Religious leaders have a lot of power because a majority of Americans are religious. It's been this way since the 1700's. The "extreme" label is slapped on when a small minority start suing and protesting an ideology that the majority is OK with.
Like, what is the purpose of atheist groups renting billboards and slapping ads on buses to let everyone know God doesn't exist? What the heck is the point? I get that people don't believe in God, but why wave a flag in everyone's face proclaiming it? It's not like someone who has been going to church all their life is going to have a major revelation just because of a billboard. It just pisses people off. Someone speaks up that they shouldn't have the billboards because it offends them and they are labeled an extremist by the guys paying for the ad.
It's not extremism. It's business as usual.
i slap the extreme label when religious zealots want to impose their ideologies on the mass public ... and when god is used to serve an agenda ...
Wow! I just need to get abortions, Israel, and the national debt worked into this thread and it will be a new personal record.
Back to the books ... as others have noted, they are just excluding them from curriculum so no big deal. I remember having to choose from a list of approved books by certain teachers in English class when I was in H.S.
To me I see it as a school district determining their curriculum.
Nobody is saying they should be forced to include Slaughterhouse 5 in lessons. I read that when I was 13 but I doubt most of my school mates would have made it through that. Nor would I want it taught. But removing it because it's not Christian enough is wrong and un-American.
Please. No need to try to talk down to people.
Wait a minute, the issue was brought up by someone who claimed those things you say, but was the decision based on that? I mean, the school board looked into the issue because of the claim, but they could have simply made the decision they did because they didn't believe the books were appropriate for any number of reasons, not just because of religion. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
Like, what is the purpose of atheist groups renting billboards and slapping ads on buses to let everyone know God doesn't exist? What the heck is the point? I get that people don't believe in God, but why wave a flag in everyone's face proclaiming it? It's not like someone who has been going to church all their life is going to have a major revelation just because of a billboard. It just pisses people off. Someone speaks up that they shouldn't have the billboards because it offends them and they are labeled an extremist by the guys paying for the ad.
It's not extremism. It's business as usual.
On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:
Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.
Like, what is the purpose of atheist groups renting billboards and slapping ads on buses to let everyone know God doesn't exist? What the heck is the point? I get that people don't believe in God, but why wave a flag in everyone's face proclaiming it? It's not like someone who has been going to church all their life is going to have a major revelation just because of a billboard. It just pisses people off. Someone speaks up that they shouldn't have the billboards because it offends them and they are labeled an extremist by the guys paying for the ad.
It's not extremism. It's business as usual.
On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:
Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.
not really, call me when extreme atheists start wars in the name of no religion.
and this isn't censorship - it's changing the curriculum. and not every book is appropriate for every age group so choice have to be made. just because you disagree that a book might be or not be age appropriate doesn't make it censorship.
On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:
Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.[/quote]
not really, call me when extreme atheists start wars in the name of no religion.
It will get there some day, i've scene it evolve in just my lifetime, where do you think it proactive athests are heading?
and this isn't censorship - it's changing the curriculum. and not every book is appropriate for every age group so choice have to be made. just because you disagree that a book might be or not be age appropriate doesn't make it censorship.[/quote]
That same kid your trying to protect is allowed to watch the news right? what could be more horrifying? but if we stop them from reading this book, everything will be alright then. You cant stop kids from information now a days, it comes in too many varities.
To me I see it as a school district determining their curriculum.
Nobody is saying they should be forced to include Slaughterhouse 5 in lessons. I read that when I was 13 but I doubt most of my school mates would have made it through that. Nor would I want it taught. But removing it because it's not Christian enough is wrong and un-American.
Please. No need to try to talk down to people.
Wait a minute, the issue was brought up by someone who claimed those things you say, but was the decision based on that? I mean, the school board looked into the issue because of the claim, but they could have simply made the decision they did because they didn't believe the books were appropriate for any number of reasons, not just because of religion. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
having gone to college a short distance from republic, i can guarantee that it was not just that it was "age inappropriate". the school board should not have even taken the complaint about it being contrary to the bible's teachings into account, or as an excuse to review and ban the book from the library.
if this had happened in st louis or kansas city that complaint would have been laughed out of the school board meeting.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
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?
.
The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.
I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...
Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
Room & board, along with tuition has doubled at the public school I graduated from in 2000. In ten short years the overall cost of tuition and room & board went from $9,000 to $20,000. I couldn't believe it when a guy I work with told me how much it was costing him! If it cost that much when I was attending, I'd probably be a pipe fitter or working at the sawmill right now.
You would be nuts to have more then two kids nowadays.
