SW Missouri District bans 2 books, including Slaughterhouse5

gimmesometruth27

Just thought I would post this here. This is a school district not far from where i went to college that those around the state refer to as "the buckle of the bible belt". I have noticed that several people on here are named after vonnegut characters so I thought this would be interesting. I just came across it in my local paper and thought i would share.

i do not agree with banning books, especially if the only reason is because they are counter the the teachings of the bible. the district in Republic is a public school district paid for by the taxpayers. the teachings of the bible have no place in a public school, so on that reason alone i have a major issue with banning these books. if you feel that the book is inappropriate for your kids, then don't let them check it out or buy it. don't penalize the rest of those kids by taking it out of the school library or banning it from being part of the curriculum. we should be encouraging kids to read whatever they can get their hands on instead of playing video games or playing around online. i think it is stupid to ban a book these days, if someone wants to read it they can just buy it at a store or buy it online. this banning is just symbolic in my opinion.


SW Missouri district bans 2 books, including 'Slaughterhouse Five'

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/educ ... 0f31a.html


REPUBLIC, Mo. • Two books have been banned from the libraries AND curriculum at Republic High School after a parent complained that their content taught principles contrary to the Bible.

The district's school board voted Monday to remove Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" and Sarah Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer," but to allow Laurie Halse Anderson's "Speak" to be used in the district's high school, The Springfield News-Leader reported.

Superintendent Vern Minor said the board based its decision on the whether the books were age-appropriate.

"We very clearly stayed out of discussion about moral issues," Minor said. "Our discussions from the get-go were age-appropriateness."

Wesley Scroggins of Republic, who had challenged the books and lesson plans last year, said he was mostly pleased with the decision.

"I congratulate them for doing what's right and removing the two books," said Scroggins. "It's unfortunate they chose to keep the other book."

It took a year to reach a decision because the complaint prompted the 4,500-student district to form a task force to develop book standards for all its schools, Minor said. The panel considered existing policies and public rating systems that already exist for music, TV and video games before adopting new standards in April. Those standards were applied to the three books, Minor said.

Several people read the books and provided feedback.

"It was really good for us to have this discussion," Minor said. "Most schools stay away from this and they get on this rampage, the whole book-banning thing, and that's not the issue here. We're looking at it from a curriculum point of view."

Minor said most people supported keeping "Speak," which is taught in English I and II courses, because although it had one short description of a rape, it had a strong message at the end.

But he said those who read "Twenty Boy Summer," available in the library, thought it sensationalized sexual promiscuity and included questionable language, drunkenness, lying to parents and a lack of remorse. And he said "Slaughterhouse Five" contained crude language and adult themes that are more appropriate for college-age students.

Minor said students will be allowed to use those two books for extra class material if they have their parents' permission.


.................................................................
also, what is the point in banning a book if the kids can get credit for them only if they have their parent's permission??

Jason P

If I've observed one thing, it that parents on school boards are usually fucking nuts and have too much time on their hands. That goes for the ones that coach sports in their free time as well (although they are crazy for having to deal with crazier parents in the stands).

I've never heard of these books before, so I'm guessing the majority of kids will be unfazed by this banning.

keeponrockin

My high school history teacher: "If you want to get kids to read a book say you want to ban it".

Banning books is idiotic, a school is a place to learn, and sometimes to learn you have to be uncomfortable.

arthurdent

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

And he said "Slaughterhouse Five" contained crude language and adult themes that are more appropriate for college-age students.

um, I read Slaughterhouse Five when I was in 8th grade. :roll:

Go Beavers

Sounds like that wonderful "local control of schools" I hear from Ron Paul supporters really is a great idea!

whygohome

Puritanism 2.0

gimmesometruth27

arthurdent wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

And he said "Slaughterhouse Five" contained crude language and adult themes that are more appropriate for college-age students.

um, I read Slaughterhouse Five when I was in 8th grade. :roll:

yeah me too. that is why i was so shocked to read that this dude said it is more suitable for college aged people.

The Crooked Heart

My aunt lives in Republic and she would have been one to want them banned. Aside from the banned book issue I can't stand the idea of removing the situation from the child rather than teach them to make better choices. So many in this generation will grow up not having any idea how to think for themselves because the parents removed all of their options as children.

catefrances

TOWNSPERSON: slaughterhouse 5... isnt that a terrible name for a book

REN: oh its a classic

TOWNPERSON: not in this town

REN: in any town

TOWNSPERSON: tom sawyer is a classic

a little exchange between ren mccormick and the good christian folks of beaumont in footloose.

