A Solution?

In response to censoring books flat out a school district in Indianapolis has found a solution – involving parents in the curriculum review process. The school district received complaints about the novel, Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini. Kite Runner is the first novel of an Afghani author to be translated into English. The superintendent, Michael Copper “recommended that all material used in classrooms be reviewed by a committee of teachers, administrators, and parents,” according to the National Coalition Against Censorship.

This plan could be a possible solution to the conflict between what is being taught in schools and displeasure by outside forces, particularly parents. After all, who knows a kid better than their parent?

If a parent has a direct concern about the subject matter the parent, along with the teacher, could come to some common ground and hopefully both try to convey, to each other and subsequently to the students, what they want taught. This policy would allow teachers to teach and not have to worry about parental complaint. There would be no worry of stepping on toes because that process will be well and done with before the school year would even begin.

Further, the policy could even foster a greater bond between parents and teachers than that provided by a PTA or similar organization.

The PTA, historically, does not have an established role dealing with curriculum. Its focus tends to revolve around campus safety and funding for activities and special programs such as sports and music that would create an overall bond and support network of the home with the school.

Fundamentally, this policy and process could work. It could alleviate future headaches and establish a curriculum that everyone could be happy with.

However, there are a few downsides that I could see to this situation. Most parents are not educators by profession and there is no precedent of an average parent, in essence, teaching other than in instances of home-schooling. A classroom is not necessarily designed to teach only certain pre-approved subjects. A classroom is a place that a child, or young person, can be exposed to many different ideas and fresh perspectives.

An emphasis on parental involvement within the school is great, but students are not sent to school only to learn what their parents want them to. A greater emphasis on parental involvement within education itself should be supported – another solution could be just an increased dialogue between parent and student of what is being taught. Lessons can be learned at home as well as in school. Parents have the responsibility to instill values and moral in their children that they themselves see fit, but that doesn’t mean that learning about other values will create a deviant.

Criticism is important but there could be more effective answers than simply meddling in school affairs. Sunday and Hebrew schools are an outlet where kids can be taught certain moral and religious values and not be censored. Not everyone in a public school has the same values and that is the reason why there is no religious or even overall moral standard in the public school system. That issue is why there is a conflict and also why there is no easy solution.

In the end, there will always be criticism, which altogether isn’t a bad thing; it is just what is done with the criticism that could be dangerous and censorship could occur.

-http://www.ncac.org/literature/20060307~IN-Indianapolis~Kite_Runner_Challenged_in_Indianapolis.cfm

Remember Virginia Tech

*Though I already wrote a similar blog to this not so long ago and it is a little off topic of censorship in high schools, I think that this issue is highly important to education.

Because of Monday’s tragedy at Virginia Tech there has been an increased dialogue about the Second Amendment right to bear arms. After the tragedy at Columbine High School there was a similar dialogue, but that dialogue focused more on the youth subculture and what materials were appropriate for schools. Granted I was ten when Columbine occurred but I do remember school changing significantly. All doors to my school were locked all of the time, save for the front door at the beginning and end of the day. We also had hall monitors constantly walking around making sure nothing was going on and we had people stand in front of the doors to essentially clear whoever wanted to come in. Suspicions were definitely heightened; anything out of the norm was questioned – not just at my school but at schools across the country.

On the news, I remember most hearing of the Trench Coat Mafia and Marilyn Manson and how anything associated with either was generally evil. Being ten, of course I believed this and when my next door neighbor had a Marilyn Mason CD I was unnerved. My next door neighbor was not a killer, but it proves that generalizations are not the answer in this type of scenario. Everyone has to work together to make sure that events like these never happen again.

To some degree of the feeling of personal safety some items can be censored or some dialogue can be deemed out of line. But for the most part to prevent another tragedy an open discussion is the best possible solution as well as an increase in the importance of seeking some form of help.

After Columbine Marilyn Manson issued the following statement regarding what he would have said to the two shooters: "I wouldn't say a thing. I would just listen to them... and that's what nobody did".

