocas Valley Board of Education from the Mount Holly, N.J. High School library shelves (2010) after a local conservative group expressed concern that the book was too graphic and obscene. The local group, part of the 9/12 Project, a nationwide government watchdog network launched by the talk-radio and television personality Glenn Beck, called for the banning of three books, all dealing with teenage sexuality and issues of homosexuality.

The two other titles challenged, but retained were: Love and Sex: Ten Stories of Truth edited by Michael Cart, and The Full Spectrum: A New Generation of Writing about Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, and Other Identities edited by David Levithan and Billy Merrell. Removed from the Burlington County, N.J. public library (2010) after a member of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project complained about Sonnie’s book. Named as one of the best adult books for high school students by School Library Journal in 2001, the book was called “pervasively vulgar, obscene, and inappropriate.”

Source: July 2010, pp. 154–56; Sept. 2010, pp. 199-200.

Will they never learn?

2011-08-12T12:38:00.000-07:00

I wonder how many times people are going to ban books (or other forms of media) before they realize that it doesn't work! One of the most prominent movie examples was the banning (or attempted ban) of the film Deep Throat back in the 1970s. As soon as it started getting banned, it became more popular than ever! It grossed millions more than was ever estimated. The same thing happens with books, and I don't know why people aren't noticing this.

When The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian was banned from schools earlier this year and late last year, book stores in the districts that implemented bans saw skyrocketing sales of the title. Now, in the wake of the banning of Slaughterhouse-Five in Republic, Missouri, the Vonnegut Memorial Library is giving out free copies of the book to students who want to read it. This action would not have happened if the school board had not voted against it for purely idiotic reasons. First of all, the guy who asked for its removal doesn't even have any children in any of the schools, and secondly, well, the guy's an idiot. But you can read more about that in the previous post.

In a recent article in The Atlantic, Barbara Jones, director of the ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom is quoted:

“Maybe people are scared of the power of good literature,” Jones says. Time and again, those who are most offended by books are, as Scroggins is, people unaffiliated with public education or libraries. “I call them ‘True Believers.’ I guess people could accuse me of that too,” Jones chuckles, “Because I do have pretty strong feelings about freedom of expression.”

Apparently only 10 free copies of Slaughterhouse have been picked up from the Memorial Library, "But it’s summertime, and [they expect] to receive more requests once children return from vacation and they start to think about books again."

The more one speaks out against material, the more people want to see what the big deal is, leading to more purchasing, borrowing, and reading of the material that is under scrutiny. Seriously, if you don't want more people reading the books that offend you, LEAVE THEM ALONE!

[End Rant]

Thanks for listening...

Vonnegut library offers banned book to Missouri students

2011-08-05T12:23:00.000-07:00

In the article "Vonnegut library offers banned book to Missouri students," Susan Guyett explains that

Up to 150 students at a Missouri high school that ordered "Slaughterhouse-Five" pulled from its library shelves can get a free copy of the novel, courtesy of the Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library, library officials said on Thursday.

This decision comes in response the Scroggins controversy (see post immediately below) that has had academics up in arms for the past year ever since he claimed that books such as Laurie Halse Anderson's Speak and Slaughterhouse-Five are pornographic and contrary to Biblical teaching (I guess he's assuming these books are being taught in Sunday school instead of public schools?) The following comment espouses many of my views on the subject and is much more articulate that I am most of the time:

"All of these students will be eligible to vote and some may be protecting our country through military service in the next year or two," Julia Whitehead, the executive director of the Vonnegut library in Indianapolis, said in a statement.

"It is shocking and unfortunate that those young adults and citizens would not be considered mature enough to handle the important topics raised by Kurt Vonnegut, a decorated war veteran. Everyone can learn something from his book."

The offer of a free book to any Republic high school student who requests one is a way for the fledgling 7-month-old library, located in Vonnegut's hometown, to show support, she said.

I think this move is pure brilliance and I sincerely hope that students take the library up on the offer for the free text. If only more libraries could afford to do this when books are challenged in nearby school districts. In a way, this reminds me of when The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian was banned and local bookstores were suddenly inundated with orders for the book. I hope the library has the same "problem," if students requesting important texts can actually be considered a problem.

What do you think of this move by the Vonnegut Library? Do you think other libraries should do this in other areas if feasible?

As always, thanks for listening! (Oh, and please tell friends about this blog!)

Scroggins Strikes Again

2011-07-28T09:51:00.000-07:00

It is a sad day in the city of Republic, MO. Three books that were targeted by the infamous Dr. Scroggins (you can read my previous post on Scroggins and his horrible grammar and opinions) and two were removed from not only the curriculum, but from library shelves as well (from thinkprogress.org). The two books removed were Slaughterhouse Five (Kurt Vonnegut) and Twenty Boy Summer (Sarah Ockler). Speak by Laurie Halse Anderson was allowed to stay, much to the disappointment of Dr. Scroggins, who claims that Speak is soft pornography.

The reason these books were challenged? "The resident who filed the original complaint targeted these three books because 'they teach principles contrary to the Bible.'" Um, wow... In the article Scroggins states: “I congratulate them for doing what’s right and removing the two books. It’s unfortunate they chose to keep the other book.” Not only am I incredibly disappointed in the actions taken by Scroggins to have important works of literature removed from schools, but I am also increasingly disappointed in the actions of school boards when voting on these sorts of issues: "It is important to note that, out of the four School Board Members, only one has actually read all three books."

Melissa Duvall, the only board member to have read all three books proposed to be banned, said the school board's vote was more about policy and less a criticism of the books in question. (From UPI.com)

This behaviour from school boards is incomprehensible and irresponsible. How can school boards expect students to make their own informed decisions if they are not willing to do the same themselves. By not reading the books in question and saying the vote is about policy is ignorance, pure and simple. If the vote were about policy, the books would be used as examples in an argument, but in this case, the books are the objects in question, therefore making the vote ABOUT THE BOOKS. If this were so, a policy would have been voted on, not books. And since it was about the books, Ms. Duvall, EVERY member of the board should have been REQUIRED to read them! How is this so difficult to understand at the administrative level!

I will stop writing now for fear that my keyboard will melt under the fury of my quickly typing fingers. To leave off on a slightly more "fun" note, I am including, below, a passage from The Rejectionist (a site no longer available) in which the writings of Mr. Scroggins were put under a microscope and then ridiculed merrily passage by passage. Enjoy! And comment!

Thanks for listening.

Scroggins wrote, about Twenty Boy Summer: In this book, drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex.
And how, pray tell, does a drunken teen use “condoms to have sex”? We consider ourselves pretty worldly, good sir, but we are quite baffled as to the exact logistics involved in “us[ing] their condoms to have sex.” Perhaps you are more well-versed in the vagaries of kink than this innocent Rejectionist, Dr. Scroggins. A little light shed on the technicalities of this activity would be most useful, as we are left here to our imagination, which we must admit is failing us entirely.

Inmate's Right to Read Upheld, but Policy Still in Need of Change

2011-07-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

The following is directly from a short piece in the Baltimore Sun this week, an article on the decision of Hagerstown prison to allow an inmate to read an autobiography about Marshall "Eddie" Conway, a Baltimore Black Panther.

Our view: Correction authorities make right call in reversing ban of inmate's book from the Hagerstown prison, but policy still needs to be changed.

Maryland corrections officials made the right call today when they lifted the ban on a book written by a inmate Marshall "Eddie" Conway, but the troublesome — and almost certainly unconstitutional — policies that led to the banning in the first place remain. The book "Marshall Law —The Life & Times of a Baltimore Black Panther," is no longer prohibited reading at the Maryland Correctional Training Center in Hagerstown, but the prison system is sticking by its assertion that it can restrict inmates' speech rights beyond what is necessary to maintain security.

Originally prison officials said the autobiography had been banned because the author and the inmates whose photos appear in the book failed to notify the victims of their crimes of the book's publication. A lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union had questioned this procedure, saying giving the victims tacit veto power over an inmate's right to speak out is a violation of the First Amendment.

While prisons are around for the purposes of punishment and reintegration of people into society with a hopefully less criminally-minded way of life, I don't quite understand how keeping certain books out of the hands of inmates is at all helpful. Late last year I noted two other instances of books being kept away from inmates: The Bible-only policy in a South Carolina jail and the confiscation of Harry Potter in the Plainfield correctional facility. As I said in my post on Harry Potter:

The inmates are allowed to take hardcover books out of the prison library, so should they not be allowed hardcover books that have been searched and that present no threat in terms of their subject matter. I can hardly see how Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows would threaten security in the prison environment, unless one of them happens to be looking for the Deathly Hallows themselves!

I can understand the removal of certain texts perhaps, but the removal of books such as Harry Potter, autobiographies, and Bibles that aren't softcover seems a little bit ridiculous. It is good, in my opinion, that organizations such as the ACLU are around to take notice of these situations and defend First Amendment rights, even when prisons and correctional facilities want to pretend they don't apply to inmates.

What are your thoughts on books in prisons? Do you think that books should be confiscated for any specific reasons? I would be interested to see what you all have to say.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle on trial...

2011-07-19T13:03:00.000-07:00

Albemarle School Board to vote on expelling 'A Study in Scarlet'

Aaron Richardson

The Daily Progress (July 13, 2011)

A parent asked that the book be removed from reading lists because, he says, it casts Mormonism in a negative light. After reviewing the work, a School Board-appointed committee determined that it wasn’t age-appropriate for sixth-graders. According to the parent’s complaint, the book repeatedly refers to Mormons as violent and intolerant, and accuses them of murders and kidnappings.

Okay, fair enough, the book is seen as religiously intolerant and has false views of a religious group, but since when is that good enough grounds for removing a book from a curriculum? How many books have racism and are still taught? How many books are intolerant of Islam, and are still viewed as just fine to read? In fact a textbook that is apparently too tolerant of Islam, was requested to be removed from a school by Tea Party members in Prince William County, VA.

That being said, it is a bit disappointing that instead of talking about how a book mis-represents something, people feel it is better to make the book disappear or to take it away. At least this would only be taking the book out of the curriculum and not the library. And the board is following the challenged books process. That does not mean that I'm not disappointed in the situation. It still kind a sucks.

“When you look at the work, the basic question is, if someone says it shows a lot of cultural or religious bias, you have to look and see if that work has enough value to where the regard for the work outweighs the cultural bias,” county schools Secondary Education Director Matt Haas said.

School Board member Harley Miles stressed that the schools have followed the established policy for reviewing works that parents find offensive or destructive. Once a complaint has been filed, Miles said, a committee reviews the work to see if the complaint has merit. If it does, the committee can recommend that the work be removed from reading lists.

It seems that this is not a common occurrence in Virginia, to get complaints such as this. The School Board Chairman, Stephen Koleszar, said "this is the first time in 16 years he has seen a request like this. For Koleszar, keeping children from learning about cultural or religious prejudice is dangerous...."

“I personally believe that kids should have a wide range of material available to them,” Koleszar said. “While it places Mormonism in an unfavorable light, we can’t pretend prejudice in this country isn’t real. Still, it probably isn’t age-appropriate.”

Again, I am not going to rant and rave against the School Board since it is doing its job. And unlike the post prior to this one, the Board is actually reading the text in question. I'm disappointed about the attitude that starts proceedings like this in the first place, that thinks the removal of texts is better than a discussion about the shortcomings of the views in the text within the classroom where biases and prejudice can hopefully be redirected in a constructive way. Two other Mormons spoke up in response to this situation, being quoted in the comments section after the article on newsplex.com:

by Blair

I do not live in the area, but I am a Mormon who would like to voice my admiration for the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Sherlock Holmes is a classic character, still deserving our attention. I've recently read "A Study in Scarlet," and while its depiction of Mormonism is wildly off-base, I still believe the book is still highly entertaining. As a Mormon I actually chuckled several times at the depiction of Mormons, I enjoyed it. Granted, it would be nice if the teachers gave some background to make sure kids have a better understanding of the conditions of the period, but in this way students could take the opportunity to learn about how people with different beliefs have been depicted in popular literature in the past.

by Kent Larsen

As an active and heavily involved Mormon, I'm deeply embarrassed by this action. Hiding the misunderstandings of Arthur Conan Doyle and others who wrote about Mormonism is not a useful approach to changing perceptions of Mormonism. To the contrary, instead it makes Mormonism look like something secretive. Yes, Conan Doyle gets most of what he writes about Mormonism wrong. But the book is still a good read, and could give a good teacher the opportunity to talk about prejudice in writing. Lets not hide materials from students just because we think they might get incorrect ideas. Instead, lets teach children to think critically about what they read, and help them to learn to discern the difference between truth and error.

Let me know what you think! Comments please!

Thanks for listening.

Richland Reverses Previous Ban on "Part-Time Indian"

2011-07-12T12:20:00.000-07:00

The Richland school district reversed their decision to ban The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian after finding out that not all members of the Instructional Materials Committee had read the text. After reading the book for themselves (which the probably should have done in the first place!) two board members changed their minds and called for a re-vote, which is only allowed if a member of the majority vote asks. Rick Donahoe, one of the board members, said that he actually found the book to be "outstanding." Mary Guay also changed her vote. The lone dissenter was Phyllis Strickler kept her vote against the book. But, two in the crowd at the last meeting still spoke out against the novel, according to TheNewsTribune.com:

David Garber read from a Wall Street Journal article critical of coarse themes and language in young-adult novels that names Absolutely True as an example. Garber is a member of the IMC and of a group that rates novels based on how much of their contents it finds offensive.

Dave Hedengren questioned if board members lost the ability to know when a book went "over the mark," and equated some of the books taught in Richland schools with internet pornography, which is electronically blocked from school computers.

The district cannot meet the exact standards of every parent in its votes on novels, which is why the last say over what a student reads is with the parent, Jansons said.

"That's why we have the opt-out policy," he said. "I trust the process we're using."

After the results of the new vote were given, Guay and Donahoe assured everyone that they would be reading every novel they vote on. While I do applaude their decision to reverse the vote, I'm not sure why the reading of contested novels is just now being lauded as a good idea. Has voting on the opinions of others ever been a very good way of doing it? Especially, in this case, a Review Committee on which all members don't even bother to read the books in question?

If the board had simply read the book to begin with, perhaps all the political hearsay and controversy wouldn't have been as big of a deal as it is now. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who reads books.

What are libraries for?

2011-07-06T10:30:00.000-07:00

Libraries are gigantic holding tanks of information on a vast array of topics, available for anyone. At least, that's what they're supposed to be. And many are definitely still doing their best to make a variety of materials available to the public, but that's not to say there isn't a struggle at times.

Tulsa library, according to an article on TulsaWorld.com, receives about a dozen complaints each year, or 45 complaints since 2008. But it's not all bad news, says Laurie Sundborg, chief operating officer at the library. She goes on:

"We appreciate when someone does this [files a complaint] because we can review our decision to include the item in our collection and convey to customers what public libraries stand for in the community. We represent a diversity of viewpoints in the community and the people who make up our community.

"As a parent, I may have something I'm completely comfortable with while a parent next to me may not. We encourage each family and each parent to take an active role with their child and talk about the values they want passed down to them."

It's good to know that some libraries at least have a positive perspective on challenges and that there is a process in place with which to confront such challenges. It is also good to see that there is still support for the idea that libraries are for providing materials of all sorts to people of all sorts and not just keeping items that won't cause too much fuss.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, Gloucester Public Library removed a display of LGBT related materials during Pride Month after a few patrons and one politician expressed feelings of discomfort. According to an article in Dailypress.com, the display was taken down two thirds of the way through Pride month after "A few library patrons complained, and county Supervisor Gregory Woodard objected to the idea of 'promoting gay rights.'"

Promoting gay rights made a few people uncomfortable and so the display was taken down:

It's the queasiness of people like Woodard with people who happen to be gay that ruins even innocuous public expressions of what should be, yes, pride.

It's Woodard who chose to sabotage a display in a public library based on his own discomfort with members of the public who are different from him.

At least one member of the Board of Trustees spoke out against the decision to take down the display. Jody Perkins stated that she was "not happy the library would 'cave in to bigoted individuals."

She's also not happy library staff ignored protocol for removing an exhibit or materials based on complaints. The library's policy manual directs a complainant to fill out a form and discuss it with the library director. If that doesn't resolve things, trustees meet for a final decision.

Instead, after four or so complaints trickled into the library and an anonymous message appeared on the county administrator's answering machine, staff took the exhibit down last week.

Sure, there were complaints and the Library Director felt it would "ease the concerns" to take down the display, but that doesn't excuse the fact that protocol was ignored and the opinions of a few individuals was enough to get rid of a display meant for an audience that also uses the library. Everyone should be able to find materials at a local library and the opinions of four or five people should not be enough to keep materials away from an entire people group that seeks representation in library collections.

If you go into a library and find something that makes you uncomfortable, instead of immediately trying to get it removed, why not put it back on the shelf and just don't read it? I can't answer this because that's not how I think. But I am glad that more often than not, libraries follow Tulsa's example and follow procedures to address concerns, but ultimately leave (most) materials in their collections for those in the community who want access to them.

Thanks for listening.