Prince Of Dorkness

Go Beavers wrote:

Sounds like that wonderful "local control of schools" I hear from Ron Paul supporters really is a great idea!

Well Ron Paul is a bat-shit crazy lunatic who comes across as very sane.

All that political "Free to be you and me so long as you are just like me" bullshit makes the middle and former-middle class white people feel all nice and special but it opens the door for crap like this and then yells "COME AND FORCE YOUR INSANITY ON THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF FREE-DUMB!!!"

Ron Paul, it was pointed out in another thread, doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage. Except his own, of course... which is why he's legally married.

I'm sure Ron Paul will support the rights of these people to slowly chip away at books until the Firemen come to burn them and people are forced to "become" books by memorizing them. (and if you didn't get that reference, shame on you)

mikepegg44

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Sounds like that wonderful "local control of schools" I hear from Ron Paul supporters really is a great idea!

Well Ron Paul is a bat-shit crazy lunatic who comes across as very sane.

All that political "Free to be you and me so long as you are just like me" bullshit makes the middle and former-middle class white people feel all nice and special but it opens the door for crap like this and then yells "COME AND FORCE YOUR INSANITY ON THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF FREE-DUMB!!!"

Ron Paul, it was pointed out in another thread, doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage. Except his own, of course... which is why he's legally married.

I'm sure Ron Paul will support the rights of these people to slowly chip away at books until the Firemen come to burn them and people are forced to "become" books by memorizing them. (and if you didn't get that reference, shame on you)

Well it doesn't look like the federal government is doing much to stop these books from being banned, so what does the department of education do that isn't already done?

I am sorry for you that you feel that way about Ron Paul. If he is batshit crazy(can't we think of a new term), I can't imagine what you call other politicians. Keep believing in politicians who bend to the political winds...because that has worked out well for everyone. And your point about his marriage is complete garbage, but we don't have to get into that again, as we both know where we stand on the issue.

Jason P

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Ron Paul, it was pointed out in another thread, doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage. Except his own, of course... which is why he's legally married.

So unless someone's view on marriage is exactly the same as your view, they are insane? This one issue trumps everything else and leads you to assume that every other opinion they have must be nuts and shouldn't even be considered for debate?

That logic seems insane to me.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Ron Paul, it was pointed out in another thread, doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage. Except his own, of course... which is why he's legally married.

So unless someone's view on marriage is exactly the same as your view, they are insane? This one issue trumps everything else and leads you to assume that every other opinion they have must be nuts and shouldn't even be considered for debate?

That logic seems insane to me.

P.O.D. has listed the things about ron paul that he disagrees with on several occasions. it is not just the marriage thing.

also, what i find quite funny about dr paul is that last election he was scoffed at and not even allowed to debate. and that was by people in the republican party, so yeah, some republicans think he is crazy as well.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

P.O.D. has listed the things about ron paul that he disagrees with on several occasions. it is not just the marriage thing.

also, what i find quite funny about dr paul is that last election he was scoffed at and not even allowed to debate. and that was by people in the republican party, so yeah, some republicans think he is crazy as well.

they find his libertarian ideals contrary to the social conservatism the party establishment wants to add or keep as the laws of the land. Drug enforcement being one of those. The republicans for the most part aren't for any smaller government than democrats.

cincybearcat

So, wait, they are "banning" the book from the curriculum in class?

This seems less like banning and more like re-working the curriculum. It even mentions the books being available for extra class material with the parents permission.


I'm certainly not for banning books, but I don't think it's bad to look at the appropriateness of books specifically being taught by teachers in the classroom. We want parents involved in their kids school lives, without them involved the kids will fail, but then we want the teachers to make all the decisions? It seems like this was handled fairly well. There are plenty of good books out there.

But maybe I'm reading this wrong.

gimmesometruth27

cincybearcat wrote:

So, wait, they are "banning" the book from the curriculum in class?

This seems less like banning and more like re-working the curriculum. It even mentions the books being available for extra class material with the parents permission.