That message coincides with the results of a 2000 study by the US Secret Service. The report said that there was no profile to look for in a school shooter, but that the most important thing to do was to watch for behavioral signs and listen to students when they have problems. According to Wikipedia: “A school shooting, unlike other forms of school violence, usually has no single target but is an expression of pent-up rage.”

If that rage is counseled then perhaps tragedy could be adverted.

According to a Yahoo! News report: “During a class discussion of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech, [a] student "made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people," university police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley said.”

This student, Max Carson who attends the University of Colorado at Boulder, was arrested after making comments about how he does get angry enough to want to kill. The student’s father objected to this arrest because of First Amendment rights.

From the article, the student didn’t appear to say anything about actually wanting to commit murder, arresting him is questionable but wanting to know more about his feelings and intentions is incredibly important. From a quick Google search, Max Karson is no stranger to controversy – both in high school and his college years his writings have been subjected to great criticism, even getting him suspended in high school, until the ACLU stepped in.

Since Karson does have a history of messing around with the administration, he may very well have made the comments to start a controversy about what is appropriate to say and when. If he does have a serious issue then the most important thing to do is to listen to him. By banning a book, it doesn’t solve the problem and by ignoring someone their problem does not go away.

One of the main reasons cited for censorship is safety. But safety from what exactly? Every kid who watches a violent movie isn’t going to go out and shoot someone. Some have, obviously, but what does it teach to just leave out something. Young minds are impressionable – but that impressionability is a two way street – not being exposed to something may be just as dangerous as being exposed.

I suppose I too often associate censorship with ignorance and I know that there is not ignorance in every case of censorship, but I suppose that it is some form of a commonality. It’s what the culture wars are all about – there are two sides to every story, sometimes even more and it’s all about trying to find a middle ground that everyone can be somewhat happy with. Sometimes, there just isn’t a solution – no side wants to give way and there is just constant conflict.

-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_massacre

-http://powerreporting.com/files/shoot.pdf

-http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_colorado_1

ALA & The Onion

A major stakeholder in the debate over censoring books in schools is the American Library Association (ALA). The ALA was formed in Pennsylvania in 1876 and is compromised of mostly libraries and their librarians who are dedicated to, as their mission statement reads, “provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all.” One of their main battles revolves around access of information – particularly in book form. Each year the ALA publishes a list of the most commonly banned or challenged books and schools and analyzes why those books are up for such question.

The ALA has also created a Library Bill of Rights, where the first amendment reads: “Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.” Obviously those who are banning/challenging books are in strict violation of this code, therefore the ALA has had a history of publicizing the most banned books and gives the “issues” that apparently are not being taught.

Recently, the ALA has been protesting the USA PATRIOT Act saying the organization “opposes any use of governmental power to suppress the free and open exchange of knowledge and information or to intimidate individuals exercising free inquiry.”

However, the most challenged book of 2006 had nothing to do with terrorists, but did have to do with same-sex parenting. The book was “And Tango Makes Three” by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson. The children’s book, about penguins, is based on the true story of Roy and Silo, two male penguins in New York's Central Park Zoo. The book describes how Tango, a baby girl penguin, was hatched and raised by Roy and Silo. The book was subsequently banned from several different school districts because of the “offensive” materials regarding same-sex parenting.

In 2000, The Onion published an article entitled “Nation’s Teens Disappointed by Banned Books.” The article said that students had formed a coalition and wrote to the ALA about the banned book list in protest that theses books were banned because, overall, they were rather “tame” then what the list makes them out to be. Yes, this article is from The Onion and The Onion is a satirical paper, but many have their articles are created with an ironic truth. The article quotes fictional students complaining that the books on the American Library Association’s really weren’t all that shocking, the reason, the article states, was because kids these days are brought up on “Cinemax and Def Comedy Jam.” There are so many other outlets that a young person could see any sort of material – much of it can be and is highly questionable. So if the banned books on the list aren’t the most shocking material young people have access to, then why are they banned?