How to teach about censorship in the (post-secondary) classroom...

2011-07-02T09:59:00.000-07:00

I was recently able to attend the 2011 Children's Literature Association Conference in Roanoke, VA. The conference was on a variety of topics all over the map, but on the last day a syllabus exchange was held, in which a number of teachers gave talks on how to teach about censorship and book challenges. The following is from the syllabus exchange and was sent out by Edwina Helton afterward. Included are some facts and statistics as well as a few exercises to use with students, and some definitions from the National Council of Teachers of English that can hopefully clear up some ideas about what is meant by censorship in most cases. I hope you find this useful! Feel free to write in the comments if you have ever taught classes on censorship or if you have been in a class on censorship, and please let me know about your experiences!

Cultural Context and Censorship

There are times when a book selected by a librarian or teacher for school study provokes criticism from the community or parents. In some cases, a parent asks that their child not read a particular book, and this request can be accommodated. Sometimes, a community member or parent requests that no child be permitted to read a particular book. This is a much larger problem. The suppression of reading material is censorship. Choosing a book that we like or matches our taste in a non-offensive manner is selection. “Censorship is the attempt to deny others the right to read something that the censor thinks is offensive... selection is the process of choosing appropriate material for readers according to literary and educational judgments” (409). The controversy surrounding many books is often rooted in an explicit attempt to impose censorship by limiting student access to a book grounded in religious and political views. Many national organizations, including the National Council of Teachers of English, have worked to develop strong guidelines and polices on censorship. Helpful documents to support parents and teachers in contending with book challenges are outlined in NCTE’s The Students’ Right to Read (1972) and The Students’ Right to Know (1982). These documents offer specific guidelines to follow when a book is challenged.

NCTE offers five means for distinguishing between guidelines for selection and censorship:

1.    Censorship excludes specific materials; selection includes specific materials to give breadth.
2.    Censorship is negative; selection is affirmative.
3.    Censorship intends to control the others’ reading; selection intends to advise others’ reading.
4.    Censorship seeks to indoctrinate and limit access to ideas and information, whereas selections seeks to educate and increase access to ideas and information.
5.    Censorship looks at specific aspects and parts of a work in isolation, whereas selection examines the relationship of parts to each other and to a work as a whole (1983).

Suggested procedures for contending with book challenges include:

1.    Establish book selection procedures before the censors come. Make your procedures public. Keep the community informed and involved.
2.    Involve professional librarians, teachers, parents, administrators, and lay community members in the book selection process.
3.    When complaints are registered, have them put in writing.
4.    Ask the person who makes the complaint to read the entire book and put the incident or language in question in context.
5.    Meet the person who makes the complaint to discuss alternatives.

From: Bernice Cullinan and Lee Galda’s Literature and the Child, pages 409-10.

Activity on Censorship

In this activity, you will gain experience in exploring the significance of censorship using a formerly banned text as a site of your study.

Part I:
Read your book carefully. Create a dialog with the following characters:

A.    Unhappy citizen who wishes the book removed from children’s access
B.    Parent who reads the book for the first time before attending the meeting
C.    School principle who is strongly against censorship
D.    Administrator concerned with public opinion on the school

In your dialog activity, your characters are having a meeting to make a decision about your controversial book. Carefully create voices from the position you are depicting to show the perspective of the role you are playing. Your goal is to come to some decision by the end of your meeting.

Part II:
After creating your dialog, discuss what you learned from your activity. On a separate piece of paper:

1.    List your observations and what you learned through your dialog activity.
2.    What is your position on the book. Is it potentially offensive? What cultural values are advocated?
3.    Offer your analysis of the book’s meaning with attention to the artistic strategies.4.    Review the handout of book reviews on your book. Do they support the position you took on the book? How do the book reviews complicate your reading of the book?

Censorship is (Anti-)Gay! [a paper on book challenges]

2011-06-29T17:04:00.000-07:00

This post is a paper that I wrote for a children's literature class at my university. I figured, since I received a good grade, that I would share it with you here, on my blog, in case you're interested. Feel free to leave comments and responses, as usual.

Censorship is (Anti-)Gay:
Exploring a Selection of Challenged Children’s Books Containing Same-Sex Couples

There are many children’s texts that are beginning to explore gender variance and queerness within individual identities and family structures. A number of these texts are quite helpful for children and adults to attempt a familiarization of non-heteronormative family structures. A book such as And Tango Makes Three (Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson) can be incredibly useful when providing information for a child who questions whether or not homosexuality is natural, while a text such as King and King (Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland) can help children explore alternative forms of marriage that are not problematized or stigmatized. Other books, however, can be less helpful due to stereotyping or else the message can be diluted because of cultural and institutional pressures. Heather Has Two Mommies (Lesléa Newman)and Daddy’s Roommate (Michael Willhoite)have been frequently challenged as presenting unrealistic family situations and having children play mouthpiece to a supposed homosexual agenda. Of course, timing is at play in situations like the latter two, as they were published in a time when homosexuality was an even more taboo topic than it is today.

And Tango Makes Three

The plot of And Tango Makes Three is a simple one, following two male penguins (Roy and Silo) as they meet, build a nest together, and eventually hatch an egg together. This heart-warming tale of sexual diversity was written by Richardson and Parnell in an attempt to bring forward the topic of same-sex couples to children in an accessible and (with the help of Henry Cole) adorable way. Richardson is an assistant professor of psychiatry at Columbia and Cornell Universities, and is, therefore, able to approach this topic with a critical eye that is backed up by a history of psychiatric training. The authors also provide a note at the back of the book which authenticates the realities reproduced within the pages of the book. The history of the penguin couple is present as is the historical information surrounding their meeting and role in the upbringing of Tango, their baby. This is a wonderful example of what B. J. Kass classifies as “social diversity or even, perhaps, ‘tender topics’” in children’s literature.

There has been terrific backlash surrounding the book, however, and it is because of this that certain aspects of the story must be considered. The first of these involves the illustrations and the anthropomorphizing of the penguins through expression and emotional attribution. Roy and Silo, while illustrated with all the realistic characteristics of a chinstrap penguin, also embody very human emotional responses. Henry Cole has created lovable creatures that show happiness, confusion, and sadness through facial expressions that actual penguins cannot perform. When the two penguins realize that the male-female couples are hatching babies, they are illustrated in a way that provokes a feeling of sadness and uncertainty, with the corners of their beaks suddenly forming into frowns while the other penguins have a smile on their faces.

This is one of the difficulties of any story that contains anthropomorphized animals, but in this case it is complicated by the fact that the story is actually true and the real animals have no way of expressing these emotions. With this in mind, it is understandable that children could become confused and have much more emotional investment in the illustrated penguins than in the real thing. Because of this, many groups have expressed outrage at the story for portraying same-sex relationships as sympathetic and have since attempted to get the book removed from libraries and classrooms across North America (American Library Association).

King and King

Linda de Hann and Stern Nijland’s King and King is a typical story of finding the right person to marry, but is atypical in that the bride and groom are both young men. The first young prince is supposed to be looking for a wife, and so his mother sends out invitations all over the land to get princesses to come visit. After meeting a number of these princesses and feeling nothing for any of them, the prince begins to lose hope. But at the last minute, one last princess arrives, along with her brother, another young prince. The two young men see each other and fall in love immediately. They eventually get married and the kingdom is happy.

The book has come under fire from its North American debut in the early years of the 21st century. Within the book, there are a number of instances in which homosexuality is presented as normalized within the fictional world: “At last, the prince felt a stir in his heart. It was love at first sight” (19-20). The normalization of same-sex attraction is contrary to the heteronormative social expectations and also goes against the general consensus regarding same-sex marriage in the United States. When the two princes get married, there is no opposition within the text, conveying to children the idea that same-sex attraction is not something abnormal: “The wedding was very special. The queen even shed a tear or two… The two princes were known as King and King” (23, 27). The negative reactions of conservative groups have made the reception of King & King very tumultuous.

In contrast, some review journals, such as Booklist, have found the book to be a very positive literary example for children. Gillian Engberg, in Booklist, called the book “a winning Dutch import for parents looking for an original tale with a gay slant.” The book was also called "brief and lighthearted" and the illustrations "whimsical.” As well, "whimsical, textured collages mix beautiful papers, fabrics, and bright paint in scenes that show the bossy queen, the wildly imagined town, the eclectic princesses, the wedding, and finally, a kiss between the two starry-eyed princes. Adults will know what's coming early in the story, but many kids won't. They'll simply like the fun artwork and the final twist on conventions" (1856). Controversy has surrounded the book, but at least some sources understand what children will see in the book, namely colourful illustrations and a poetic story. Another controversial children’s picture book, however one without much in the way of artistic merit, is Leslea Newman’s Heather Has Two Mommies.

Heather Has Two Mommies

Heather is a young girl with two mothers. The text explores the childhood experiences of a young girl with same-sex parents. Newman’s book explores the experiences of Heather as she interacts with other children and her mothers, showing a normalized portrait of a family with same-sex parents. The text gives the history of Heather’s birth, her upbringing, and her time in school, comparing family structures with other kids in her classes. Adults and other conservative groups attacked this book right from the beginning, arguing that it promotes a homosexual lifestyle and undermines traditional family values. In “Queering the Picture Book,” Melynda Huskey asserts, “[h]ardly anyone tried to defend Heather on its literary or artistic merits: at thirty-six pages, it’s too densely textual for children the age of its protagonist (three) and its graceless black-and-white illustrations lack the energy or skill to engage the eye during the relatively long time required to read each page out loud” (66). Unlike King & King then, Heather has little to redeem it except that it is the first book of its kind. This should be taken into account as there was no book from which to learn certain lessons about portraying same-sex characters in a picture book.

Linda Salem, in Children’s Literature Studies: Cases and Discussions, writes, “[o]bjections to Newman’s book include showing different kinds of families, negative reactions to the anatomical details depicted in the book, and the use of the words sperm, egg, breasts, and belly to describe pregnancy” (106). One of the other girls at school with Heather actually has two dads: “’I don’t have any mommies. I have two daddies,’ Stacy says proudly” (15). It is statements like this that caused controversy initially, the fact that Stacy is proud to have two dads. In the eyes of many conservative groups, heterosexual couplings are the type of relationship to be strived for, not homosexual. Much like Tango and King & King, “[b]oth Newman [author of Heather Has Two Mommies] and Willhoite [author of Daddy’s Roommate] have been accused of promoting sodomy, militancy, prostitution, bestiality, and incest. The books were removed from New York’s Rainbow Curriculum designed in 1992 to teach respect for all racial and ethnic groups” (Salem 107). Michael Willhoite’s Daddy’s Roommate is a particularly poignant example of a text attempting to normalize the existence of homosexual partnerships to young children.

Daddy’s Roommate

This book is about a young boy who lives in a home with two fathers. When the boy was young, his father left his mother for another man, Frank. The two men live together and the young boy gets to visit them. The young boy narrator makes a number of frank and non-heteronormative explications that have given rise to a number of instances of censorship and book banning. The first of these starts near the beginning of the book: "Daddy and his roommate Frank live together, work together, eat together, sleep together, shave together, and sometimes even fight together" (3-8). The boy does not automatically associate this with the term gay until it is spelled out later by his mother: "Mommy says Daddy and Frank are gay” (24).

In this book, Willhoite shows that homosexual relationships are as perfectly acceptable and equal to heterosexual couples: "Being gay is just one more kind of love" and “love is the best kind of happiness" (26-27). In this case, the most worrying part for some is the fact that a heterosexual marriage was broken up for the sake of a homosexual relationship between Frank and his daddy. Controversy surrounds such lines as the one above about the two men sleeping together and illustrations of the two men touching, holding hands, and rubbing suntan lotion on each other. Many instances of censorship have mentioned these issues as being too explicitly sexual for a children’s book. The book does at least spend time exploring an alternative way of seeing same-sex parents that shows the origins of the relationship and the ways that heterosexual relationships and homosexual relationships are both valuable.

Conclusions and Discussion

Having explored the main points of each book and a few reasons for the censorship and controversy surrounding them, it is time to discuss the concept of censorship and the difficulties surrounding the act. The exploration of these topics is not something that should be limited or kept from children, especially in schools and libraries. A number of scholars have written articles on and explored censorship and the implications that censoring books have toward children.

Perry Nodelman and Mavis Reimer, in The Pleasures of Children’s Literature, speak to the act of parents keeping books from their children for fear of destroying their innocence. “In trying to protect children, however, these adults may well be doing more harm than good…. It also deprives adults of the opportunity to discuss these matters with children, and to share their own attitudes with them. Without such discussions, adults might actually diminish their control over children rather than increase it” (102, 103). Nodelman and Reimer continue, asserting that censorious practices by parents and others only serves to prevent children from learning:

[Children] have special need of knowledge as a resource to make sense of new things. Those who are deprived of knowledge of certain attitudes or forms of behavior and, therefore, prevented from thinking about why they might be harmful, are the ones most likely to take such attitudes or commit such acts. To deprive children of the opportunity to read about confusing or painful matters like those that they might actually be experiencing will either make literature irrelevant to them or else leave them feeling they are alone in their thoughts or experiences. (102-3)

Nodelman and Reimer aren’t the only ones who feel this way either. The act of censorship keeps children from learning valuable life lessons. But the act of publishing also says something about the progress of society as well.

The very act of creating children’s books with gay and lesbian content proves that there has been a certain amount of progress in society over the last few decades: “These books speak to changing societal attitudes. Although homophobia remains with us, and same-sex marriage has become a political issue, these books show that in some ways society has made progress toward acceptance of homosexuality” (Cole 124). All the books discussed in this paper—Heather Has Two Mommies, Daddy’s Roommate, And Tango Makes Three, King & King—reveal a certain amount of progress by the very act of their existence. Each author is making a statement by writing about different family structures for child audiences. The books are all far from perfect, some containing stereotypes, some containing didactic text, and others guilty of being just plain unappealing to the eye, but each is also a step forward in sharing knowledge and teaching about diversity.

Though adults are not always open to diversity, as can be seen through the initial and ongoing reactions to each book. And this leads to issues of censorship; Censorious people want “children to be as pure and as devoid of knowledge as they believe children are supposed to be” (Nodelman and Reimer 104). Assumptions abound surrounding censorship, about what adults believe children can and cannot handle. In every family the expectations may be very different as to what parents will allow their child to be exposed to, but in school and library situations, where there is greater access and more incentive to teach about issues of diversity, it can be difficult to know what should be taught to all students, and what should be left for parents to decide. However, according to the works of Nodelman and Reimer, and Cole, it would seem that to deny children is to the detriment of their ability to learn about diversity and different family structures. In any case, there are available children’s books with gay and lesbian content and they should be, if not explicitly taught, at least be made available to all children, and not be hidden through acts of censorship.

Works Cited

Cart, Michael, and Christine A. Jenkins. The Heart Has Its Reasons: Young Adult Literature with Gay/Lesbian/Queer Content, 1969-2004. Toronto: Scarecrow, 2006. Print.

Chick, Kay. “Fostering an Appreciation for all Kinds of Families: Picturebooks with Gay and Lesbian Themes.” Bookbird 46.1 (2008): 15-22. Print.

Cole, Pam B. Young Adult Literature in the 21st Century. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. Print.

de Hann, Linda, and Stern Nijland. King & King. Toronto: Tricycle, 2000. Print.

Engberg, Gillian. "King & King (Book)." Booklist 98.21 (2002): 1856. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 Mar. 2011.

“Frequently Challenged Books of the 21st Century.” ala.org. American Library Association, n.d. Web. 16 March 2011.

Newman, Lesléa. Heather Has Two Mommies. Illus. Diana Souza. Boston, MA: Alyson, 1989. Print.

Nodelman, Perry, and Mavis Reimer. The Pleasures of Children’s Literature. Toronto, ON: Allyn & Bacon, 2002. Print.

Richardson, Justin and Peter Parnell. And Tango Makes Three. Illus. Henry Cole. Toronto: Simon & Schuster, 2005. Print.

Salem, Linda C. Children’s Literature Studies: Cases and Discussions. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, 2006. Print.

Wiles, Heather. Controversy, Censorship, and Children’s Literature. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2011. <http://sites.google.com/site/thesisactivities/Home>

Willhoite, Michael. Daddy's Roommate. Boston, MA: Alyson, 1991.

Watch out for Manga at the Border!

2011-06-25T10:43:00.000-07:00

According to an article by the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (CBLDF), a young man was recently taken aside at the US/Canada Border for possessing what the border guard claimed was child pornography, but which was actually a collection of manga on his computer. According to the CBLDF, he "is facing a minimum sentence of year in a Canadian prison and being forced to register as a sex offender. Just for having comics on his laptop."

The legal costs for the young man are estimated to be around $150,000, which the CBLDF has agreed to help pay for. "The CBLDF will also provide access to experts and assistance on legal strategy. The CBLDF’s efforts are joined by the recently re-formed Comic Legends Legal Defense Fund, a Canadian organization that will contribute to the fundraising effort."

