Excuses Excuses
The following list represents the most common excuses in regard to the current selection of profane, sexually stimulating, and otherwise vulgar literature assigned to minor children as required reading assignments.
It's "out there," so the kids are going to learn about this sometime. It's best that we discuss it in class.
The kids need to read this stuff to prepare for college (or to take an AP (Advanced Placement) exam).
These books are interesting to the kids.
Taken in context, the offensive material is OK.
The excerpts are too specific. They make the book look bad.
If we take a book out of the REQUIRED curriculum, that is censorship, right?
But if these books are so bad, why are we graduating so many good kids?
But isn't Shakespeare also full of objectionable content? Do you also oppose Shakespeare?
It's "out there," so the kids are going to learn about this sometime. It's best that we discuss it in class.
Communication Arts (English) teachers who feel this way are not respecting the role of parents. Because the school refuses to proactively inform parents about the content of these books, topics such as teen sex, incest, bestiality, rape, and occultism are being discussed behind the parents' backs. This means that parents are intentionally left out of the loop in the current 'education' of their own children regarding many extremely important and serious topics including the use of profanity, sexuality choices, the use of drugs and alcohol, and child abuse. Sadly, the books often promote ideas and values that are opposite of the values taught in the child's home. For example, click here to read about the pervasiveness of the use of the f-word within Blue Valley required reading assignments.
Furthermore, this attitude by teachers also shows disrespect for the English language! Would you expect the band or music teacher to require your child to study how Madonna and Eminem use the f-word, sexually-stimulating words and actions, and other vulgarities in their music just because it's "out there?" Would you want your child's athletic coach to require your child to engage in discussions on the sex life, use of obscenities, and violence among athletes just because it's "out there?" The answer to these problems is NOT to surreptitiously discuss books that promote values that most Blue Valley parents are deeply opposed to behind parents' backs in the form of a required English assignment, yet this what is currently happening.
The material that the English teachers are SUPPOSED to be teaching can be found in the official curriculum goals of the Blue Valley Communication Arts program, and they have a lot to do with proper English language including grammar, the writing process, and vocabulary. Communication Arts teachers have NO MANDATE to add the educational burden of "social issue awareness" to their list of things to teach. The English language itself provides plenty of challenges, and there are hundreds of excellent novels to use that do not include the education of new types of sex or the f-word. Are you satisfied with the way your child reads and writes? If not, one reason may be that your children are spending a tremendous amount of time discussing social issues versus what they are supposed to be studying -- English.
The kids need to read this stuff to prepare for college (or to take an AP (Advanced Placement) exam).
According to whom? According to many colleges and the AP exam board, no, the kids do NOT need to read any of the offensive titles to be well prepared for college or these tests. Parents have researched the books that KU, Kansas State, Harvard, and other universities encourage their incoming freshmen to read, and none of them listed the offensive Morrison, Kingsolver, Conroy, and Crutcher novels that are currently being fed to our children in multiples. These parents have provided this information to the Board of Directors at the Open Forum portion of the June meeting. (To date, however, the Board has not taken any action to address standards of decency or prior parental notification of R-rated content in literature.) Furthermore, reading these specific titles is NOT required for high scores on AP (Advanced Placement) exams. Click here for more information on how to successfully prepare for an AP exam.
These books are interesting to the kids.
Playboy would also be interesting to the kids. So? Think back to your own education and your own favorite teacher. What was the subject? Chemistry? History? Math? A good teacher can make any subject that they are truly knowledgeable and enthusiastic about "interesting to the kids." A teacher who must rely on books that contain tawdry sex and f-words in order to engage interest really has no business being in front of children all day.
Taken in context, the offensive material is OK.
This argument is so illogical, it's offensive to anyone who really thinks about it. Taken in context, a passage is much clearer, understandable, and memorable. Taken in context, sex becomes even more vivid, impressive, and fascinating. Does it surprise anyone that feeding teens a steady diet of sexually-stimulating books awakens their appetite to read more of the same? Does it seem logical or not that feeding teens a diet of sexually-stimulating books might awaken or accelerate their appetite for sexual experimentation? Taken in context, the offensive material often takes on an entirely new level of danger and influence.
The excerpts are too specific. They make the book look bad.
What? How can "excerpts" be too specific? The excerpts are exactly what they are intended and defined to be -- a small taste of the ingredients used to create the story. Yes, many of these excerpts are extremely repugnant, crude, and unacceptable to parents, especially given the fact that a lifetime's worth of GREAT LITERATURE exists that could be easily selected for our kids. The obscene books hurt our children in two ways -- they mentally assault our kids causing immeasurable mental and social harm, and they also steal the opportunity for that child to read a title of positive literary value.
If we take a book out of the REQUIRED curriculum, that is censorship, right?
This flawed excuse displays ignorance about the word "censorship." It also supports an abdication of the fundamental responsibilities of our educator. First of all, classkc.org has never suggested that books should be removed from libraries or that any parent who wants their child to read a particular book should not be allowed to do so. Keeping parents IN the loop on the actual education of their children so they they CAN choose the best books for their children is one of the goals of classkc.org. We obviously wouldn't need to tell you about the content in the assigned books at Blue Valley if the school was proactively informing parents about these subjects themselves! Besides, each public school library, and to a much greater extent, each teacher and class, must block out the vast number of books that are available because money and time only allow a given number of titles to be purchased for the libraries and a tiny fraction of that to be studied in class. So who is "the censor?"
What we HAVE asked is that our Communication Arts (English) classes use the highest quality literature for their intended purpose available. Asking for higher quality textbooks when the existing learning resources have so many negative influences on teens (for example f-words, sex, and suicides) is not only a logical reaction to the problem, it's our responsiblity as parents and patrons. Settling for anything less in our prosperous school system would be pure laziness. In this pursuit for excellence in literature, we fail to see how a vulgar and sexually stimulating book such as Song of Solomon serves as a valid resource for any of the Blue Valley Communication Arts course objectives.
Furthermore, removing a textbook from the curriculum and replacing it with a better textbook is not censorship, it's our obligation to our children which is based on common sense. Anyone using the word "censorship" to describe the goals of classkc.org is using hysterics in order to hide from the real issues we are attempting to discuss -- an honest discussion about the content and messages many books are promoting, and how that relates to the mental and physical health of our minor children. Unfortunately, however, to date, Blue Valley continues to refuse to address this fundamental question of HOW their selected books are actually age appropriate for the minor children that are required to read these books, even though their own internal policies promise the public that the age of the child is examined every time a book is selected for the classroom. Unfortunately, that has NEVER happened. The age of the child being asked to read a book has not been addressed in ANY of the documentation used to support the selection of the current novels. To date, Blue Valley continues to REFUSE to document their decision process regarding this important criterion.
There are MANY EXCELLENT classic and contemporary books that are filtered out of our children's education because the school continues to insist on promoting books with sexually deviant and vulgar storylines. With the time to read only a tiny sliver of the available great literature, why WOULDN'T we insist on the highest quality books reasonably available? We are currently far from that common sense standard.
But if these books are so bad, why are we graduating so many good kids?
Yes, we have some really great kids in the Blue Valley school system, but this argument is also very warped. Yes, many good kids have triumphed over many bad situations. So? This argument implies that requiring kids to read books with many graphic, indecent situations as well as extreme profanity actually contributes to their wholesome character! No, the fact that many great kids have achieved in spite of this nonsense simply speaks to the strength of their families. Unlike many of the books the children are required to read, most families are NOT encouraging their children to use the f-word and to become sexually active.
But isn't Shakespeare also full of objectionable content? Do you also oppose Shakespeare?
This argument is truly a sad one as it shows neither a true understanding of Shakespeare nor a true understanding of the spirit and motives of the classkc.org Web site. Yes, Shakespeare discusses serious subjects such as love, murder, drugs, and violence. But Shakespeare's works contain neither a pervasive nor gratuitous amount of sex, violence, or vulgarity. They do not teach our children about new types of sex nor do they invoke sexually stimulating feelings through explicit passages. Unlike many of our other books, a student or teacher who "talks like Shakespeare" would not be breaking other Blue Valley codes of conduct nor would they be kicked out of school for sexual harassment. Shakespeare's characters do not go through undeveloped, implausible, unresolved, vulgar, sexually-charged, and otherwise morally repugnant storylines found in some of the other books on the required reading list. As Shakespeare's characters work through their humorous, tragic, or dramatic roles, they teach us something about true character and a tremendous amount about the art of creative writing. No, we do not oppose Shakespeare. We consider his works to be an obvious cornerstone of a fundamentally sound education in English literature.