I'm certainly not for banning books, but I don't think it's bad to look at the appropriateness of books specifically being taught by teachers in the classroom. We want parents involved in their kids school lives, without them involved the kids will fail, but then we want the teachers to make all the decisions? It seems like this was handled fairly well. There are plenty of good books out there.

But maybe I'm reading this wrong.

they are taking the books out of the school/district libraries to limit access to the books. because they are counter to the teachings in the bible. it's not cool to limit access to these books. slaughterhouse 5 is a classic. and definitely not cool to limit access to them because they may or may not contradict the bible.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

So, wait, they are "banning" the book from the curriculum in class?

This seems less like banning and more like re-working the curriculum. It even mentions the books being available for extra class material with the parents permission.


I'm certainly not for banning books, but I don't think it's bad to look at the appropriateness of books specifically being taught by teachers in the classroom. We want parents involved in their kids school lives, without them involved the kids will fail, but then we want the teachers to make all the decisions? It seems like this was handled fairly well. There are plenty of good books out there.

But maybe I'm reading this wrong.

they are taking the books out of the school/district libraries to limit access to the books. because they are counter to the teachings in the bible. it's not cool to limit access to these books. slaughterhouse 5 is a classic. and definitely not cool to limit access to them because they may or may not contradict the bible.

the supreme court has already ruled that the books cannot be taken out of libraries
“Local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books …”
— U.S. Supreme Court in Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)

that does not protect curriculum however...so if they remove it from school libraries, expect this to not hold up to any legal challenge.

Jason P

I think this issue is a small microcosm of why it's so hard to federally mandate everything. Gimmi made a point that it is a conservative district and they are making a rule that the majority is OK with. Liberal districts do the same thing ... California is adding GLTB history to their curriculum because the majority are OK with it.

Both districts are censoring as they see fit (the Pledge is a better example on the left) and the majority of constituents are OK with what is happening in their district ... although they are super angry on what is happening 1,000 miles away. And depending on what our personal views are, we are happy with what one district is doing and mad at what another is doing, even though it doesn't affect us.

Why can't we just accept that their are many different cultures throughout this nation? I'm not super religious, yet I live in the Bible belt. I accept that religion is going to have an impact on just about everything because that is where I choose to live. I also used to live in San Francisco and accepted that the GLTB was going to have an impact on just about everything because that is where I choose to live.

I don't think people in Indiana should be forced to indoctrinate by rules set forth in San Francisco, and I don't think San Francisco should be influenced by beliefs in Indiana. It would not be logical.

I don't understand why people on the far right and far left have issues understanding this.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Sounds like that wonderful "local control of schools" I hear from Ron Paul supporters really is a great idea!

Well Ron Paul is a bat-shit crazy lunatic who comes across as very sane.

All that political "Free to be you and me so long as you are just like me" bullshit makes the middle and former-middle class white people feel all nice and special but it opens the door for crap like this and then yells "COME AND FORCE YOUR INSANITY ON THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF FREE-DUMB!!!"

Ron Paul, it was pointed out in another thread, doesn't think the government should be involved in marriage. Except his own, of course... which is why he's legally married.

I'm sure Ron Paul will support the rights of these people to slowly chip away at books until the Firemen come to burn them and people are forced to "become" books by memorizing them. (and if you didn't get that reference, shame on you)

Well it doesn't look like the federal government is doing much to stop these books from being banned, so what does the department of education do that isn't already done?.

I think Ron should answer that since he thinks the DOE is indoctrinating kids.

mikepegg44

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Well it doesn't look like the federal government is doing much to stop these books from being banned, so what does the department of education do that isn't already done?.

I think Ron should answer that since he thinks the DOE is indoctrinating kids.

That wasn't an answer to my question. He said what he thinks the education system is doing, but my question to you was what does the department of Education do that isn't already done? I will even add to that, what does it do that isn't or cannot be done by the states?
.

Go Beavers

mikepegg44 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Well it doesn't look like the federal government is doing much to stop these books from being banned, so what does the department of education do that isn't already done?.

I think Ron should answer that since he thinks the DOE is indoctrinating kids.

That wasn't an answer to my question. He said what he thinks the education system is doing, but my question to you was what does the department of Education do that isn't already done? I will even add to that, what does it do that isn't or cannot be done by the states?
.

Here's a link to the DOE page:

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/focus/what_pg2.html#howdoes

The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.