This is truly a sad phenomenon from a country who tends to be known as being more liberal on many fronts (equal rights for LGBT people and gay marriage, for instance.) To me it is an embarrassment that there could be so much fear-mongering regarding comic books, graphic novels, and manga. The article by the CBLDF goes on to warn international travelers who like to read comic books:

This isn’t the only case of comics being targeted by customs officials. Last spring cartoonists Tom Neely and Dylan Williams were on the way to a convention when they were stopped at the border and art comics in their possession were seized. In fact, Canada Customs routinely seizes comics of all kinds, as you can see here. If you or someone you know is traveling internationally, please read our Advisory on traveling with comics before getting on the plane.

Come on Canada, and get your act together. Comics are not what is going to ruin the lives of Canadian Citizens, at least not in any way I can figure out. Be vigilant and keep tabs on what's going on at our border. And if you want to help out with the defense of this young man, there is a link in the article that will allow you to donate.

Thanks for listening.

Without a reading, book banned in Richland [Washington]

2011-06-20T11:57:00.000-07:00

I was extremely disappointed to see this headline in my inbox this morning. The article in the Tri-City Herald was extremely short and contained the following information:

RICHLAND, Wash. The Richland school district is banning a book, even though the committee in charge of the decision did not read the book.

The Tri-City Herald reports that the district's Instructional Materials Committee has decided to ban Sherman Alexie's "The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian" because of profanity and sex scenes.

However, members of the committee made the decision based on student and teacher feedback. They conceded that they had not read the book.

The board voted 3-2 this past week to ban the book for all students, rejecting ideas to let older high school students read it.

I put one sentence in the above article in italics and bold-face to emphasize the disturbing nature of this decision. The fact that a board was willing to make a decision to remove a book, not only from the curriculum, but from the entire school district, without having read the book! How does this make any sense? An academic can't write a critical paper without reading a book. A critic can't write an article about a book without reading it (unless they want the backlash that Mrs. Gurdon got a short while ago.) So how can a school board vote to ban a book without actually reading it?! Sure, they based a decision on some feedback, but how do they know the feedback was valid if they can't compare it against what was ACTUALLY IN THE TEXT!?

Sorry, but this sort of thing makes me incredibly angry. I am all for allowing a debate about a book, or even having a panel or committee make decisions about a book if they have taken the time to read it, look at the overall themes, and gauge the content in a hopefully unbiased setting. But this is obviously biased as the decision was based on nothing but hearsay.

I won't continue as I'll end up repeating myself and only succeeding in getting more upset. I hope that there is some protest regarding this sort of behaviour from a school board as it is the first step on an incredibly slippery slope as has been the case for a number of schools in the last year. If you happen to live in the area and read this blog, please let me know what you think. Am I off the mark? Am I making something out of nothing? I want to hear your opinions.

Thanks.

Book Choices Likely to be School Board Election Topic [Washington]

2011-06-14T16:27:00.000-07:00

An article was brought to my attention this morning from the Tri-City Herald. The article, by Jacques Von Lunen, highlights the role that classroom book selections are about to play when electing new members of the Richland School Board:

Long-standing controversies about which novels should be offered to Richland students are bound to spill into this fall's school board elections.

At least one incumbent on the board has drawn a challenger who has promised to change the criteria used to select literature used in English classes. Another challenger is a member of the district's book selection committee.

While not everyone running for the positions is concerned about the books being chosen for inclusion in Advanced English courses in the district, two candidates have said that the subject played a role in their decision to run. The man with the most investment in this issue is Dave Serell:

[T]he district still does not use enough caution in its book choices, said Dave Serell, who is running for the seat held by Rick Donahoe.

Serell targeted Donahoe specifically because of the books Donahoe voted in favor of while on the school board, Serell said.

"The main issue for me is that some of the books (the board members) have approved seem inappropriate for students," Serell said. "I have a different view than what they decided in the last two years."

Books used in school should "instill positive values" rather than "drag people down," he said.

While I do not have a problem with book selection being a factor in the decision to run for a school board position, what I do have a problem with is unsubstantiated arguments against certain books. The last statement of Serell's shows that he subscribes to the writings of people such as the lovely Mrs. Gurdon, of recent WSJ article fame. Serell's assumptions regarding what will instill positive values are not entirely clear, but his follow-up about books that "drag people down" seems to be very much connected to Gurdon's ideas about dark books being somehow detrimental to adolescent and young adult development. What arguments like this forget is that dark themes are not without hope (at least not all the time.) Novels and texts with darker elements are often full of positive themes that arise from engagement with the edgier material.

I could be wrong, I have been known to be, but I think that Serell is going to be a strain on the already delicate nature of certain texts in classrooms. Back in February of this year, there was a challenge to Snow Falling on Cedars, which was covered in another article in the Tri-City Herald. The author of the article, Phyllis Strickler, of the school board, warns against the use of the term censorship when speaking of taking a book out of the curriculum. I agree, to say a book is banned because it is not allowed to be taught, is a bit harsh. But the principles behind the removal of a text can still be ridiculous, and removing a book still constitutes a challenge to the book, the basis of which can be criticized. Strickler writes,

Several members of the Instructional Materials Committee, which makes recommendations to the school board for approval of materials, have suggested that some type of standard would be helpful in determining the appropriateness of language arts materials as many novels contain vulgar language and graphic sexual descriptions that are offensive to many.

A community standard of being able to read aloud the book, without offense to self or others, might be one such standard. Another might be whether it would be acceptable language/descriptions to print in the local newspaper.

Strickler uses a lot of phrases that are incredibly subjective and would be impossible to utilize as standards for looking at books in the school curriculum. The first issue with these "standards" is the first statement that I have highlighted in bold text: Who is going to decide what is too vulgar and too graphic? One person might feel that teens in bed kissing is too graphic and "damn" is far too vulgar, while another person might feel that anything aside from penetrative sex is acceptable, and "f***" is fine, as long as it's not used too many times. Also, who are we wondering about it being offensive to? Are we talking about the students or their parents? The students are the ones reading the books, so personally, I think it should be their standards that are taken into account. The parents might not like the books, but we've seen how bad it can get when the parents try to decide what's right for the classroom. Can we say chaos?

The second problem with Strickler's standard is the idea of being able to read a book aloud without offense to self or others. Talk about walking a tightrope! If this is the standard, no books will make it into the curriculum every since there's bound to always be someone who will be offended by a given text. I get the feeling that Strickler didn't think this one through before she vomited her opinion onto the page.

So what am I trying to say in this post? I'm not against curriculum and book review committees. I'm not against challenges to books. It's what happens in societies with freedom of speech. What I have a problem with is impossible standards that simply dilute the learning process and put innocence on a pedestal as if teens are going to be terribly corrupted by an instance of sex or coarse language in a novel. Teens are smarter than we think. Let them read a good book for a class and let them decide if it's too much for them! Granted I'm talking about Middle School and High School, but these articles are regarding Advanced English classes. One would hope if the kid is intelligent enough to be in such a class, they're able to read a book without falling apart or running to their parents at the first mention of sexy times.

*head shake* I think I went a bit off topic. Whoops!

Questions, rants, hate-mail? That's what the comments section is for :)

Voice of Youth Advocates - Intellectual Freedom Issue

2011-06-10T10:32:00.000-07:00

Voice of Youth Advocates (VOYA) magazine recently released the Intellectual Freedom Issue. If you don't subscribe to the magazine, I suggest you take the time to at least read the online version of this issue (by clicking on the link above.) There are articles on a whole range of interesting topics. Here's an example:

Groundbreakers: Books that Made a Difference (Pam Spencer Holley)
Nine YA Authors Speak About Intellectual Freedom (Joel Shoemaker)
I'm With the Banned (Lauren Myracle)
Using Controversial Literature with Young Adults (Daniel Kellerman)

Each author takes a look at a different area of interest regarding freedom of information, freedom to read, and the role of libraries and librarians when it comes to children and reading choices. There are also articles on topics that I don't think need to be controversial, but seem to be, such as GLBT resources in libraries and classrooms as well as other, more classic book selections.

VOYA is a great magazine and this issue takes up a lot of topics that are very relevant in contemporary society when looking at books, freedom, censorship, and other related areas of interest. The articles by, and which contain interviews with, authors known for their censored books and other literary endeavours are particularly interesting, at least to me. Chris Crutcher, sometimes seen as being controversial for controversy's sake has a great piece on the "Challenge of Protecting Free Speech." Whether or not you agree with his fictional writing, this article is worth a look.

The Intellectual Freedom issue has a good variety of perspectives from authors, educators, academics, and publishers that all deserve to be read and discussed. If you haven't read any of these pieces, you can find them on the digital edition of the magazine through this link or go to voya.com and click on the Digital VOYA section.

And no, they're not paying me to advertise. I just really like this issue of the magazine.

That is all.

YA Under Fire

2011-06-06T20:13:00.000-07:00

WARNING: This post may make some people angry or frustrated, but that's not my fault. Also, there is some coarse language in some of the quotations contained herein. Deal with it.

Let's start by me reminding you that I am all for free speech and just because I think the article I am speaking about here is absolute bull does NOT mean I think it should never have been printed, but simply that I disagree with pretty much all of the opinions of the author. So to start, I'm going to take you through a few bits and pieces of the article in question.

"Darkness Too Visible" (Meghan Cox Gurdon, Wall Street Journal)

Mrs Gurdon has taken it upon herself to open up an argument regarding the merits of darkness in YA fiction, but she does so with little fact and a lot of opinion and bias:

How dark is contemporary fiction for teens? Darker than when you were a child, my dear: So dark that kidnapping and pederasty and incest and brutal beatings are now just part of the run of things in novels directed, broadly speaking, at children from the ages of 12 to 18.

Darker than when you were a child? Who exactly is she talking to? Is she really of the opinion that works of fiction were somehow less dark and disturbing way back when? Perhaps these books were not marketed to teens, but I assure you, books have had questionable, dark content for a long time.

To make things even more fun, Gurdon made a list of books that she feels she can recommend to teens, including Fahrenheit 451... uh, excuse me? Really? She wants kids to read about censorship and the detriment of taking away the freedom to read as one wishes, while writing an article decrying the literature that teens are reading? Yeah, I'm confused too...

"Young Adult Fiction: The Poison is the Antidote" (Rachel Krueger, backofthebook.ca)

I don't have much to add as Krueger makes a lot of wonderful points on her own, so I will let her words speak for themselves:

Gurdon calls teen fiction “a hall of fun-house mirrors” that reflect “hideously distorted portrayals of what life is.” I don’t know what means this “hideously distorted.” Dark And Brooding YA is necessary and valuable and popular because this sort of shit happens in real life. (Okay, maybe not the werewolfy bits. But the sudden upheaval of becoming a werewolf [combined with unexpected growth of hair]? Triumph of analogy.)

Let’s leave aside for the sake of brevity and of my poor, furious heart that the article discusses YA fiction as though it were a homogenous mass – as though Alyson Noel’s angsty Immortals are equivalent to John Green’s smart-talking, prank-pulling, good-hearted teens. Let’s also leave aside the inherent problems in the sidebar “Books We can Recommend for Young Adult Readers.” (Ship-Breaker is a book about a BOY and is therefore for BOYS and girls will be like, I don’t understand this dystopic business, where are the prom dresses? True Grit is about a girl but she is BADASS so it is ALSO for BOYS because girls should stick to books about “love-struck medieval girl[s] gone mad” [Lisa Klein’s Ophelia]. Who can breathe when they see this in print?)

I feel like I am stating the obvious, like I am arguing that water is excellent for thirst or that apples and baby wolverines are, in fact, two different things. But here we are, having this conversation, and I am both boggled and saddened by the fact that some people still think YA will keeeel you (metaphorically, emotionally, ethically). Instead, it is those teenage years that will kill you. YA might be the only thing to save your ass.

And then there's Roger Sutton, who sums up my thoughts wonderfully in this beautiful statement from his article.

"Again?" (Roger Sutton, Read Roger)

If you're a teen who is running your reading choices by your parents, grow up. If you're a parent who feels compelled to approve your child's reading, shut up. The books and the kids are all right.

Please, people, for the love of all that is wonderful and literary, leave YA books be!! Besides, it's easy to write about literature for teens from an adult perspective and make adults think that what you're saying is awesome and great, but have these people read the books from a teenage perspective? I don't think so, because they're not teens! Do they not remember their own childhoods where they disagreed with their own parents about what they could or couldn't do, read, or who they could and couldn't hang out with? For crying out loud. In the immortal words from The Simpsons, instead of thinking about your biased adult selves, would you "Please, think of the children!!!"

[End Rant]

Feel free to disagree, make comments, etc. As usual, I welcome your thoughts.

---------------------------------UPDATE---------------------------------

Two brand new responses to the WSJ article have come across my desk today:

1) "Kid Lit World Responds to WSJ Attack on YA Fiction" (Rocco Staino, SLJ)

At 11 p.m. that same evening, author Maureen Johnson (left) suggested on Twitter that the defenders of YA literature express their views on the subject by using the hashtag #yasaves. Within 20 minutes there were thousands of tweets—and just like that, #yasaves became the third highest trending topic on Twitter in the United States that night.

2) "Has young adult fiction become too dark?" (Mary Elizabeth Williams, Salon.com)

It's our job as parents to protect our kids, even as they slowly move out into the world and further away from our dictates. But there's something almost comical about raising them with tales of big bad wolves and poisoned apples, and then deciding at a certain point that literature is too "dark" for them to handle. Kids are smarter than that. And a kid who is lucky enough to give a damn about the value of reading knows the transformative power of books.

3) "Young Adult Fiction is Not All Doom and Gloom" (Josie Leavitt, PW Blog)

Any bookseller or librarian worth his or her salt can recommend a list of books as long as your arm to counter the gloom that can be found in the YA section, that both parent and teen will be happy to read. The author spoke scathingly of Lauren Myracle’s Shine, a tough book to be sure about gay bashing, but hardly fitting for the 13-year-old whose mom wanted to get her a book. Why not get her Myracle’s other YA book, Peace, Love and Baby Ducks, instead? There is balance to everything, and it’s just so unfortunate that Meghan Cox Gurdon’s article had none.

I blame the plague!

2011-06-03T22:25:00.000-07:00

My apologies for the lack of posts this week. I've been terribly sick and my brain hasn't been all that functional the last few days. I will try my best to be back up to two or more posts a week by next week! Thanks to everyone who has been reading, commenting, and giving insight into the world of censorship over the lifespan of this blog!

"To Kill a Mockingbird" Cancelled... [older news]

2011-05-30T08:58:00.000-07:00

To say I'm disappointed is really just the simplest way to put it. I don't want to turn this into another rant because I've already talked about To Kill a Mockingbird before, and to argue and posit theories would be a waste of breath on this matter. So today I'm just going to show a few clips from two articles from the ZanesvilleTimesRecorder.com, dated May 13, 2011:

Students at Morgan High School will not get to see the play "To Kill A Mockingbird" after the superintendent decided to cancel a planned performance.

Lori Snyder-Lowe, superintendent for Morgan Local School District, said she received several calls from parents concerned about the play because it contains a racial slur. The play was scheduled to be performed for students this week.

Snyder-Lowe said she made her decision after calling other school districts and learning they had not allowed the play at school either.

Oh, I get it! One school didn't let the performance happen, so NO school should. Right? *sigh*

Bruce Revennaugh, secretary for the Zane Trace Players, said he was disappointed after he learned he would not be producing the play for the students.

Revennaugh said he contacted the publishing company for permission to exchange the word for another, and he was refused.

The company receives requests "every once in a while" to remove the word, said Chris Sergel, vice president of Dramatic Publishing, but making someone uncomfortable is not a sufficient reason to change a vital piece of American literature.

"Being uncomfortable with history is not means to change it," Sergel said. "We've always denied these requests. People need to figure out how to confront issues."

Revennaugh said he thinks an opportunity to have an open dialogue about issues was lost.

Mr. Revennaugh, how right you are... in a way. Granted the opportunity for dialogue about the actual issue of race is now obscured, but the issue of censorship is not a discussion taking place, so at least something is coming out of all this. Maybe. If nothing else, the ACLU got involved, according to the second article from the same site:

The book is an acclaimed piece of American literature, Hardiman [legal director for the Ohio ACLU] said, which has for decades created opportunities for youth and adults to discuss the history of racism and injustice.

Censoring it deprives students the ability to think critically about these issues, form their own opinions and understand the evolution of human rights, Hardiman said.

“Today, racism is hidden in the closest,” Hardiman said. “In the 1960s, it was in your face. Now it’s more subtle. Banning this topic, the school officials are denying students the opportunity to understand the history of intolerance and injustice in our country and how it may be relevant to their lives today.”

My thoughts exactly, Mr. Hardiman. My thoughts exactly. But apparently what we've come to do so well in the modern society of ours, is forget all about this thing called context. It would save us a lot of grief if people could learn to understand the concept of context. And I would love to be able to make people see that. But what is a poor blogger to do but blog and hope. And so that is what I do. I blog, and I hope.

Ciao for now! (and a fun little play with context below...)

Don't they know Trojans are a brand of condoms? They might want
to change that before someone thinks their school promotes sex...
Oh wait, context!!