That same kid your trying to protect is allowed to watch the news right? what could be more horrifying? but if we stop them from reading this book, everything will be alright then. You cant stop kids from information now a days, it comes in too many varities.
did you read the part where it said the books could be read for extra work/credit? again that's not censorship but a CHOICE to not have it a part of the curriculum or in their library. every school has only so much space in their library so choices have to be made on what books to include and not include. these books were chosen not to be a part of that - that's not censorship if they are still ALLOWED to read the books for some credit.
The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.
I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...
Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.
Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The first thought that comes to my mind is that funding can, in a sense, balance things out for the poorer states.
I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...
Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.
Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.
Not saying you're an idiot, just saying that Pell grants are something that comes from the DOE. Also, I was giving the average cost of tuition, not tuition at your school. I'll make the argument that tuition increase has come from the decrease in funding from the state and federal level. If enrollment declines, what's going to be cut is services, not tuition.
The American higher education system is the best in the world, although that status is being challenged more and more recently. It doesn't need a complete overhaul in order to reduce the level of tuition increases.
That same kid your trying to protect is allowed to watch the news right? what could be more horrifying? but if we stop them from reading this book, everything will be alright then. You cant stop kids from information now a days, it comes in too many varities.
did you read the part where it said the books could be read for extra work/credit? again that's not censorship but a CHOICE to not have it a part of the curriculum or in their library. every school has only so much space in their library so choices have to be made on what books to include and not include. these books were chosen not to be a part of that - that's not censorship if they are still ALLOWED to read the books for some credit.
I missed that, i see what your saying, good point.
I found links to websites with generalized answers. I was asking you if you knew what they did. Funding doesn't balance out anything...teaching to national standardized tests doesn't make for a good education...neither does tying funding to the results of those tests.
As far as education loans to students...that might be the biggest boondoggle of them all. it seems to me, and I could be wrong certainly, that continually raising the out put of stafford loans so that students can "afford" the rising costs of tuition by going further and further into debt simply allows for the rising costs of tuition. Meaning colleges know that the federal government will continue to raise the amount that they give out to students based on the costs of tuition at a university so they know that they can keep raising them up while offering nothing new to the students except more crowded class rooms so that the university can pay for research projects for the professors who aren't really there to teach anyway ... I wonder if state schools would be charging 18000-20000 a year in tuition for 35000 students if the feds weren't subsidizing most of it. Maybe the cost of a college education would be fucking reasonable. who knows, none of us ever will because attacking the department of education and the programs there in makes one ...how was it said...bat-shit crazy...
Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.
Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.
Not saying you're an idiot, just saying that Pell grants are something that comes from the DOE. Also, I was giving the average cost of tuition, not tuition at your school. I'll make the argument that tuition increase has come from the decrease in funding from the state and federal level. If enrollment declines, what's going to be cut is services, not tuition.
The American higher education system is the best in the world, although that status is being challenged more and more recently. It doesn't need a complete overhaul in order to reduce the level of tuition increases.
We will just have to disagree, I think tuition would come down as enrollment decreased in universities around the country. demand drives cost. but the cat is already out of the bag on the cost of a college education...and herding is going to be a bitch.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The school board in Republic, Mo., voted 4-0 to eliminate Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" and Sarah Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" from the high school curriculum and library, respectively, after a local man led an effort to deem the novels inappropriate.
Wesley Scroggins, a business professor at Missouri State University, who also pioneered a movement to reshape middle school sex-education classes in Republic's schools, wrote in a column last year that Vonnegut's classic contained enough profanity to "make a sailor blush," and warned that "Twenty Boy Summer" was similarly dangerous.
"In this book," Scroggins wrote, "drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex."
Of the members of the school board who voted on the issue last Monday, according to UPI, only one -- Melissa Duvall -- had actually read either of the books in question.
The superintendant of the Republic district, Vern Minor, was out of town and did not return emails and calls requesting comment, though he told UPI on Monday that Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" "promotes or sensationalizes sexual promiscuity," which contributed to the book's removal.
Outside of the Republic School District, "Summer" has received positive reviews, with Booklist and Kirkus both deeming it a mature, romantic work in the vein of Nicholas Sparks and Jodi Picoult.
After the banning was announced, the author took to her blog where she lambasted the decision.
"Not every teen who has sex outside of a relationship feels guilty, shameful, or regretful later on," Ockler wrote. "And you can ban my books from every damn district in the country -- I'm still not going to write to send messages or make teens feel guilty because they've made choices that some people want to pretend don't exist."
"That's my choice," Ockler continued. "And I'll never be ashamed of my choice to write about real issues."
