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