Lovingly Alice

2011-05-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

In this week's news, Lovingly Alice by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor was pulled from the shelves of Quail Run Elementary School in the Paradise Valley Unified School District. The book is succinctly described in The Arizona Republic in this way: "[Alice's] mother is dead. Her best friend moves away without a word. Her cat dies. Her brother breaks his leg. And she enters puberty and finds out about sex."

Sounds like a typical existence of a girl coming-of-age in the twenty-first century. But do parents want their children to hear these things? Nope. Why? Because they want their children to stay innocent (though I've spoken of this perceived innocence and the harm that can come from denying information to curious children.) The article goes on,

Adults, for good reason, want their children to hold onto innocence for as long as possible. There is plenty of time to learn about the world. Let's keep them away from books and ideas that rush them along.

At the same time, children are curious and in a hurry to grow up. They do not live in cocoons. They have access to more information than any generation before them. And they always have talked among themselves.

It's no stretch to imagine any group of girls on the verge of puberty talking to each other as the book's characters do when they first learn about the existence of sex. That's what makes parents uncomfortable.

So basically what's making these parents uncomfortable is not the sex, but that fact that they are not the ones in the huddle with their daughters. Okay, that makes more sense. It's a bit of a jealousy thing, right? Okay, so maybe I'm taking things a bit far, but what am I left with after so many stories of parents who want to take away the right of dozens or hundreds of other children because they don't want their own kids to read a certain book.

Basically, what I'm saying this time around is that I think parents who want control over what their children read should set up some ground rules with their children. If they are concerned that their children will read something objectionable at school, perhaps they could set up a library day when parents and children come in and take out books together and the rest of the week the kids of these concerned parents are not allowed to take out books on their own.

A bit extreme, maybe, but is it any more ridiculous than getting rid of a book that recognized journals and teachers can use as educational tools? Is it worse than taking books out of the hands of children who might enjoy them? I'll let you be the judge.

Ciao for now.

Beware of Liberal Thinking!

2011-05-23T09:25:00.000-07:00

While I agree that textbooks in schools should be as unbiased as possible, I've come to realize over the few decades I've been alive that being entirely unbiased and 100% objective is entirely impossible. History, Economics, Politics, you name it, there is no way for an author to write a book that is without bias and that is without a particular leaning. Or maybe that's just me, but I don't think so.

A textbook in use in Frederick County, Maryland, is being reviewed by the school board for supposedly promoting a "liberal agenda." The horror! The article on Gazette.net states:

The third-grade textbook has been a part of the county's social studies curriculum since 2004, and touches on geography, economics, history, citizenship and the environment.

But some parents want it removed from classrooms because they say it does not teach facts objectively and tends to favor and promote liberal beliefs and ideologies on issues such as health care, public education and government.

Miller [a board member on the curriculum committee] said parents had been concerned that the book was driven by a liberal agenda, and that it doesn't give enough factual information. It also tends to lead students toward taking a certain stance on issues such as health care, childcare and government, parents have said.

For example, the text explains how paying for health care can be a hardship for families in the United States, while families in other countries can go to the doctor without paying immediately or for a small fee. Immediately after, the text asks children if they think health care should be free.

Sure it's a bit of a leading question, but most questions of a political nature are! Should health care be free? Maybe, maybe not. There's still a lot of debate on the issue. But how about if the question was worded like this? Would it be nice if it was free because then you could actually see the doctor if you're sick and aren't making a boatload of money? Yes!

But I digress with my liberal-minded ramblings. Needless to say, I'm a proponent of free health care, but that's probably just the Canadian in me talking. The text seems to be mostly in trouble for teaching more ideology and belief than good solid facts. But I ask you, how much of what is in many textbooks is "fact"? How much is included as "fact" because it happens to support the author's goals in writing the book? And how is sharing belief and ideology suddenly such a horrible thing? Is this not the sort of material that helps us think and shape our opinions and argue and all that other fun stuff?

Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but it just rubs me the wrong way when things are thrown out or questioned because they take a more liberal stance on issues. But now I'm just rambling.

Thanks for listening... and beware of Liberal Thinking!!

Merrill School Board Votes to Keep "Montana 1948"

2011-05-18T07:49:00.000-07:00

Normally I would write or rant or lecture a little bit in this blog, but today I'll keep it simple. The article from WAOW.com is self-explanatory, short, and covers pretty much every issue I would like. What I'm not including here is the video on the website that is worth taking a look at for more details.

In short, the article addresses the need for parents to understand that they have every right to read, critique, and limit what their own children read or are exposed to, but they do not have the right to take away the rights of other children to read. But on that note, I will let you read the article for yourself, the majority of which is copied below.

MERRILL (WAOW) -- Members of the Merrill School Board decide not to ban a book some parents say is questionable reading material for their 10th grade students because of language, and sexual and racists themes.

The book, Montana 1948, was written by retired UW Stevens Point professor, Larry Watson. School leaders added it to the curriculum 12 years ago, saying it was a less controversial substitute for Catcher in the Rye. Members of the school board read the book over the weekend to prepare themselves for the discussion at Monday's special meeting.

"Having your child not read a certain book is parenting and you have that right as a parent," said Merrill Superintendent Dr. Lisa Snyder. "But taking away a book from another child, that's censorship."

Merrill High School's principal and the district's curriculum director addressed the board, but no public comment was accepted. School leaders said students have the option of reading a different book if they don't feel comfortable with the one they're assigned.

It is at times like this that I am grateful for open-minded individuals like Lisa Snyder who help keep books available to all students and who understand, also, that parents are incredibly valuable in the education process. Thoughts?

Thanks for listening!

Protect Yourself with Censorship

2011-05-16T06:00:00.000-07:00

What's the Big Secret?

2011-05-11T13:55:00.000-07:00

It doesn't seem to be much of a secret that many parents have a problem with what is being taught to their children in schools, especially that dreaded sex-education classroom. This is no exception in Oak Harbor where a mom became quite upset after viewing a book entitled What's the Big Secret that her daughter brought home from school. These are the Headlines

An article on Q13Fox.com covered the story:

"I can't even stand that she had already read this without me even knowing," said Jennifer Swedeoson.

Swedeoson had planned to have "the birds and the bees" talk with her 10-year-old daughter Kaleigh when she reached middle school. But that timeline changed when Kaleigh brought the book home from school yesterday.

"I start flipping through, this is all right, but then it starts talking more about sex and I get into it and it's completely too graphic for her."

Really? Waiting until middle school might be great for you, but it seems that your child will probably already have heard a lot of information and misinformation by that point in time. I heard about and knew about sex in grade 5. The article on Q13Fox.com quoted assistant superintendent Lance Gibbon, who noted that "that fifth grade is when students in Washington state begin sex-ed classes." Okay, so I'm not totally off my rocker, then. Which makes me wonder why parents are so afraid of their children hearing about sex in a classroom or a reputable book from a school library. Isn't this better than getting the information from classmates or random internet sources? At least this book seems to be a good way of bringing up certain topics that can then be discussed in a home environment.

"This book been on the shelves for 10 years, at five different elementary schools," Gibbon said. "That's 2,500 students a year. That's a lot of kids that had opportunity and a lot of parents to give their input on it. This is the first time there's been any question about it."

He said plenty of people research the material before it is put on the school library shelves.

"All of our books are reviewed by staff for age appropriateness, look at outside reviewers, their ratings, and quality of materials," Gibbon said.

I know sex can be a sensitive topic, so don't go thinking that I'm telling you that kids should learn about sex as soon as possible and in any way possible. I think that getting information is a good thing, though, especially from reputable sources. And while schools are not perfect by any means, a classroom is at least a safer place to get information about sex than the internet (in many cases) or from classmates.

I think in this day and age it's hard to keep kids away from information until a certain expected timeframe. Life doesn't ever go by our own timeframes, so isn't it at least a good thing that this child brought the book home where her mother could discuss it in detail with her? Sure it's not the middle school conversation it "should" have been--at least according to the girl's mother--but at least it's happening at home and in the open rather than behind closed door through inadvisable means and sources.

If you're interested here are links to the Publisher's Weekly review and the School Library Journal's review (a little way down the page) along with a short article about sex-ed.

Thanks for listening.

The Perks [or not] of Being Controversial

2011-05-09T08:34:00.000-07:00

The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky, was challenged in Clarkstown, NY. This isn't the first time this has happened to Wallflower and I'm sure it won't be the last. According to lohud.com, this is what happened:

The controversy erupted in early February, when Aldo and Patricia DeVivo of Congers, parents of a Clarkstown High School North junior, contacted the district, saying they objected to their daughter being taught the book in class. They said they found the book morally and religiously reprehensible.

In keeping with district policy, the student was allowed to pick an alternative book. But the parents said they were not happy with that alternative because their daughter would be the only one reading that book.

Does this sound familiar to you? It should. Last year I posted a similar story (though for the life of me I can't remember exactly which post it is now) in which a family was unsatisfied with their child being allowed to read an alternative text. Somehow this is a terrible tragedy for the child, that they must read a book different than everyone else. Will this scar the child for life? Will their friends run off into the night, never to be heard from again now? Somehow I doubt it. So what do good parents do when they they want a book away from their child?

Instead they demanded the district withdraw it from the curriculum and pull it from the libraries. They also campaigned to have the book banned, speaking at meetings and contacting officials.

Well, thank goodness for reasonable people that live in the same community, because the book was kept in the classroom and in the libraries. Take THAT DeVivos!

The Clarkstown Board of Education unanimously voted to keep [The Perks of Being a Wallflower] in the high school English curriculum, ending weeks of furious debate among community members.

No one spoke in opposition to the book.

The room broke out in applause after the board vote.

As I keep having to come back to in this blog, when your child goes off to school, you have to trust the school to do what is best for the majority and to also do what they can for those who don't agree. This, however, does NOT mean getting rid of books because you, parents of one student, don't like them.

I would also like to point out that an absent voice in this story was the voice of the daughter. I wonder if the parents thought about whether or not their daughter had a problem with the book, or if their daughter had a problem with reading a different text as opposed to everyone else? We'll never know because no one seems to have asked.

Thanks for listening, and send out some good karma to the Clarkstown Board of Education for the unanimous vote to hold on to Chbosky's book. They deserve it!

Friday, Quote Day!

2011-04-29T14:26:00.000-07:00

Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.

– GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

Why do gay penguins make people so mad?

2011-04-25T14:53:00.000-07:00

I really don't know the answer to this question, the title of a recent article in the Los Angeles Times. Maybe it's that we're labelling them "gay" when they're not. Being gay is a human sexual identity that relates to self-identifying characteristics as well as sexual activity. In this case, there is no sexual activity, but simply two male penguins who bonded while taking care of a rejected baby penguin. I think that making this a case for "animals can be gay, therefore homosexuality is natural" is tricky since, as I said, there was not sexual activity, and it's not like you can talk to the penguins and ask them if they self-identify as homosexual.

Why am I talking about this, you might ask? Because the ALA's list of top-ten most challenged books of 2010 still has And Tango Makes Three at the top of the list after five years. The reason: Homosexuality. How can a book be challenged on the basis of homosexuality when that is not the issue at stake? Context is incredibly important, and in a case such as this even more so. These penguins were noted to have split up after the time the book was written, one going off to be with a female penguin and the other sitting quietly in a corner, looking forlorn. But is this one case of homosocial bonding really reason for such harsh reactions to a book?

One side claims that the book is promoting homosexuality and a gay agenda, using the "break-up" as proof that homosexuality is not natural. The other side is saying that if two male penguins can bring up a baby, the why can't two dads? Probably not the best arguments on either side. My question is, has anyone read the book as simply a cute story about two penguins (who happen to both be males) take on the roles of fatherhood to a baby penguin who has been left for dead? Any mention of "love" or "gay" in the text are to be understood as liberties being taken by the authors and illustrator.

Perhaps it is the silliness of both arguments that makes me frustrated, or the fact that both sides are so stuck in their ways that the book can't just live a quiet life on the shelves to be read by interested families and children, instead having to constantly be at the center of the public eye every time the ALA announces their most challenged books list. And it's challenged for something that isn't even an issue since, as I mentioned before, being gay is a sexual identity that involves self-identification, the act of "love," and in some eyes, the act of sex--none of these can be attributed to the two adorable penguins in this book.

All that being said, I love the book. I've read it, studied it, enjoyed it, and written essays on it. But in the end, it's a book, and if people (and children) want to read it, then I really don't see the problem. What do you think?

The comments below are some interesting/fun ones that I have chosen from the comments section of the LA Times article:

Animals are not homosexual. Animals are govern by instinct. They can neither explain or rationalize their action. The Homosexual community shows desperation in trying to equate penguins caring for a young pup to homosexuality.
Posted by: Lc48b1 | April 12, 2011 at 08:40 PM

How about we allow kids to read books that deal with things like drugs, sex, sexuality, death, violence, politics, and religion. Since, you know, they're going to have to deal with those things eventually. And here's a really radical, crazy, revolutionary thought: Why don't we teach kids to question and think and seek the truth for themselves so they're prepared to handle these things? I know, I know. I should never be allowed around children.
Posted by: The Raisin Girl | April 13, 2011 at 07:20 PM

First it starts with gay penguins, next thing you know transexual goats are villified and after that dam burst cross dressing elephants are pushed out of the literary world. For shame on you raging anti-gay animalphobes!!
PS - I love my gay cat.
Posted by: SurlyVoter | April 13, 2011 at 10:49 PM

Most Americans Opposed to Banning Any Books?

2011-04-18T15:59:00.000-07:00

NEW YORK, N.Y. - April 12, 2011 - Banning or censoring books has been debated for years. A new Harris Poll shows, however, that a majority of Americans think no books should be banned completely (56%) while fewer than one in five say there are books which should be banned (18%); a quarter are not at all sure (26%). The older and less educated people are, the more likely they are to say that there are some books which should be banned completely. Opinions on banning books are linked to political philosophy: almost three quarters of Liberals (73%) say no books should be banned, compared to six in ten Moderates (60%) but only two in five Conservatives (41%) who say no books should be banned.

Harris Interactive recently undertook to poll people across America as a means of understanding attitudes toward book censorship and banning. It would appear that many Americans think that books should not be banned or censored (excepting older generations who lean more toward keeping certain books away from children in schools.) The poll also explored more specific questions related to books in school libraries:

While few Americans think that there are books which should be banned completely, opinions differ on books that should be available to children in school libraries. Strong majorities say that children should be able to get The Holy Bible (83%) and books that discuss evolution (76%) from school libraries. Majorities also say so for other religious texts such as the Torah or Talmud(59%) and the Koran (57%), but approximately a quarter say these texts should not be available (24% and 28%, respectively) to children in school libraries. Half or more say that children should be able to get books with vampires (57%), books with references to drugs or alcohol (52%) and books with witchcraft or sorcery (50%) in school libraries, but between 34% and 41% say that each of these types of books should not be available there. There is no consensus on books with references to sex (48% say they should be available, 45% say they should not) and violence (44% say should, 48% say should not). A majority of Americans say, however, that books with explicit language should not be available to children in school libraries (62%).

The study's website has a very comprehensive layout of the polling data, including charts and tables that break down many people groups depending on age, gender, generation gaps, etc.

So what does this mean? The majority of Americans seem to be against book censorship or banning, and yet, in a number of cases, there is a strong response to the regulation of certain content in school libraries. But is this regulation a bad thing? Yes, I think it is. At least on the institutional level. Students and parents need to keep an eye on book content. The libraries can't decide on a wide spectrum what students should and should not read, so parents and students must be responsible for individual regulation of book content.

What do you think? Do you agree with the results of this study based on your own experience? What do you think of some of the more specific breakdowns in the study? Take a look!

2011 Jefferson Muzzle "Winners"

2011-04-13T16:20:00.000-07:00

The following excerpt comes from The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The annual Jefferson Muzzles were recently announced. The Muzzles are given to those responsible for "some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression occurring in the previous year." A number of these were related to government agencies, institutions such as The Smithsonian, and even a correctional facility. But the one that stands out and seems worthy of sharing on this blog, is the Muzzle given to Gail Sweet, Director of the Burlington County Library System....

_______________________________________________________________________

What do you mean, ‘No such book’? It was here last week!

For sidestepping the library’s formal policy for handling controversial materials by yanking Revolution Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology from the shelves of the entire library system upon the receipt of a single, informal complaint, a 2011 Jefferson Muzzle goes to… Gail Sweet, Director of the Burlington County (New Jersey) Library System.

It’s an old story: controversial books being challenged, censored and banned in schools and libraries for fear that their content will negatively affect the youth who choose to read them.

Due to the frequency of such literary controversies, most schools and library systems have policies and procedures in place to determine the course of action when concerned parents and members of the general public inevitably lodge complaints. The public library system of Burlington County, New Jersey, is no exception. If a patron of the library is uncomfortable with materials found on the library’s shelves, he or she can fill out a formal “Request for Reconsideration Form,” and a committee made up of staff members appointed by the Library Director will then review the materials in question and issue a decision. This is a clear, straightforward process that takes into consideration multiple points of view. Alas, this process was not implemented when controversy arose over Amy Sonnie’s anthology.