"Slaughterhouse-Five" -- Vonnegut's satirical World War II, time-traveling saga -- was voted the 18th greatest English-language novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library and was featured in Time magazine's "100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century" issue.
It's also one of the most frequently "challenged" books of the past few decades, according to the American Library Association.
In 2000, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was removed from the sophomore reading list at a Coventry, R.I., High School, after a parent complained that it "contains vulgar language, violent imagery, and sexual content." In 2006, the book was ultimately "retained" on the Northwest Suburban High School District 214 reading list in Arlington Heights, Ill., after a board member "elected amid promises to bring her Christian beliefs into all board decision-making," pointed out a few controversial excerpts she'd found on the Internet.
In 2007, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was challenged in a Howell, Mich., court to determine whether it violated laws against "distribution of sexually explicit materials to minors." The county's top prosecutor ultimately decided against any legal action.
"It is clear that the explicit passages illustrated a larger literary, artistic or political message and were not included solely to appeal to the prurient interests of minors," the prosecutor wrote.
It seems many parents and school board members are under the impression that their kids still get their "kicks" from reading classic, American novels, rather than going on the Internet, watching television, talking to their friends or doing any number of things.
Scroggins' original call to action, written in September 2010, questioned the values of the school board, and asked parents to get more involved with issues like this.
"This is unacceptable, considering that most of the school board members and administrators claim to be Christian. How can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality?" he wrote.
The award-winning children's author Judy Blume, whose books have frequently come under fire from schools, might have put it best when she wrote:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship.
"As always, young readers will be the real losers."
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
i slap the extreme label when religious zealots want to impose their ideologies on the mass public ... and when god is used to serve an agenda ...
Back to the books ... as others have noted, they are just excluding them from curriculum so no big deal. I remember having to choose from a list of approved books by certain teachers in English class when I was in H.S.
Please. No need to try to talk down to people.
Wait a minute, the issue was brought up by someone who claimed those things you say, but was the decision based on that? I mean, the school board looked into the issue because of the claim, but they could have simply made the decision they did because they didn't believe the books were appropriate for any number of reasons, not just because of religion. Unless I'm reading it wrong.
On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:
Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.
not really, call me when extreme atheists start wars in the name of no religion.
and this isn't censorship - it's changing the curriculum. and not every book is appropriate for every age group so choice have to be made. just because you disagree that a book might be or not be age appropriate doesn't make it censorship.
On Subject: Hate Censorship of anykind. Banning books in this day and age, with the internet around= :roll:
Off Subject:
Love this Post!!! , i was talking to my wife last night about this, i used to be an atheists, but i never felt the need to be a Dick about it. Extreme Atheistism is becoming as bad Extreme religous groups.[/quote]
not really, call me when extreme atheists start wars in the name of no religion.
It will get there some day, i've scene it evolve in just my lifetime, where do you think it proactive athests are heading?
and this isn't censorship - it's changing the curriculum. and not every book is appropriate for every age group so choice have to be made. just because you disagree that a book might be or not be age appropriate doesn't make it censorship.[/quote]
That same kid your trying to protect is allowed to watch the news right? what could be more horrifying? but if we stop them from reading this book, everything will be alright then. You cant stop kids from information now a days, it comes in too many varities.
if this had happened in st louis or kansas city that complaint would have been laughed out of the school board meeting.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Do you want me to defend the DOE's existence?
It sounds like your suggesting that DOE is colluding with universities with regard to the rising tuition, which for public universities, is around $7,000 to $7,500 a year, not $18,000.
I'm not sure how a low interest loan is a boondoggle. The loan amounts also haven't kept pace with the rise in tuition amount, and many are denied federal aid. Also, federal Pell grants aren't loans.
You would be nuts to have more then two kids nowadays.
did you read the part where it said the books could be read for extra work/credit? again that's not censorship but a CHOICE to not have it a part of the curriculum or in their library. every school has only so much space in their library so choices have to be made on what books to include and not include. these books were chosen not to be a part of that - that's not censorship if they are still ALLOWED to read the books for some credit.
Please don't tell me how much the school I attend costs now. 448 a credit, 640 for out of state. Full time student at 15 credits is 6700 or 9600 depending, a semester. for the 120 credits that is 53,000 for a degree. 53,000 for a degree. that is of course if there are no tuition hikes during that time. That doesn't count living on campus, or not, which would mean for most people more student loans. I realize not all of them are federal, but lots of them are... add room and board and what do you have?
No i do not think they are colluding. I think the program was started with great intentions but has now created a situation that universities count on to continue to grow. Administrators are running businesses.
Ask yourself one question, if the universities couldn't count on a large portion of their students getting financial aid...do you think they would be able to grow at the rate they grow and charge what they charge?