If someone can read about some sort of occurrence, whether it is of sexual or political nature, does that solidify its existence? Is reading about something more offensive than it actually happening, or because it is written about does that mean that it could be true? If books such as Lolita are banned because of its sexual nature and pedophilia, then should newspapers be banned too? There are constantly stories about sex offenders and pedophiles. What about Dateline’s special To Catch a Predator?

Anyone could have heard about the Tango story on the news, it is where the idea came from. Is it the marketability and accessibility of a picture book to children that is so threatening? Or is it that in a school censorship can come easy? It would be hard to entirely regulate the news media to make sure that any sort of offensive story wouldn’t be seen by a young person. If that were the case, there would be no news.

So right now, all the ALA can do is publish a list of the most banned books and hopefully convey the message that these pieces of literature are not as dangerous as some may think.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28619

http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=151926

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

A few weeks ago the Supreme Court heard statements about a case, Morse v. Frederick that dealt with a school’s authority to essentially censor its students. In the recent past the Supreme Court has set a precedent that has been in favor of the free exercise of Constitutional rights in schools, however this current case has the potential to change all of that.

At an off-campus parade, in 2002, a student carried a sign that read “Bong Hits 4 Jesus.” According to the Wikipedia entry, the school was let out early on the day that the Olympic torch was to pass through the town so that students could be in attendance. The student, Frederick, was holding the “bong hits” sign and his principal, Morse, ripped it down and then suspended Frederick from school. The initial suspension of five days was extended to ten after Frederick wouldn’t give up the names of his “accomplices” in sign-holding. After Frederick initially filed suit against his principal, the case made its way through the Alaskan court system and was heard on March 19 by the Supreme Court. The essential asking of this case is what the limit on school-sanctioned censorship should be. Could a student, regardless of where they are (on- or off- campus) be held responsible for portraying a different opinion than that of the school he or she attends and be punished?

First of all, the parade was not a school sanctioned event. The school was let out with the intention that the students would attend the parade by the students didn’t have to. The parade was open to the public. From what reports say the sign was not meant to have any amount of political persuasion but just to get attention. It makes sense that the principal was upset at the sign – a five day suspension may be harsh but in the heat of the moment it may be understandable. However, the action is certainly not forgivable. An entire can of worms has been opened up by this case regarding students and the First Amendment right of free speech. In a Washington Post article, Emil Steiner, observed that if you “take away students’ capacity to mock authority … you undermine political expression.” I have to agree with the sentiment. I truly believe that the schools were created, most importantly, to teach its students about how this country was formed and what rights we all have. If the rights of the rest of the world are taken away in its microcosm, then how will the students learn to speak their minds in the future?

In the past half-century the Supreme Court has heard many cases regarding the First Amendment and schools, but none of them have been as encompassing as Morse v. Frederick. Tinker v. Des Moines ruled that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” However, the incident in the current case actually occurred outside the “schoolhouse gate.” The sign was in strict violation to the school’s anti-drug policy, but since there was no mention of the school the sign and the activity was not school related, does the principal have the authority to punish?

Hazelwood v. Kuhlemeir dealt with high school publications and censorship. Hazelwood gave the schools the right to censor what can be put into a high school publication. However, the sign wasn’t as of a high school publication as it was a public statement by a high schooler.

According to CNN, a decision is expected by this July. Hopefully the decision will not further exempt young people from Constitutional freedoms.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/19/scotus.bonghits.ap/index.html

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/high_court_takes_bong_hits_4_j.html

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/tinker.html

Censored Canon

Thomas Jefferson once told John Adams that he could not live without books, however these days many high-schoolers are having to live without. Not every book is under questioning but some of the most popular and important books are under questioning and in many cases are banned from schools. Invoking the Founding Fathers, what would Jefferson think of censoring books in schools on the grounds that the books have controversial subject matter? The Founding Fathers were the original controversial subject matter in this country, which they created to buck the norm forced upon them by the British crown. They created a system of freedom for democracy to prevail that has been constantly challenged in many arenas but one of the largest hotbeds has been the schools and in particular what is acceptable to be taught and read within the schools. However, just because a book is on a canon does not mean that it has to be read. Giving a book a banned status is a harsh statement.