When Beverly Marinelli, a member of Glenn Beck’s 9/12 Project, complained that this collection of essays, Revolutionary Voices: A Multicultural Queer Youth Anthology—written by LGBT youth describing the personal and familial struggles of their coming-out experiences—was “pervasively vulgar, obscene, and inappropriate,” Gail Sweet, the Library Director of the Burlington County system, ignored the established policy in favor of a sweeping ban of this book, such that it was no longer available to any patrons, not even to adults.

Although many consider this anthology to be a uniquely poignant first-person resource for teens grappling with questions about their own sexuality, Marinelli is well within her rights in challenging the book’s presence in her public library system. However, Sweet circumvented the formal process in favor of an immediate prohibition of Revolutionary Voices from the entire system. In an email, Sweet conceded that “[t]here was no official challenge, no actual vote by the commissioners.” She justified the swift decision by classifying Sonnie’s anthology as “child pornography,” but this is not a classification that is hers alone to make; there is a formal process for complaints, a process that Sweet chose to sidestep. Other community members and library staff have a right to contribute their voices to a formal debate regarding the book’s availability.

For failing to insist that the library’s official policy be implemented, as well as for appearing to set a precedent that any disgruntled community member can trigger the removal of controversial materials from the entire library system, we bestow upon the public library system of Burlington County, New Jersey, a 2011 Jefferson Muzzle.
_______________________________________________________________________

This and all other "winners" of this year's Jefferson Muzzles can be found here.

What do you think of these awards? Do you think the situation with Gail Sweet merits the "winning" of a Muzzle? Let me know what you think....

As always, thanks for listening!

Top 10 Challenged Books of 2010 (ALA)

2011-04-11T14:47:00.000-07:00

The ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom released their top 10 challenged books of 2010 today. So here it is for you to see. For more information, visit the OIF website at the link below.

Out of 348 challenges as reported by the Office for Intellectual Freedom

And Tango Makes Three, by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
Reasons: homosexuality, religious viewpoint, and unsuited to age group

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, by Sherman Alexie
Reasons: offensive language, racism, sex education, sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, and violence

Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
Reasons: insensitivity, offensive language, racism, and sexually explicit

Crank, by Ellen Hopkins
Reasons: drugs, offensive language, and sexually explicit

The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins
Reasons: sexually explicit, unsuited to age group, and violence

Lush, by Natasha Friend
Reasons: drugs, offensive language, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group

What My Mother Doesn't Know, by Sonya Sones
Reasons: sexism, sexually explicit, and unsuited to age group

Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich
Reasons: drugs, inaccurate, offensive language, political viewpoint, and religious viewpoint

Revolutionary Voices, edited by Amy Sonnie
Reasons: homosexuality and sexually explicit

Twilight, by Stephenie Meyer
Reasons: religious viewpoint and violence

Have you come across any of these books being challenged wherever you're living/working? What do you think of the reasons given for the challenges? Personally, I think a few of them are just ridiculous, but that doesn't seem to stop people from challenging them anyway. Also, I think people really just need to get over the whole Tango thing. That book has been on top ten lists for far too long. When the full list is published over the summer, I will post more books and information for you to read.

Thanks for listening!

Digital Natives Continued...

2011-04-10T10:05:00.001-07:00

Digital Natives Controversy (Vancouver, BC)

2011-04-07T11:51:00.000-07:00

The following post comes in the wake of a controversy related to an art installation for Vancouver's 125th Birthday Celebration. Clint Burnham and Lorna Brown are co-curators of the project. Burnham had this to say about the project:

As part of the 125 celebration for the city of Vancouver, Digital Natives is a public art project curated by Vancouver artist Lorna Brown and myself. The project consists of putting twitter-like messages up onto the billboard next to the Burrard Street Bridge among the regular advertizing. We have solicited messages from 30 native and non-native artists and writers from Vancouver and across North America, including (associated with SFU) Jeff Derksen, student Mercedes Eng, alumni Roger Farr and Emily Fedoruk, and writers in residence (past and future) Larissa Lai, Michael Turner, Lisa Robertson, and Rachel Zolf.

More information about the project and details of the installation can be found in a number of recent articles in The Globe and Mail and The Tyee. The whole thing seems to be quite an incredible idea and is worthy of much attention. And there has been. But not all of it has been positive publicity. Dr. Burnham states:

...there has also been censorship on the part of Astral Media, who at the last minute (in the past week) demanded context for some messages, at first refused to run any of the messages in First Nations languages (!!), and have still, as a final statement, refused to run a message by respected American Indian artist Edgar Heap of Birds and by UBC professor and poet Larissa Lai (including Larissa's message in Squamish). We (including Barbara Cole, of Other Sights, the umbrella organization thru which Lorna and I work) have been working with the City of Vancouver - which has been tremendously supportive - and the Squamish Nation - especially the formidable and amazing Deborah Jacobs - to try to make Astral see the error of their ways.

One of the contentious messages in question comes from Edgar Heap of Birds':

But a lot of the controversy surrounding this message involves translation difficulties. "Heap of Birds' political message is almost entirely written in the (conceptual) language of the colonizer. His work is very powerful (he loves using the phrase 'Imperial Canada' and does so in a poster work that I walk by every day at SFU), and yet it owes a debt to that colonial language. Heap of Birds' critique is untranslatable from English."

Brown and Burnham write, on the Digital Natives website:

We are disappointed that Astral has refused to broadcast artworks by such renowned artists. Their decision compromises the intent of the project and does a disservice to the artists, whose viewpoints about public space are highly valued.

“Unfortunately,” they add, “Astral’s censoring of artists and writers shows how difficult it is for Canadians to gain access to public space, and to express themselves in public space. This is an issue of censorship, of the suppression of artistic expression, clear and simple.”

I have to say that I am extremely surprised and disappointed that there would be controversy around this work of art. This freedom of speech comes along with a similar story where a girl was prevented from riding the Skytrain for wearing a pin that stated her opinions about Yoga (F*** Yoga). Is this the start of a new rash of censorship around the rights of people to express opinions and points of view in contemporary Vancouver? I would hope not, but this move by Astral Media contradicts my hope.

The purpose of the project is to engage viewers (readers) in discussions and dialogue, and that is what is happening. So perhaps this censorship controversy will help publicize the installation? Censoring books seems to help sales, so hopefully this act of censorship will bring greater attention to the matter. The project is, by nature, sort of controversial since it deals with First Nations and Colonialist attitudes and opinions:

The name of the project plays off of two meanings for "digital natives" -that generation - like our students - who have grown up with internet media (as opposed to us old geezers who are "digital immigrants") and the role of First Nations people in digital communication (the sign, operated by Astral Media, is located on Squamish land). So part of the project entailed my facilitating of workshops with aborginal urban youth at the Native Education College - generating messages from the youth. Messages have been translated into Squamish and Kwak'wala (and are presently being translated into Musqueam).

All I can say is, "Kudos to Clint and Lorna for putting together an amazing and significant project." I'm glad it's starting dialogue, but it's unfortunate that the dialogue is starting from a point of censorship rather than the project itself.

Thanks for listening.

The School Newspaper: Upsides and Downsides...

2011-04-06T11:35:00.000-07:00

Overland High School

Officials at an Aurora, Colo. high school are scrambling to explain away the controversy over the principal's decision to shutter the school newspaper and yank the faculty advisor from the program.

How's that for an opening line to a post. Sensationalistic perhaps, but it catches the eye. I was originally unsure of what to post today as there haven't been any prominent instances of book banning or challenges that have popped up on my feeds as of late. But then this showed up in my search bar this morning. Apparently a school newspaper is being shut down (whether due to a difference of opinions or a budget issue, it really depends on who you ask.) The principal, Leon Lundie, decided that the newspaper was printing articles that were too far beyond their abilities as a high school publication. So he has apparently decided to shut down the newspaper and get rid of the faculty supervisor:

...students say that Principal Leon Lundie told them their faculty advisor would be removed because of the story, and Carrie Faust, president of the Colorado High School Press Association, confirmed with Change.org today that Sudik has not been reinstated as journalism advisor. And despite assuring reporters that there's nothing going on at the school, the district hasn't contacted the students - who are on Spring Break - with any updates about the fate of The Scout.

The article that reported the instance first delves into the legal difficulties associated with the decision that Principal Lundie made regarding the fate of The Scout.

...Principal Leon Lundie of Overland High School in Aurora, Colo, may have picked the wrong students to intimidate. The students behind The Overland Scout have enlisted the ACLU and the Student Press Law Center to come to their defense. You can help add pressure by signing this Change.org petition, which will send an email to Principal Lundie telling him that censoring student journalism isn't just unethical - it's against the law.

But Principal Lundie blatantly disregarded the law in an attempt to silence a benign story the students reported about a fellow student who died as a result of an injury during a wrestling tournament, students say. Even though the students backed up the story with interviews and research - and even provided Lundie with the student's death certificate - he reportedly told them that the story lacked balance and couldn't be printed.

In an effort to remain as balanced as possible (though I think if any part of the story is true and that the newspaper is being shut down because of administrative bureaucracy, then it's a problem) I searched for news from a different, less student-centred perspective, and came across another article from the Aurora Sentinel. Apparently, according to Lundie, the whole thing is being blown out of proportion and the operation is due for overhall next year anyway.

Lundie and district officials have said that next year’s journalism class will change to fit the program at schools like the University of Colorado, with an added emphasis on online journalism, blogs and newer technology. It’s unclear whether Sudik [current faculty sponsor] will be a part of the overhauled program, an uncertainty that’s drawn criticism from some corners.

But that doesn't explain everything. Why would the students get so involved in a non-existent cause? Well, whether or not the newspaper would get shut down, they had cause for concern when the principal decided he wanted prior review of all articles before publication. And Lundie has backed off for now:

“Although district policy and Colorado state law allow for prior review to ensure articles do not violate laws governing others rights to privacy, are not libelous or offensive with regard to race, color, age, religion, etc., I have agreed that I will not ask to see articles prior to publication,” Lundie wrote. “The newspaper class will continue in its current format for the remainder of the year with their sponsor.”

This isn't enough for the attorney from the ACLU, though. According to him, there are still problems with the arguments being put forward by the school and school district, and that the principal was still in the wrong for threatening anything against the student newspaper to begin with.

“Firing the adviser in May for what the students wrote isn’t more permissible than it is in March,” said Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate for the Student Press Law Center, in a statement from the SPLC. Goldstein attended the Monday meeting through a conference call. “We still need assurances that this program will still exist as vibrant as it ever has,” he added in the statement.

What do you think of this situation? Regardless of the laws of Colorado state regarding freedom of speech, etc., do you think the reaction by the principal or the students was justified? Should students be allowed to write what they want in school newspapers without administrative or faculty interference?

Thanks for listening.

Word Nerd Controversy (older news)

2011-04-01T14:24:00.000-07:00

In one of my grad classes yesterday, we had a talk by Canadian author Susin Nielsen. She wrote the popular novels Word Nerd and Dear Gearge Clooney, Please Marry My Mom. I love Word Nerd and found it to be quite fun, enthralling, and charming. It is marketed for children ages 9-13. I was shocked to hear that she actually had people lash out against the book, going so far as to ask for the book to be removed from school library shelves. The book contains the word "bitch" and some language, though any swears are intentionally blanked out, like so: f___. Also, there is talk of boners. It's about a 12 year old boy who befriends an ex-con, though, so what do you expect? Beyond these petty issues that some people seem to find inexcusable enough to merit removal from library shelves, the book is incredibly funny, authentically Ambrose (you'll understand if you read the book), and just plan enjoyable.

The two men (one 12, one 25) help each other in unique and meaningful ways. Cosmo becomes an unlikely father figure or older brother to Ambrose, and Ambrose helps heal some of Cosmo's deep wounds - and helps him find love in the process. It is not a book about "boners" (which Ambrose mentions as one of the many things he'd be able to talk about with his dad if he were still alive), and the few references in the book to his burgeoning sexuality are within context, and, I believe, incredibly true and real. To think that our children aren't having these thoughts, or know this language, by the age of 12, is to live with one's head in the sand. (Susin Nielsen)

I partially taught this book to a group of third year undergraduate students and it was their favourite book of the semester! But I'm getting off track. If you'd like to read more about this issue, you can visit Susin Nielsen's blog, Reflections From a Word Nerd.

Imagine my surprise when I got a Google Alert re: "Word Nerd" - and the heading stated, "Book Starts War of Words." Please take a couple of moments to read this article. It's from the Hamilton Spectator.

I have to say, I'm flabbergasted that my book would ignite anycontroversy. And I certainly appreciate the statements from Meredith Tutching at the Ontario Library Association. I'm surprised the reporter didn't try to contact me, the author, for a response.

Read the book! Trust me, you'll wonder why there was ever controversy about it in the first place.

Thanks for listening...

Over 10,000 views and 100 posts!!

2011-03-29T12:41:00.000-07:00

Thanks to everyone who has been reading and commenting on this blog over the past 8 months or so. I was definitely not expecting this many visitors when I started out last August. I hope that what I post on has been informative and useful. I will try to keep up with the blog as much as possible in the coming year, but since I am working on my thesis now, I will not make any promises that I will be able to post as often as I have been for the last few months. Keep checking in for updates, though!! And thanks again for all the visits and the support in raising awareness of censorship issues, book challenges, and other literary topics of interest.

Thanks for listening!

_rob

P.S. I know it's not about books, but here's an interesting article on the ACLU vs. limiting online access to LGBT content in American schools.

Parental Inclusion in the Reading Process

2011-03-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

In researching for a paper on challenges to picture books with same-sex parents, I came across this very interesting and engaging quotation, taken from The Pleasure of Children's Books by Perry Nodelman and Mavis Reimer.

[Children] have special need of knowledge as a resource to make sense of new things. Those who are deprived of knowledge of certain attitudes or forms of behavior and, therefore, prevented from thinking about why they might be harmful, are the ones most likely to take such attitudes or commit such acts. To deprive children of the opportunity to read about confusing or painful matters like those that they might actually be experiencing will either make literature irrelevant to them or else leave them feeling they are alone in their thoughts or experiences. ([emphasis added] 102-3)

This is pretty much the thesis of this blog, that to deprive people (and especially children and teens) of the option of reading books that highlight certain attitudes and beliefs (possibly contradictory to their own) is not helpful, but more harmful in the long run. I understand that parents are only trying to protect their children, in most circumstances. As Reimer and Nodelman say,

"In trying to protect children, however, these adults may well be doing more harm than good" (102).

"It also deprives adults of the opportunity to discuss these matters with children, and to share their own attitudes with them. Without such discussions, adults might actually diminish their control over children rather than increase it" (103).

Just my two cents for the day, and good food for thought. I like to think that this blog is not advocating for the removal of the parent, but more inclusion of the parent in the reading life of children and teens. The more parents and children are involved in the reading process early on, the better children and young adults can learn to use a critical eye while reading, instead of absorbing everything like large unguarded sponges.

Thanks for listening.

From the Mouths of Librarians...

2011-03-18T15:04:00.000-07:00

Photo Credit goes to the
Ventura County Star

Today is a short post, but no less important than any other. This quotation comes from Barbara Wolfe, the new head librarian at the Camarillo Public Library, in an article in the Ventura County Star. Wolfe used to work at the Moorpark Library in Ontario, working 5 hrs a week to read with children. Here are her words of wisdom for the day:

"Libraries are a core foundation of a free society. People are often offended by some of the things they find, but we're not about censorship." In fact, she was offended when O.J. Simpson's book became available at the library. "But there's something here to offend everyone. And that's the way it should be," she says.

Bedford's New Checklist...

2011-03-16T13:09:00.000-07:00

The Paper: UnionLeader.com
The Article: Bedford school book rating checklist stirs opposition
The Author: Greg Kwasnik
The Opening Lines:

Several anti-censorship groups are speaking out against a proposed checklist that Bedford school officials plan to use to rate books and other instructional materials.

On March 11, the Kids' Right to Read Project -- a collaboration between the American Booksellers for Free Expression and the National Coalition Against Censorship -- sent a letter opposing the checklist to Bedford administrators.

The letter was also signed by officials from the Association of American Publishers, the National Council of Teachers of English and the PEN American Center.

Bedford Schools have been plagued in recent months, first with the removal of a textbook from a course on economics, and soon after the removal of a text, and subsequently an entire summer class, all on the basis of one set of parents. The school admits that if they do this anymore they will be falling down a slippery slope. I would assert, however, that they have fallen a good way down that slope already.

In a renewed attempt to limit controversy by contriving a checklist by which to assess classroom materials and books on reading lists, the school has unfortunately only succeeded in landing in yet another pile of metaphorical fecal matter, leading the outcry from a number of Human Rights groups and organizations advocating for freedom to read.

The letter [submitted by the NCAC, KRRP, and other groups] also suggests that the new checklist was proposed with an eye to preventing future complaints, rather than improving the quality of the school's curriculum.

"While we applaud the efforts by school officials to create a system for curricular selections, we suggest that this response is both misguided and insufficient, because it is being driven in whole or in part by a desire to prevent parental complaints in the future," the group writes.

Joan Bertin, Executive director of the NCAC went on to say,

"The last checklist we saw had one category which was 'Won't cause unnecessary controversy,''' Bertin said in an interview. "Well, that is exactly the wrong kind of thing to put on the checklist. Once you put that on the checklist, you're going to have a lot of unnecessary controversy."

The idea behind the checklist is to create a document that can be rigorously applied to all texts that are under review, but the problem with checklists such as these is that they don't allow for contextual analysis of the materials for specific situations.

According to a memo written by Mayes, Bedford's checklist will assign books and other materials a score based on several factors, possibly including violence, drugs, alcohol, profanity and sexuality. That score will be used to determine whether parental consent should be required for certain assignments.

But will this actually help? The problem seems less to do with the criteria being used for review than it has to do with the way in which censorship is actually being affirmed on a regular basis (or at least two times in a row). Another problem with these specific instances is that the removal of the books (and the summer class) only causes more publicity and it makes the books out to be something much worse than they actually are.

Censorship, rather than helping, usually ends up hindering, by protecting and hiding things; by fear mongering and other tactics. Children don't end up learning how to think and be critical, and parents give up valuable opportunities to have conversations about controversial topics with their children and teens.

Do checklists like this one actually work? It doesn't appear so according to the opposing groups, but I have no way of knowing for sure. Have you come across a similar situation employing a checklist that would seem to produce more harm than good? Let me know.

Thanks for reading.

Vancouver School Board's "Diversity Team"?

2011-03-14T17:53:00.000-07:00

Diversity doesn't mean getting rid of materials that offend, but including a greater variety of books. Right? That's what I thought too.

The "Diversity Team" in Vancouver schools is being criticized by journalist Mark Hasiuk of the Vancouver Courier for actually suffocating diversity by removing books from the curriculum and libraries to make room for accurate (?) materials:

According to the Team’s 27-page Planning Tool for Vancouver Educators, elementary school teachers and administrators should: “Choose a range of children’s literature that accurately portrays all kinds of families, various cultural communities and traditions.”

Nothing wrong with that. We live in a multicultural, multiracial society. But they don’t stop there.

“Review the resources you use with a critical eye,” reads the manual, “for possible hidden messages about cultural, gender and other stereotypes.”

Hasiuk goes on to reveal his interpretation of what this means to the schools under the VSB:

...one thing is certain. If educators listen to the team, and its how-to manual on book banning, Vancouver schools will be purged of classic children’s literature. In light of the team’s narrow interpretation of the acceptable, no one is safe. Not C.S. Lewis and his Christian overtones. Nor Mark Twain or Horatio Alger or Roald Dahl—all inherently racist white men who dared publish before our current era of enlightenment.

And his evidence? Here's the account he brings forward from another article:

In 2009, retired teacher-librarian Val Hamilton sent a letter to the Courier describing those halcyon days when she ruled Vancouver school libraries at Carleton elementary and elsewhere. “When I took over a school library, the first part I weeded was the religion section,” remembered Hamilton. “I removed the Bible stories, in one school it was several dozen, and replaced them with a large selection of books explaining the various religions in the world.”

I visited Carleton last Friday afternoon. Hamilton’s legacy remains intact. The Carleton library is Bible-free.

Not having actually looked into the Diversity Team myself, I cannot comment especially on this topic, nor can I prove that the information is correct and valid besides taking what Hasiuk says at face value. What I can say, however, is that if this is actually the case, and books are being removed to accomodate more diverse resources, then the policy they are working from is extremely problematic.

If it is true that books are being removed in order to change the landscape of literature available for students, this is no longer promoting diversity, but promoting a limited scope of certain acceptable works. Personally, this is a frightening prospect and I certainly hope that it isn't true, but only a misunderstanding, though I don't wish to say that Hasiuk is mistaken either.

Has anyone reading this blog heard about this issue, or do you have anything to add? I hope you have gotten something out of this post.

As always, thanks for listening!

Betrayed stays in the library...

2011-03-10T21:54:00.000-08:00

Today I'm sharing a happy(ish) (happy unless a decision comes down to ban the book, of course) situation brought to us by Reba Lean from newsminer.com. The book in question is Betrayed (P.C. and Kristin Cast), a book about vampires and all that good stuff. Apparently it's got a few steamy scenes that go a bit far, according to one parent at least. The book was put under evaluation by the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District a few months ago. The book is currently still available in all the school libraries within the district.

The committee of parents, teachers and administrators was created by Superintendent Pete Lewis. Its recommendation will be forwarded to him. Lewis will decide by April 1 whether to keep the book in the district’s high school libraries or ban it, according to Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Schools Wayne Gerke.

At the hearing, Ken Spiers, who brought the book complaint forward, spoke for 10 minutes on the reasoning behind his complaint.

“It simply causes kids to think even more of things sexual,” Spiers wrote in his original complaint about the teenage vampire novel.

Until the decision is brought forward in April, the books are still available to students, and I wouldn't be surprised if the students started taking the books out more often now that there is controversy. I'm not the biggest fan of vampires in a lot of books, but I can still deal with them. Most people who read about vampires, though, know that they are sexual figures: they are exotic, erotic, penetrating, etc. But does that mean they should disappear? Well, they certainly haven't yet, and if trends in YA literature are anything to go by, they are only becoming more popular with young people.

What do you think of Vampires and vampire literature? Should they be taken off the shelves or re-assigned to a more adult place on the shelf? Should these sexualized beings be the centre of so many books for young people?

Thanks for listening!

Bedford Parents Striking Back

2011-03-07T11:27:00.000-08:00

My apologies for the longer than normal hiatus. I'm in the middle of my last term of classes and have more than one paper on the go. As a result, I haven't had a chance to post anything for a bit. An now, on to the content...

I have written a few times about the now infamous Taylors (as I've so dubbed them) and their apparent desire to make the school district follow their rules. They have successfully had Nickel and Dimed and Water for Elephants removed from the school curriculum, not only depriving students of the literature, but of the opportunity to develop critical thinking and make their own decisions about what they read.

Now the parents of Bedford are starting to strike back against censorship (and the Taylors) by putting together a petition, according to Cameron Kittle at the Bedford Journal:

More than 400 people have signed an online petition called “Stop Banning Books in Bedford” on the website www.change.org, where anyone can organize online campaigns for changes they want to see in their communities or across the world.

The petition stresses the point that while parents have every right to determine what books are acceptable for their child, they should not force their own views upon the school district and demand the books be removed from a curriculum.

It argues specifically against the views of Dennis and Aimee Taylor, the two Bedford parents who have publicly condemned two books that were pulled this year – “Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America,” by Barbara Ehrenreich, and “Water for Elephants,” by Sara Gruen.

It's about time, in my opinion, that Bedford residents show support for learning rather than always pampering and sheltering, as would seem to be happening right now. Monica Vegelj, a resident of Bedford, and one of the people who has signed the petition, said,

“[The removal of Water for Elephants] would be very straightforward for those parents, if they have an objection for their own family values, to exclude their own children. I think it’s important that we leave our teachers, administrators and school trustees to do their job.”

“I think it’s an adequate choice built in, and in this particular case because it’s an elective to begin with,” she said.

She goes on to say,

“To me, what’s more important than reading the book or not reading the book is how the book is taken up and discussed,” she said. “These young adults are transitioning into adulthood. They’ll be exposed to this very soon."

"We should be prepared to have meaningful discussions, not just have a closing of doors. In a free society, it’s just inappropriate,” she said.

And this is what I keep saying. I'm starting to feel like a broken record, and maybe that means I'm running out of material, but maybe it also means the lesson is just not being learned: parents have every right to decide what their own children should read, but if no other parent has an objection, then the material should be allowed to be taught. It is no single parent's right to decide what is appropriate for children that are not their own.

“Mr. Taylor has every right to chose what his teenagers read,” the petition reads. “Our school district has a policy in place. If a parent or student is uncomfortable with a book, they simply need to say so, and an alternative text will be offered.

“Mr. Taylor should not demand that every student in the school district have to follow the same rules he applies to his family. Students reading choices should not be filtered through Mr. Taylor’s political or religious filters. All parents have a right to believe in and trust their school district, and they have a right to choose if their teenager can read this book.”

As in many schools, there is an option to choose an alternative title, but the Taylors felt this would make their child feel excluded from the discussion (which they would be in some ways) but that is the choice of the parents and that should not be carried forward to affect every other child in the classroom.

What do you think of this situation? Do you think that having the option of choosing an alternative text is, in effect, exclusionary and an inappropriate alternative?

Thanks for reading. Have a great week!

Push, by Sapphire

2011-03-02T10:07:00.000-08:00

Parents are fuming, apparently, over this inclusion of Push by Sapphire, on a recommended middle school reading list. While the content might be "pushing" it (pun intended) for middle school children, there are other issues at stake here, such as parental assumption that middle school children are inherently immature and cannot deal with harsh language or life lessons.

I have worked with middle school students before, and no, they are not the most mature acting people around, but these are the same kids that come up with incredibly deep and relevant questions about life and literature and existentialism. Just because they act immature at times doesn't mean that they are incapable of understanding and critically reading books with difficult themes.

In a public hearing at with the school board and other parents, one man stood up and started reading excerpts. The following is from TheSunNews.com:

Anthony Trinca told the board that many of the books on the reading list selections for middle school students are inappropriate. He cited the book "Push," reading "edited" excerpts to avoid questionable language, and was applauded by audience members when he called for books that illustrate good family values in America.

Issue #1: What the heck is a good family value in America? I can understand that certain cultural assumptions are being made about what a "normal" or "good" family is, but is there any example of these types of families actually existing? Sure, there are books out there that can be rated "G" by a group of parents, but are these books actually helpful in developing critical thinking in children? Perhaps in a few cases, but in my experience a lot of these "innocent" books come with a little lesson at the end, and pictures of fuzzy animals hugging on the cover. Cute? Yes. Critically useful? Not so much in this case.

"We would never knowingly have chosen that book and wholeheartedly agree it was not an appropriate selection for the classroom," Britton said. "It may have been OK in another community, but the material really requires a mature person to process the harshness of the language and the harshness of that life story."

Issue #2: I mentioned this briefly at the beginning of the post, and that is the parental assumption that middle school students are not mature enough to handle a story about a sexually abused young girl who ends up overcoming adversity and becoming a strong, self-sustaining adult. It is precisely this assumption of presumed innocence that creates difficulty in choosing books for young people to read. Teachers are trained to understand the learning process and the abilities of children to think for themselves. Obviously these are generalizations and some children are exceptions, but if parents are constantly attempting to keep their children innocent, there can be negative consequences.

“In trying to protect children, however, these adults may well be doing more harm than good. Our discussion of ideology suggests that ignorance is always likely to do more harm than knowledge can. The more people are aware of, the less likely they are to operate in terms of ‘obviousness’ that might be harming or disempowering themselves and others.” (Nodelman and Reimer, Pleasures of Children's Literature 102)

So, with that in mind, think about what happens when children are deprived of certain literature based on an assumption of innocence. Sure, protection is important in some instances, but schools are precisely the place where children should be allowed to read and explore challenging topics in an environment where critical thinking is (hopefully) being encouraged and there are teachers who are (hopefully) guiding discussion. Not perfectly safe, but safer than letting kids find out about certain things from personal experience.

Thanks for listening.

Oh, the Horror! Sex Education!

2011-02-25T14:15:00.000-08:00

Melissa Cutler, from Fox 4 News, wrote about a mother who couldn't believe that there was sex in a children's book. Shocking? Maybe, if you aren't paying attention to what the child picked up and the fact that it is a sex education book from the Children's non-fiction section.

When Rose Schifferdecker opened a book from the children’s section of the Carrollton library, she couldn’t believe her eyes. She said it describes sex.

The mother is quite upset, but doesn't seem to realize that this is the sort of thing that can happen when you tell a child to just pick three books, whatever they want! The child isn't going to be that discerning, at least when it comes to the parent's view of what is good or bad in a book. Then, without looking through any of the books, she checks them all out for the children. I guess she's under the impression that sex-education books don't exist for children? Perhaps, but now she knows. Even the author of the book wrote a response to the situation:

Author Dori Hillestad Butler said in an e-mail statement the book isn’t for everyone. It also wasn’t written for children to read alone.

"My Mom’s Having a Baby" received an Editor’s Choice award from Booklist in 2005. It was also named a Top Ten Sci-Tech book for Youth. But I’ll be the first to tell you that this is not a book for everyone. I didn’t write it for everyone. I also didn’t write it for children to read by themselves. I wrote it for parents to read with their children.

"I know that some families are reading this book with their children when they are as young as four. Others are reading it with 10-year-old children and still others aren’t reading it at all. And that’s okay. Every parent has not only a right, but also a responsibility, to decide what’s appropriate for their own children to read. But no one parent has the right to decide what other parents can read with their children." she said.

Seems pretty reasonable to me, though still not to the mother, who still "doesn't believe the book belongs in the children's section of a public library where any child could pick it up."

Administrator Cheri Gross, director of Carrollton Libraries had this to say in response:

Ultimately it’s up to the parents to decide whether they want to take home a book or put it back on the shelf, said Cherie Gross, director of Carrollton Libraries.

And it's not as if the book is obscure. It's a pretty well used text, according to Cutler's research:

“My Mom’s Having a Baby,” which can be found in the children’s non-fiction section, is highly recommended by respected industry magazines and journals. It meets many criteria including the fact that it’s circulated through 20 to 30 libraries across the state.

I don't know, maybe it's just because I don't have kids myself, but if you take your child or other children to the library, you should probably check what they're reading if you have concerns about what's out there. Not every book is for every person, so there is obviously (or, I guess, not-so-obviously) there are going to be books out there that you don't agree with. Does this mean the books should be taken off the shelves? Of course not. Should you check what you're checking out of the library for your child if you're so concerned? Probably.

That's it for today. End rant.

Thanks for listening.

Freedom to Read Week [Canada]

2011-02-23T07:00:00.000-08:00

That's Right! It's Freedom to Read Week here in Canada, from February 20-26

So let's Celebrate our Freedom by Reading!

The following is a list of the most challenged Books and Magazines of 2010 as put out by the Canadian Library Association. As the information is relatively recent, the specifics of each challenge, and the locations, are not yet available for the current year. So here are the top 50(ish) books from the list:

Alexie, Sherman. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.
Athkins, D.E. Swans in the Mist.
Bateman, Colin. Murphy’s Law.
Beck, Carolyn, and Andrea Beck. The Waiting Dog.
Benton, Jim. Dear Dumb Diary: Never Underestimate Your Dumbness.
Brannen, Sarah S. Uncle Bobby's Wedding.
Burns, Charles. Black Hole. (12 issues in comic book series).
Butler, Dori Hillestad. My Mom’s Having a Baby.
Cairo. The Man Handler.
Cash, William. The Third Woman: The Secret Passion That Inspired Graham Greene’s The End of the Affair.
CFA 100 Success Secrets—100 Most Asked Questions.
Cooper, Roy. Calf Roping: The World Champion’s Guide for Winning Runs.
DeFelice, Cynthia. Cold Feet.
Denim, Sue, and Dav Pilkey. The Dumb Bunnies Go to the Zoo.
Ennis, Garth. War Stories, Volume 1.
Ennis, Garth, John McCrea and Darick Robertson. The Boys Volume 5: Herogasm.
Gaiman, Neil. American Gods and M is for Magic.
Grey, Mini. Egg Drop.
Guru Granth Sahib [Sikh sacred scripture].
Heide, Florence Parry. The Bigness Contest.
Her gé. Tintin in the Congo.
Horwitz, Tony. A Voyage Long and Strange: Rediscovering the New World.
Jones, Rob Lloyd. See Inside Pirate Ships.
Joosse, Barbara. Hot City.
Logan, Jake. Slocum and the Lucky Lady.
Lucas, George, Hisao Tamaki and David Land. Star Wars: A New Hope.
Manning, Mick, and Brita Granstrom. Dino-Dinners.
Mapplethorpe, Robert. Certain People: A Book of Portraits.
McNally, Brian. “Good Evening, Vietnam!” in Vanity Fair, April 2008.
Naylor, Phyllis Reynolds. Alice on Her Way and Alice the Brave.
Nissan, Colin, and Sean Farrell. Don’t Be That Guy: A Collection of 60 Annoying Guys We All Know and Wish We Didn’t.
Olsen, Gregg. Victim Six.
Ouellette, Sylvie. Maria Monk.
Perrault, Charles. The Complete Fairy Tales of Charles Perrault.
Pfeifer, Will. Catwoman: Crime Pays.
Rice, Anne. Beauty’s Punishment.
Rolling Stone (September 2010 cover image)
Rowling, J.K. Harry Potter. (7 books in series).
Sendak, Maurice. Outside Over There.
Sorokin, Vladimir. Pir.
Spiegelman, Art. Breakdowns: Portrait of the Artist as a Young %@&*!.
Stack, Frank. The New Adventures of Jesus: The Second Coming.
Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.
Willis, Jeanne. Big Bad Bun.
Wiseman, Jay. Jay Wiseman’s Erotic Bondage Handbook.
Xtra! West.