Without that money, tuition rates would HAVE to go down as the amount of people who can "afford" school wouldn't drop to the point that the universities would either have to double the cost, or have tuition at the very least stagnate and stay the same year in and year out. Without government help Most universities would have to charge less to keep the same number of students. At least that is how I feel about it.
I realize grants are not loans. I am not an idiot. People leave state schools in debt, that is unless they go part time and work full time. Even then it becomes more and more difficult to pay the bills. The answer isn't more federal loans, it is a complete and utter overhaul of our education system.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Not saying you're an idiot, just saying that Pell grants are something that comes from the DOE. Also, I was giving the average cost of tuition, not tuition at your school. I'll make the argument that tuition increase has come from the decrease in funding from the state and federal level. If enrollment declines, what's going to be cut is services, not tuition.
The American higher education system is the best in the world, although that status is being challenged more and more recently. It doesn't need a complete overhaul in order to reduce the level of tuition increases.
I missed that, i see what your saying, good point.
We will just have to disagree, I think tuition would come down as enrollment decreased in universities around the country. demand drives cost. but the cat is already out of the bag on the cost of a college education...and herding is going to be a bitch.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Missouri School District Bans 'Slaughterhouse-Five' And 'Twenty Boy Summer'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/2 ... 13078.html
The school board in Republic, Mo., voted 4-0 to eliminate Kurt Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-Five" and Sarah Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" from the high school curriculum and library, respectively, after a local man led an effort to deem the novels inappropriate.
Wesley Scroggins, a business professor at Missouri State University, who also pioneered a movement to reshape middle school sex-education classes in Republic's schools, wrote in a column last year that Vonnegut's classic contained enough profanity to "make a sailor blush," and warned that "Twenty Boy Summer" was similarly dangerous.
"In this book," Scroggins wrote, "drunken teens also end up on the beach, where they use their condoms to have sex."
Of the members of the school board who voted on the issue last Monday, according to UPI, only one -- Melissa Duvall -- had actually read either of the books in question.
The superintendant of the Republic district, Vern Minor, was out of town and did not return emails and calls requesting comment, though he told UPI on Monday that Ockler's "Twenty Boy Summer" "promotes or sensationalizes sexual promiscuity," which contributed to the book's removal.
Outside of the Republic School District, "Summer" has received positive reviews, with Booklist and Kirkus both deeming it a mature, romantic work in the vein of Nicholas Sparks and Jodi Picoult.
After the banning was announced, the author took to her blog where she lambasted the decision.
"Not every teen who has sex outside of a relationship feels guilty, shameful, or regretful later on," Ockler wrote. "And you can ban my books from every damn district in the country -- I'm still not going to write to send messages or make teens feel guilty because they've made choices that some people want to pretend don't exist."
"That's my choice," Ockler continued. "And I'll never be ashamed of my choice to write about real issues."
"Slaughterhouse-Five" -- Vonnegut's satirical World War II, time-traveling saga -- was voted the 18th greatest English-language novel of the 20th century by the Modern Library and was featured in Time magazine's "100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century" issue.
It's also one of the most frequently "challenged" books of the past few decades, according to the American Library Association.
In 2000, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was removed from the sophomore reading list at a Coventry, R.I., High School, after a parent complained that it "contains vulgar language, violent imagery, and sexual content." In 2006, the book was ultimately "retained" on the Northwest Suburban High School District 214 reading list in Arlington Heights, Ill., after a board member "elected amid promises to bring her Christian beliefs into all board decision-making," pointed out a few controversial excerpts she'd found on the Internet.
In 2007, "Slaughterhouse-Five" was challenged in a Howell, Mich., court to determine whether it violated laws against "distribution of sexually explicit materials to minors." The county's top prosecutor ultimately decided against any legal action.
"It is clear that the explicit passages illustrated a larger literary, artistic or political message and were not included solely to appeal to the prurient interests of minors," the prosecutor wrote.
It seems many parents and school board members are under the impression that their kids still get their "kicks" from reading classic, American novels, rather than going on the Internet, watching television, talking to their friends or doing any number of things.
Scroggins' original call to action, written in September 2010, questioned the values of the school board, and asked parents to get more involved with issues like this.
"This is unacceptable, considering that most of the school board members and administrators claim to be Christian. How can Christian men and women expose children to such immorality?" he wrote.
The award-winning children's author Judy Blume, whose books have frequently come under fire from schools, might have put it best when she wrote:
"It's not just the books under fire now that worry me. It is the books that will never be written. The books that will never be read. And all due to the fear of censorship.
"As always, young readers will be the real losers."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."