I understand that safety is a vital issue; however, free thinking is not dangerous. The Founding Fathers believed in a free nation and if we choose to censor the thinking of the youth, does that defeat the purpose of democracy? How are young people supposed to learn if they are unable to extract and/or analyze ideas in the place where they go specifically to learn, at school? Instead of censoring why don’t we teach our students to think critically? We should be taught to not take things at face value and to take the effort to form unique opinions. Maybe it is because we are in a culture of “teaching the test,” but could it be that censorship in schools occurs in lieu of teaching prevalent issues? Glancing at a list of banned books, many are banned for political and social reasons. Instead of disregarding the literature altogether, would it be so wrong to teach the issues? Incorporating the literature into lesson plans could prove to be successful and if so, perhaps students could learn life lessons from the literature.

Now, I wouldn’t expect a group of eighth graders to be reading Catch-22. There is a difference between safeguarding for appropriateness and censoring. Content levels in books should be appropriate for the intended age groups. But in all seriousness, if it is the case, you can’t censor real life experiences. Many of the books on the most-banned-books list deal with very real issues. Specifically, The Bell Jar, Go Ask Alice, and The Catcher in the Rye deal with prevalent issues with young people, like the sense of belonging wanted in a young life. These books all describe the journeys of young people who have trouble with following the norm and if a student reads one of these books they wouldn’t automatically become a “deviant.” I don’t think after reading Go Ask Alice someone would be apt to want to seek out drugs and become addicted. If anything it does the reverse, the book showcases the ruin drugs can make of a life. Students could learn from these books - learn that it is important to get help when dealing with an issue, learn to talk about their problems.

There is a fine line between protection and agenda. Speaking of the Tennessee law debated during the Scopes trial Albert Einstein said “any restriction of academic freedom heaps coals of shame upon the community.” In the words of one of the most celebrated scholars of the twentieth century, academia free from censorship is important for quality of life. It would be better to have an open education and to gracefully teach the subject matter than to have a battle over whether or not material is appropriate.

Censorship, School Safety, and the ICP

As a student representative on my high school’s Code of Conduct committee I had the unique opportunity to effectively make changes within my school by way of policy change. Of course, as a teenage girl, my biggest gripe was always with the dress code. I don’t really see why flip flops are a health hazard or why we can’t wear baseball caps because of gang affiliation. (I assure you that there are no gangs, in the conventional sense, where I am from. It would be entirely safe to wear any colored cap and not worry about someone thinking you are from a gang. I’m not even sure that it is common knowledge which colors belong to which gangs.) Usually the meetings occur and very little is changed. However, the day of last year’s Code of Conduct committee meeting rumors swelled throughout the high school about how a certain group of kids were going to come into school the next day with guns and shoot up the place. (For the record, the rumor was false, I’m still not exactly sure how it started but it was definitely false.)

Of course, after hearing the threat of an attack, everyone panicked and soon enough the local media surrounded the school and exacerbated the situation. The certain group that was said to be planning the attack followed a certain band called the Insane Clown Posse (or ICP) and typically wore black clothing and ICP related gear. At the Code of Conduct meeting we discussed what had happened and the Superintendent and Principal assured the committee members that there was really nothing to worry about and that it was just a rumor.

As a student I feel that a school should be somewhat of a sanctuary, a place where all students can feel safe and also a place that you can freely express yourself. That is, within reason. The Code of Conduct had already put into effect a few guidelines about appropriate clothing, particularly banned were politically incorrect and violently offensive apparel. At the meeting I brought up that since “gang-ware” is banned we should consider disallowing ICP related gear. I wasn’t trying to target the so-called ICP Kids. I wasn’t trying to take away their freedom of expression. I knew that if people were to wear ICP gear that others would taunt and tease them and create a potential unsafe environment.