Get out there and read the books, enjoy them, learn from them, be critical of them, but please don't get rid of them! Have a Happy Freedom to Read Week!

Sex, Elephants, and the Taylors...

2011-02-18T13:12:00.000-08:00

The NashuaTelegraph.com and UnionLeader.com both covered the recent controversy relating to Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen, which has been removed from a class at Bedford High.

A second book has been pulled from the Bedford High School curriculum following complaints about its sexual content by the same parents who started the argument about Nickel and Dimed: On Not Getting By In America, which was removed from the high school’s personal finance course last month. (nashuatelegraph.com)

The school decided to put on a number of intersession courses for students who wanted to learn more about literature that isn't a normal part of the curriculum.

Sara Gruen’s best-selling book “Water for Elephants” was scheduled to be used in one of the high school’s intersession programs – three-day experiences in April geared to give students a valuable opportunity beyond the classroom – but Bedford High School Principal Bill Hagen said the decision was made last week to remove that course as an option.

But what valuable experience can occur without some sort of obstacle. In this case it was the parents of a student who was signed up for the intersession course. These are the same parents who earlier removed their child from a class after the Nickel and Dimed controversy last year.

Bedford residents Dennis and Aimee Taylor sent complaints to Hagen and Superintendent Tim Mayes about the book last week and denounced the text at the Bedford School Board meeting Monday.

“This book is likely to be a rated-X book, and thus, is totally unsuitable for use by the school,” Taylor said in an e-mail. “I advocate that all persons responsible for the chain of events that lead to this book being used be fired or terminated from the School Board.”

Taylor further suggested that the school only allow “youth versions” of particular books or organize a parental review system over the summer that would look at books that students need parental permission to read.

I have to say I am very disappointed in the decision made by the school to not only remove the text, but remove the class entirely.

Hagen supported the teachers who wanted to remove the intersession option entirely and avoid another round of controversy, but he said the school has to be careful to avoid starting down this slippery slope.

I'm sorry to tell you this, Mr. Hagen, but you've already fallen down the slippery slope you are trying to avoid. You've taken away two texts and a course just because of one family and where are the review committees and the school district reviews in all of this?

“The inherent danger in what has happened here is that unless we go through a respectful and challenging review process, we might have a safe and sanitized curriculum,” Hagen said. “That’s a concern as an educator that I have.”

Hagen said the school will continue to improve and review their process to allow books into the curriculum, and he hopes to have more informed discussions from townspeople about them.

This situation is discouraging coming in the wake of my last post on the Richland SD and the successes of their review process. In this case, no review was taken into consideration. There was one meeting and then the book was removed, as was the class, by the same Principal who is afraid of a "slippery slope." I don't know what to say. I only hope the school ends up having to remove every book and cancel every class based on this one family. Maybe at that point Mr. Hagen will understand what a problem he's started by falling prey to the Taylors every time they open their mouths.

Freedom requires a fight, and Bedford High is not fighting for Freedom.

Thanks for listening.

(Here's a link to the passage that created such a controversy)

Merits of the Richland SD Review Process

2011-02-16T12:41:00.000-08:00

A recent article on TriCityHerald.com highlighted the various components of the Richland School District book review process. Previous attempts by a parent to remove Snow Falling on Cedars from an AP English class at Hanford High School were thwarted in each level of the review. The district recently updated the process and new policies were put in place to address parental control over classroom materials. Here is a brief summary of the events surrounding the challenge according to the article:

In some ways, banning a book from the school system is a greater act of censorship than banning it from public libraries. It prevents not only access to the text but also an academic discussion of the ideas and issues the book explores.

It's not the first book this parent has hoped to have removed. He's part of a group that ranks books used in Richland classes on their perceived levels of offense.

Judging from the grades given by the parent group, they're pretty easy to offend. It's a rare book that gets an "A" grade from them. They equate an "A" book to a G-rated movie for content.

Obviously this is an extreme view of literature (as is often the case when someone is trying to ban a book from a classroom), and all parents have different policies for their own children, which is why "Under Richland's policy, parents have the right to remove any book from their children's reading lists." The article goes on:

But the most easily offended parents can't be allowed set the standards. There needs to be a better system for evaluating books than counting the number of curse words.

That Snow Falling on Cedars made it through the new review process is a testament to the system.

It carefully was reviewed by district administrators, the Instructional Materials Committee -- a combination of teachers, administrators and parents -- the superintendent, and finally the school board. And it passed each test.

It is good to see a review system that works, that addresses all aspects of the piece of literature on multiple levels (review board, superintendent, school board). With this sort of system, the text is put to a number of tests, and once it reaches the end of the process and is (hopefully) kept in the system, it would be incredibly difficult to refute the decision made by three different levels of review.

The article also brings up another aspect of book challenges that I have covered before: They're great publicity. Since the book was under review for the school year, it was off the reading list until a decision was made, but during that time, and now after, there will most likely be many more students who will read it to find out what the big deal was.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower (Or Not!)

2011-02-14T11:16:00.000-08:00

What I can't seem to grasp, and what seems to come up at least once every week, is how certain parents think that schools should be run according to their views and opinions, and not according to a curriculum that will serve the widest range of students possible. In the latest controversy surrounding Stephen Chbosky's The Perks of Being a Wallflower, a parent of a Clarkstown High School student (New York) is demanding that the book be removed not only from the school curriculum, but also from the library shelves in both high schools in the district. Would they be happy with simply allowing their daughter to read a different book? Hell no! (Though I'll get to that later.)

"It is in my opinion reprehensible that this book is in front of students in high school," said Aldo DeVivo, describing the book as abominable for its depiction of sex and use of curse words. "And just as important, I being a Christian, there is a phrase that uses my God's name in vain. There is just no place for that."

Apart from poor sentence structure, Mr. DeVivo seems to believe that just because he has a certain religious belief/affiliation, that the entire school should follow his own singular opinion. The school district's response was both enlightening and important, in that it actually confronted the notion of a single parent being able to decide what is right for every student:

The Clarkstown school district released a statement saying that its mission was to present a curriculum with a wide variety of topics that helped in creating well-rounded members of a global society. It said no parents had the right to decide what materials were suitable for students other than their own children.

"It is the district's firm belief that the classroom provides a valuable forum for the expression of responsible views on public issues of a controversial nature," the statement read. "However, in the event that a parent, as in this case, is concerned with a literature selection, the parent is encouraged to voice his/her views to the school administration."

And voice their views, the DeVivo's did:

"We feel more determined than ever to get the word out and make parents aware," said DeVivo. "These books are paid for by our tax dollars."

In keeping with district policy, DeVivo's daughter was allowed to pick another book for her English class. But DeVivo said he was not happy with that alternative because his daughter would be the only one reading that book.

DeVivo said he had also pulled his daughter out of a class because he disagreed with how Christopher Columbus was depicted.

These parents not only seem to want full control over the curriculum within the school/school district, but don't seem to be happy with any of the ways in which the administration is attempting to diffuse the situation. There are two main aspects of the DeVivo's argument that I would like to visit.

1) The books are paid for by their tax dollars. Correct! They are obviously well educated people. And being well educated, they should also understand that there are many other people who pay taxes, all of whom have different views on books such as Wallflower. This being the case, the tax dollars are used to provide students with materials that cover a wide range of topics, which is exactly what Chbosky's book does! And since this is the case, parents are given options if they don't agree with what is being taught, which brings me to my next point.

2) DeVivo's daughter would be the only one reading the book that is not part of the regular curriculum. These parents are super-smart! Yes, she will be reading a different book, because if she was reading the same book, the parents wouldn't be happy (though they don't seem to be happy with anything) and if all the other students must read a different book, then every student is being forced to read something that one singular parent (or I suppose one parental couple) has decided on, which goes against my first point in which many people pay taxes, all of whom have many different opinions, and many of whom do not seem to mind the current book choice.

Sorry for the rant, but this particular topic is steadily growing from pet peeve to the status of something-I-want-to-wage-war-against. But thanks for listening, and hopefully sometime soon I'll once again have some good news, but judging from my inbox, it's not looking like that'll happen this week.

Talk, comment, discuss!

Oh, and Happy Valentine's Day.

Friday, Quote Day!

2011-02-11T07:00:00.000-08:00

Why do so many of us seem to want to read a YA book simply to detect niggling errors of accuracy or “inappropriate” vocabulary—whether too difficult or too dirty—in tiny parts, instead of reading a book as a whole to feel how exciting, poignant, or provocative it is. (Provocative, by the way, is good.)

From Bruce Brooks' Introduction to M. Aronson's, Exploding the myths: The truth about teenagers and reading. (p. x)

The Book Stays, the Parents Stays Quiet...

2011-02-09T10:03:00.000-08:00

Sometimes it's tough writing three posts a week, and other times it's not. It's a tough thing. I like those weeks when it's easy to come up with material, but that means there's stuff going on that I need to address, which is usually not a good thing. And those times I can't find material are bad, but good because that means nothing crazy is going on that I've been able to find (not that it means there's nothing crazy going on at all.) Today relates to the latter problem. Besides the usual suspects (Huck Finn and Part-Time Indian) nothing too much has happened that I have gotten a hold of.

On that note, I don't like straying from my routine out of fear that I will forget to update the blog for weeks at a time, so I will put up a little something that I found today. It's actually some good news, so that makes it a win-win in some ways. Without further adieu, here we go:

In October of 2010, a parent in the Helena School District, MT, requested that the book be removed from the school curriculum. A recent article on HelenaIR.com stated that

[Michele] Smith filed the request in October to remove the book which she feels has obscene, vulgar and pornographic language.

“Whatever purpose the author is attempting to accomplish is completely negated by the many objectionable parts scattered throughout this entire book,” she wrote in her request.

Smith argued that the book damages young people by perpetuating filth, and was one of a handful who testified in removing the book at the public hearing held in December. Dozens testified to keep the book and more than 100 people attended.

The review committee in charge of the challenge voted unanimously to keep the book in place as part of the school curriculum. Smith was not happy about the decision, saying,

“I’m disappointed, but not surprised.... I decided not to appeal because it wouldn’t change anything. They seem pretty set with their decision and nothing more I could do or say would change that.”

The superintendent upheld the committee's recommendation. The review was based on five points, and they are as follows:

First the resource option meets the mandated state standards for the integration of Indian Education for All. Second, board policy says a book will not be excluded because of race, nationality, political or religious values of the writer or of the material’s style and language. Third, board policy says books are chosen for value of interest and enlightenment of all students in the community. The committee wrote that the many students who testified spoke of the positive impact the book had on them. Fourth, the option for alternative curricular assignment was offered; and fifth, the book is highly recommended by recognized review authorities and received many national literary awards.

Many times the outcome of these reviews are stated as either successful or unsuccessful, but not often are the full reasons outlined for the general public. Whether a committee decides to keep or withdraw material, I think that publication of the reasoning should be mandatory so that people know on what criteria the books are being judged.

And that's the news for today. Thanks, as always, for listening.

Castration Celebration!

2011-02-07T08:51:00.000-08:00

Castration Celebration, a new novel by Jake Wizner (author of Spanking Shakespeare) is becoming a source of controversy in libraries across North America and in the UK. While not officially censored or taken out of any libraries as of yet (that I know of) there are a number of instances being reported on listservs in which administrators are attempting to remove the book from Teen Fiction sections and move it into Adult Fiction. Why, you ask? Because of apparent inappropriateness for its intended age group due to sexuality and language. I think it's safe to say that the majority of books out there for teens and young adults deal with sexuality and subjects that parents might consider "inappropriate." But does that mean the subjects are actually inappropriate? Or just that the parents perceive the material as inappropriate? Either way, the books are out there, and they are for teens, and about teens, and teens should be able to have access to them.

The first problem I have with this situation is the fact that not a single instance of this re-categorization has been spawned by a parental or teen complaint, but from library administrators.

The second problem with this is that the book is being considered inappropriate for its intended audience. Well, let the audience decide that, then. If the book is written for older teens, then let those teens bring forward the complaints. And if the book is inappropriate for younger readers, then they will either put the book back, or enjoy it. In either case, the library is responsible for keeping the books available for their intended audiences so that they are accessible, not hidden in the "wrong" area so no teens can find the book.

The complaint has been raised that the cover is too "High School Musical" for such a raunchy book. Well, the title has the word "castration" in it. If a teen doesn't want to read about castration, then they probably won't. Some administrators declared that because the word is split up that young people won't necessarily notice what the word is. I think that is just an insult to young people everywhere! To claim that they can't figure out a word because it's split into three sections? Preposterous!

I have not read the book, so I can't speak for it in terms of its content, but I have read Wizner's Spanking Shakespeare, and while it was rather sexual at times, it was a very humorous, witty, and touching book that, I felt, was very deserving of the classification of Young Adult. And it's not as if Random House it trying to hide the content of the book. The description on their website reads,

"Jake Wizner's story within a story takes the battle of the sexes to a whole new level in a bawdy, uproarious romp that's laugh-out-loud fun."

It's not as though the publisher is hiding the fact that the book is "bawdy." If people don't want to read it, they won't. Young people are amazingly discerning when it comes to what they do or don't want to read. So why are some people so intent upon this strange breed of "protection" that just makes access to books more difficult? ~sigh~

Thanks for listening! And don't forget to comment if you've read the book or come across any other incidents with this book!

Bitch, Please!

2011-02-04T13:20:00.000-08:00

This week, something very interesting happened. Bitch Media released their list of top 100 YA books for Feminist Readers, but after a switch-up of three books on the list, controversy ensued. Three books were taken off the list and replaced with alternative titles after concerns were brought forward about "triggering" themes (i.e. rape) in the texts. There have been incredibly explosive responses on both sides of the argument, and the rest of this post will be dedicated to listing and discussing some of these responses. The first of these comes from Smart Bitches, Trashy Books:

Bitch posted their 100 YA books for the Feminist Reader list, and of course, like any thing that is (a) a list (b) adorned with the word “feminist” and (c) on the internet, there was lots of discussion. And disagreement. And expressions of disappointment. Some didn’t like that certain books were left off, and some didn’t like the books that were selected, particularly those that were sexually violent or challenging to the reader’s emotional equilibrium. I can understand that - books are powerful things, but all the more reason to collect them in to one giant list to share with libraries and those looking for thoughtful reading material to share with young adult readers.

Later, a response came from the creators of the list at Bitch Media. Ashley McAllister, one of the authors, wrote this in regards to the three removed novels:

A couple of us at the office read and re-read Sisters Red, Tender Morsels and Living Dead Girl this weekend. We’ve decided to remove these books from the list— Sisters Red because of the victim-blaming scene that was discussed earlier in this post, Tender Morsels because of the way that the book validates (by failing to critique or discuss) characters who use rape as an act of vengeance, and Living Dead Girl because of its triggering nature. We still feel that these books have merit and would not hesitate to recommend them in certain instances, but we don’t feel comfortable keeping them on this particular list.

The two main reactions to this statement are as follows: The books should have been left alone and the content should be left to the discretion of the reader; The nature of rape in the books is questionable at best and should be thoughtfully examined in terms of its use within the text.

From the first camp, Scott Westerfeld commented on the situation:

Let’s get this straight: You put Tender Morsels on your list without having read it, then saw a handful of outraged comments appear. So you rereadTender Morsels, swiftly and with those comments uppermost in your mind, then decided they HAD to be right.

Did you talk to anyone in the non-outraged camp first? To those feminists who originally recommended it? Did you engage in a rigorous discussion at all? Or did you just cave?

Two requests:

1) Please remove my book Uglies from the list. It’s an embarrassment to be on it.

2) Perhaps change your name to something more appropriate, like EasilyIntimidatedMedia. After all, the theme of Tender Morsels is that one must eventually leave a magical, fabricated safe haven for (sometimes brutal) reality. The theme of this blog would appear to be the exact opposite.

A member of the Child_Lit listserv (who shall remain nameless since I didn't ask permission to reveal any identities from emails) that I subscribe to agreed with Mr. Westerfeld:

Good to see Scott Westerfeld drawing attention the the lack of logic in the decision (and for demanding that 'Uglies' be removed) - and I particularly like his suggested renaming of themselves, from 'Bitch' to 'EasilyIntimidatedMedia'.

'Triggering' seems a very loose 'post hoc' term to bandy about. Makes people trigger happy, clearly.

Another member of the listserv (who shall also remain nameless, had a different response to the situation:

Heavy-handed critique may be out of place in a work of fiction, but critique of some kind has to come into play when dealing with a “rape as revenge” scenario, or with outright victim-blaming if the author wants to call the book a work of feminist fiction. The fact of the matter is, we live fully within rape culture, and so no, no one gets a free pass to use rape as a plot point and then NOT dissect it under the guise of “humanity understands that rape is bad”. Clearly not, or we wouldn’t be asking rape victims what clothing they wore to try to vindicate rapists. And self-blame may be a part of a victimised [sic] person’s experience, but unless we plan on locking all potential victims in impenetratable [sic] cells for their own protection, it is not conducive to paint victim-blaming as an acceptable component of feminist lit.

I have not read any of the three novels being discussed, so I must refrain from adding too much of my own opinion. I am partly in the middle so far, however, agreeing that 'rape as revenge' is a particularly disturbing notion and one that should be very, very critically considered before inclusion in a YA text. But at the same time, removing a text from a list of feminist topics just because it contains a 'trigger' of some sort, is perhaps jumping the gun. Many books contain topics that are triggers to some parts of the population, which is why those people don't read those books, or if they do, they do so from a critical perspective.

What do you think of the situation? It is very complex and important to look at both sides of the scenario. And while I do think Bitch Media made a poor move by taking the books off the list, I also think there is much to consider about the books in question before jumping to quick judgments, especially since Bitch Media has a history of strong and controversial opinions.

Thanks for listening.

Ian McMillan banned from creative writing workshop in the UK...

2011-02-02T07:00:00.000-08:00

I just read this on another blog (An Awfully Big Blog Adventure: The ramblings of a few scattered authors) and thought I would share it. But whereas I would normally write a commentary with clips from articles or books, I will be refraining for today. The writer of this particular blog entry, author Ellen Renner, did a marvellous job and I feel I would be simply doing the writing injustice by trying to re-write was is already well written. The following is a segment of the blog entry, along with a link to the full commentary. I hope you will all read it and comment, either here or on An Awfully Big Blog Adventure.

Mr. Ian McMillan

Yesterday, as I was filing my income tax, someone emailed to tell me about Sheffield City Council's decision this week to ban Ian McMillan. For those who don't know about this, Mr McMillan, a poet, broadcaster and comedian, was scheduled to run a children's creative writing workshop at Upperthorpe Library in Sheffield. The event was intended to highlight the value of libraries to their local community, in a time when, as we all know, both school and public libraries face massive cuts.

Apparently, the city council banned Mr McMillan because they feared that the event might be hijacked for the purpose of making 'political' comments. Hijacked by whom, or how, the article didn't make clear, but according to Sintoblog (sintoblogspot.com) the background to this is the fact that Sheffield council, although not currently proposing any library closures at present, is planning major cuts to the library budget which will have an inevitable knock-on to service provision.

Read the rest here.

If you would like to read another rather enlightening post about opposition to libraries (though not necessarily with anything to do with censorship) you can read a very heartfelt speech by Philip Pullman here.

And as always, thanks for reading!

ACLU celebrates First Amendment

2011-01-31T09:52:00.000-08:00

Adam Causey, on ShreveportTimes.com, writes about a gathering in Shreveport where 30 people gathered to celebrate First Amendment rights. This even was put together to help Americans appreciate the freedoms that they have in opposition to such places as Egypt (especially since they are in such a state of turmoil at the moment.)

The local office of the ACLU sponsored "Banned in America," a celebration of the First Amendment's freedom of speech. About 30 attended the event at CoHabitat. Shreveporters read from some of their favorit books or played clips from films that have been censored.

The group discussed the recent controversy surrounding Huckleberry Finn, watched public domain movie clips, and talked about the general good side of freedom of speech. I don't know if they covered any of the negative aspects of freedom of speech, or if they talked about how annoying it can be at times, but at least there is a sense of appreciation among some people, celebrating instead of taking the Amendment for granted.

Have any of you ever taken part in an event like this? Have you ever put together anything to celebrate your right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech in America and Canada, or in other countries across the globe? Leave a comment and let me know.

I'll try to have some more book reviews and other info up later this week.

As always, thanks for listening.

Politicians Attack Toronto Grad Student

2011-01-27T07:01:00.000-08:00

This makes me so mad. I try not to write posts when I am upset, but this really makes me wonder about Canadian politics (and politicians in general.) The article being discussed comes from the CAUT Bulletin, a resource for Canadian Academics and Academic Freedom.

A Grad Student, Jenny Peto, from the University of Toronto wrote a Master's thesis entitled "The Victimhood of the Powerful: White Jews, Zionism, and the Racism of Hegemonic Holocaust Education." In December, two politicians in the Ontario legislature used a question period to question her choices and denounce her research.

My first issue here is the fact that they are using time to talk about a student thesis as if they should somehow have been involved in the process of its creation. These politicians expressed concern over the University's acceptance of the thesis. The following is what Shurman said, in full. It makes me cringe that this man is in a position of power:

[Shurman describes] Peto’s thesis as a “hateful and poorly researched paper attacking programs that use the horrors of the Holocaust to somehow show the dangers of discrimination and racism by Jews” and asking the minister, “Will you today speak up on behalf of Jewish groups who have been so deeply hurt by this piece of garbage and condemn it, not as an academic paper but for the hate it actually is?”

Are politicians now going to start going over all graduate research and theses during legislative assemblies? I'm not saying there should be no accountability between Universities and Government, but this is ridiculous. And even more so for the next reason: These politicians didn't even read the thesis!!!!

There was no defence of academic freedom or freedom of speech. There was no discussion of her actual project. Instead, they took the title out of context and proceeded to call for more talk about growing feelings of anti-semitism related to immigration policy. This may be a valid concern (I do not pretend to know about the situations and issues at play in immigration policy), but what does this have to do with the thesis? Nothing! This is what her thesis is about, actually:

In the thesis, Peto used critical race theory to construct an interpretive framework for examining two Holocaust education projects — the March of the Living and the March of Remembrance and Hope. Peto argued that these programs make political use of the history of Jewish martyrdom and suffering in the Shoah, thereby perpetuating claims to victimhood that “are no longer based in a reality of oppression,” but rather produce effects that benefit “the organized Jewish community and the Israeli nation-state.”

University professor Michael Keefer spoke up about the unfairness and ridiculousness of the situation. He wrote an open letter (which I strongly suggest you read) to Premier Dalton McGuinty.

He said, “In contrast to your colleagues in the Legislature, I have read Ms. Jenny Peto’s thesis … I believe that the language used by the two MPPs and by the Minister to characterize this thesis is very seriously misleading. It is in my opinion a well-researched study with a clearly-defined ethical focus.”

[Keefer] speculated that a lingering impact will be self-censorship within the academic community — causing students and faculty to avoid important research that may be controversial and may elicit political attacks. “If this happens, then we will all be the losers.”

I sincerely hope that Universities, researchers, and graduate students do not give politicians like Steve Clark and Peter Shurman the satisfaction of self-censoring. If anything, I hope more research is undertaken in response to and in defiance of such uneducated and ignorant remarks.

What do you think of this? Have you ever experienced a challenge to your own work because of someone else's ignorance? Has your work ever been degraded by someone who didn't even bother to read it?

Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes

2011-01-25T10:32:00.000-08:00

While I have not read this particular novel by the infamous Chris Crutcher, I am sure that it is just as controversial as all of his other books. Crutcher's novels are never comfortable to read. There is always some aspect that is jarring or disturbing, or just seems wrong at first glance. But there is always a redemptive aspect. By this I do not mean that there is a happy ending. That would ruin the narratives and make a mockery what Crutcher is trying to show. Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes appears to me no exception to the rule, being challenged like many of Crutcher's titles (see Whale Talk.)

Staying Fat was recently challenged in Wisconsin's Belleville School District for being part of the grade-nine curriculum. Lori Beil, the mother of a student at Belleville High School, complained that the book was pornographic and full of vulgar profanity. An article on Channel3000.com reported part of the recorded message Beil presented to the review committee:

"I believe it would be better for the school to choose books without sex and profanity, that don't bash someone's religion. There are more noble and aspiring choices. Why am I doing this? I'm motivated by love. Love for my son, love for God and love for you, the people of my town."

Beil also stated that having an alternative reading available for her son was not a fair option:

"No child should need to leave a classroom because a book has too much offensive content when there are so many excellent books to choose from."

I think at this point it is important to note that Beil never recommended any alternative texts to the committee, nor did she seem to have any trouble talking about her religious beliefs even though others might have found her position to be offensive. Double standards are difficult to consider seriously in situations like this. There is, however, a silver lining to this story, in that other parents and students were very supportive of the text being part of the curriculum:

Most of the parents and students who turned out, many wearing green stickers in support of the book, said that Sarah's story has done exactly what it should.

"I think our teens today face so many issues that a lot of us adults cannot even wrap our heads around. I think it's really important that they're exposed," said parent Teresa McMahan.

"The book 'Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes,' has not only been a high-quality read but has sent positive messages to me, and I would say, without hesitation, to most of my class," said Taylor Forman, a Belleville High School freshman.

The review committee voted unanimously to keep the book as part of the curriculum and sent their recommendation to the School Board. I am very happy that this decision was made (and so is the Wisconsin chapter of the ACLU.) If people are so worried about portrayals of their religion or certain moral standards, all it says to me is that they are weak in their convictions if a YA novel can shake them this deeply.

Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?

As always, thanks for listening.

Sexy

2011-01-21T10:40:00.000-08:00

After reading Sexy (Joyce Carol Oates) for the second time, I was reminded of how much I love Joyce Carol Oates. Her writing, I would call raw. Her style is abrupt, sometimes disjointed and abstracts, but that's what makes it so intriguing and real. She does not shy away from using terminology and words that teens use. She doesn't try to "censor" or candy-coat things. This is exactly the type of writing style that seems to fascinate critics and academics and infuriate parents. Parents see it as a threat to their authority and their ideas of childhood and youth as needing to remain innocent. Academics and critics find stories like Sexy fascinating because they are incredible portals into the minds of young people in difficult and horrific situations.

Teens are complex. They are difficult to understand. And they do discriminate against what they do not understand (not unlike adults!) The protagonist, Darren, in this story has difficulty in life because of his looks and an uncomfortable encounter with his English teacher, Mr. Tracy. Darren is a diver, swimmer, and heartbreaker. He gets okay grades, except in English where he managed to get a B, though he believes that is only because of the guilt of his teacher, who gave him a ride home one day, causing a string of events to get out of control and lead to the destruction of Mr. Tracy as a teacher and a human being.

Of course this is the exact type of writing and content that has parents and censors in a fluster, claiming explicit sexual content and inappropriate language. What else is new? Teens are discerning in different ways than parents, and they don't respond to things that they do not believe are sincere. A book with "bleeped" language is not sincere, and neither is a book that says "oh, poo!"

This isn't a book for elementary students. And perhaps it's not even that great for middle school kids. But to attempt a ban in a High School? Booklist magazine rates it as appropriate for grades 9-12. Sexy was challenged at Jefferson High School in Boulder, Montana in 2007. It was retained after review, but was challenged for the reasons stated above. Of course, the book does start to cover slightly more than it seems to be able to handle, but that's not an issue related to the content under fire.

I think this is just bizarre, especially because it is just in the library and not even being taught in a classroom or being recommended by a teacher. This is available to those who are interested and who want to read the book. And honestly, should we really have to be hiding books like this from High School students? Maybe some think so, but I don't.

Thanks for listening! And feel free to let me know if you've read the book or what you think about the issues covered.

Stolen Children

2011-01-19T11:49:00.000-08:00

Part of me thinks that this blog is just spouting the same story over and over and over again. But then, the stories keep showing up over and over and over again. The only problem here is that I come to the same conclusion--you got it!--over and over and over again. Parents, take part in what your children read and stop trying to blame the library for having the book on the shelves! I plead with you all, stop trying to take books away from other children just because you think it's not right for your child, or your opinion is that the book isn't good at all. I have many opinions about what I think is good and bad, but that doesn't mean I just run around trying to take those things away from others. I don't particularly agree with certain sweets or junk food, but I don't run around trying to take them out of all the grocery stores and pulling them from your hands!

[deep breath]

Here's another story about a parent attempting to get a book (Stolen Children by Peg Kehret) taken out of the elementary school libraries in the Central York School District. She believes the book is too violent and frightening. The review from Booklist, however, deems the book appropriate for children starting as early as grade 4 and the School Library Journal says that it is appropriate for children starting in grade 5. Unless I am mistaken, these grades are still considered to be in the elementary school range, and these reviewing journals are well-known and regarded for their reviews and classifications.

We'll see what happens next as the book goes under review, but I can only hope that the decision finds the book acceptable to be on library shelves. What do you think? Do you have any opinions on the subject of books in libraries vs. books in classrooms? What do you think the roles of the parent/teacher/librarian are when it comes to having access to these materials in a library?

I will close with the Booklist review of Stolen Children as reproduced on Amazon.com:

After graduating from a babysitting course, 14-year-old Amy is filling in for a wealthy family’s nanny one afternoon when she and her three-year-old charge, Kendra, are kidnapped. Their two abductors have hatched a plan to take the little girl, send daily DVD messages to her parents, collect the ransom, and return her unharmed. They hit a snag, however, when their accomplice, Kendra’s nanny, takes off before the scheduled heist. Forced to take the unexpected Amy along, they head to a derelict secluded cabin, where they bide their time for several days. Amy’s ingenuity and child-development savvy save the day, but only after a few daring escape attempts. Plot-driven and consistently paced, this quick read has ample suspense and drama. While the bad guys have a gun, it is unused and no actual physical violence occurs, making this a worry-free recommendation for those requesting a just-thrilling-enough story. Grades 4-7. --Andrew Medlar

Now, for some good news...

2011-01-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

'The Catcher in the Rye' won't be banned from South Fork High School, according to Eve Samples of TCPalm.com. This decision comes in response to a complaint from a mother of five who wanted The Catcher in the Rye banned from the entire Martin County School District. I covered this situation a short while ago (here) and wrote about the irony of this mother wanting Catcher removed from the district and allowing her child to read Huckleberry Finn as an alternative text (with it's 216 instances of "nigger.")

Samples writes, "'The Catcher in the Rye,' J.D. Salinger's provocative and sometimes crass novel about Caulfield, will remain on the school's reading list — despite protests from the mother of an 11th-grader there."

Ultimately, [the committee] decided the controversial language was outweighed by the salient points that Salinger makes. Even use of the 'F' word was justified, they agreed, because it was in context. When Caulfield sees the word scrawled on a wall, he is repulsed. He wants to conceal it from his younger sister.

"It wasn't him saying it. It was him getting angry over it," said Jennifer Salas, the Martin County Library System's youth services coordinator.

The committee decided the book "is appropriate for students at South Fork High School," and the district as a whole. For parents who disagree with it, the committee respected their rights to choose alternative books for their children.

I'm quite happy that this was the final decision and I applaud the committee for standing by the use of the book in classrooms and for understanding the meaning of context. It's nice when I get to write a little post about a book being kept in the open rather than being treated as a toxic object of unnatural evil. Thanks, as always, for listening.

Books for Everyone?

2011-01-14T11:29:00.000-08:00

Now that the "new and improved" Huck Finn is coming out, there is controversy at every turn. I looked up book challenges and bans on Google today, and the majority of hits were related to Mark Twain's classic tale of boyhood and racism. Some people don't seem to mind the sanitization of words, while others vehemently point out the problems associated with this decision. I have already stated my opinion, for the most part, in an earlier post, so I won't go on about it again. There has yet to be a consensus on either side, and some schools are still having to deal with the fallout.

Florida's Westside Elementary School, recently in the news for a mother's request to ban Snakehead by Anthony Horowitz (which I covered here), is still waiting for a decision from the school board. But they are being featured in Hernando Today in regards to book policies in their library. The difficulty today seems to be the complete lack of consensus (I know, I just used that word in the last paragraph) on what makes a book appropriate, or inappropriate:

...definitions of inappropriate differ from reader to reader. Lena Betancourt, who brings her daughter Destiny, 6, to the library at least every other day, said it depends on a book's topic if it should be banned from school libraries or not. But Betancourt said the language of the classics like Huck Finn should be left as written to help teach children right from wrong. "I certainly think certain books shouldn't be in their sight or area," she said. "Kids at a younger age are starting to understand more about what's right and what's wrong. If we keep changing things how will they know?"

One problem I see here is that this mother finds censorship and book banning alright in some cases, but not others, and yet agrees that there is no set rule for what is appropriate or inappropriate because of each person's perspective. These sorts of comments confuse me, allowing for some ability to censor and ban literature, but with no criteria under which this can be enacted. And this has difficulties that relate to the censoring of history:

Ralph Smith said too much censorship can hinder the up and coming generations. "That's history. They're trying to change history," he said. Debbie Pfenning, Hernando County School District's elementary curriculum supervisor, said it wasn't the first request to have a book banned from schools, but it is the first book challenge that has made it to the district level. "There have been challenges in the past but the decision has never been to ban a book. It usually gets worked out at the school level," she said.

Books in elementary school libraries are there to appeal to children of all ages throughout the school, whether in grade one or grade six, and some books are not going to be appropriate for the entire age span. So how can it be said that books should not be available to younger children when the older children will then be deprived? The books that are available have been chosen for the shelves for a reason and it is up to the children and their parents to decide what is appropriate for them. The books are not responsible for being appropriate for every reader!! The book can't decide this!

Pfenning said school library books are picked based on received proposals and input from the media center staff and administration at each school, but the school board doesn't necessarily have to approve every book on the shelf.
"The books put in the media centers are age appropriate. There's a difference between a book being used for instruction purposes and a book that's on media center shelves for student selection," she said.

Oh, the craziness of it all!