Because of that experience I can understand why censorship in schools is a prevalent issue. However, that does not mean that everyone should have to wear a uniform. Really, censorship, if it must occur, should be taken on a case by case basis. Different areas would obviously have different sensitivities. In my area it just so happens to be with ICP. It’s not the band and their music that causes the sensitivity it is how the band just happened to be related to the situation.

Censorship shouldn’t be as much about parents being upset with what is being taught but about actual safety. I believe in our education system but I also believe that there is room for improvement. If a specific area does have a problem with gangs then maybe uniforms would be beneficial. To arbitrarily censor makes no sense whatsoever, but to say that censorship would cause rebellion is the same as saying as if everything being free and open would lead to rebellion. Some concession must be made be either side. In regard to appropriate attire in the school setting, it is conceivable that some “civil liberties” may be given up in order to protect the safety of students. Protecting for physical safety is entirely different than protecting against, say, literature other materials censored in schools.

culture wars clash - gay marriage

In his article, New York Times columnist Kristof used a statement by President George W. Bush, euphemistically, about “defending marriage” as a reference and basically gave a rebuttal to Bush’s statement. Both men tried to tug at the heartstrings of the reader, the average citizen. Interestingly, they both used history as an advocate for their side. Bush argues that the law is unchanging because marriage, as it is defined between one man and one woman, has been the norm for ions and who are we to up and change history? Kristof states that the law is changing and specifically mentions the not-so-long ago practice of banning interracial marriage. He says the crux of the problem, and thus the solution, lies with changing perceptions, many don’t think twice at an interracial couple while just a generation ago it would have been a grand scandal.

Neither Bush nor Kristof delineates a plan for totally approving or disapproving gay marriage. Bush’s argument is based around then-recent independent judicial decisions that basically went against the norm and the precedent and allowed gay marriage to occur, specifically in San Francisco and the whole of Massachusetts. Bush urges for the “defense” of marriage and cites President Clinton’s passage of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Kristof also mentions President Clinton and discredits him. Kristof purposes, since Clinton was a know adulterer what basis does that give him as a key supporter of DOMA?

Specifically in the anti-gay marriage debate if the argument is brought to a more personal level it could be more convincing. If Bush or whoever happens to be trying to “defend” marriage could give some sort of scientific proof that gay marriage would be the downfall of society they could be much better believed. It is still not entirely understood how people are gay and not straight or straight and not gay, so how can it be inferred, correctly, that the presence of gay marriage would simply corrupt society? Numbers don’t lie and if either side were able to accurately provide information that proves or disproves the effect of gay marriage that side would have a stronger debate and would be able to change opinions and legislation.

But for now, until (and if ever) the issue is settled; President Bush and the anti-gay marriage supporters have an upper hand as they control what legislation would pass. They may essentially be suppressing a group but at least for the time being, if only for being in power, they have a clear advantage.

As gays are more accepted as a group, the fight for gay marriage rages on as both sides of the issue use similar frames to prove their dominance and correctness. There is no clear cut right or wrong answer in this debate. However, to me, to outright ban gay marriage seems a dangerous move. It would essentially make an entire social group second-class citizens. Because of a behavioral difference from what has been dictated to be the “norm” scores of people would be given less status. Status, in this country, is usually taken away when someone has, say, committed a crime. For instance, felons are not allowed to vote. This country does have a history of loving someone being a crime, specifically interracial couples, but as Kristof said laws change.

An amendment entirely banning gay marriage or a law defining marriage as exclusively between one man and one woman could be a foul and disastrous choice. Until bigotry and hate subside, gay marriage should be seen on a state by state basis because, at least for the issue, one law would not correctly and healthily serve fifty unique states.

Bush: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html
Kristof: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/03/opinion/03KRIS.html?ex=1393650000&en=ec2329074ea974dc&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND