Confession...

[Damocles]

I know, and that's where those who wish to censor can get the thin edge of the wedge in. That's why the price of freedom is eternal vigilince. Determining community standards cannot be allowed to be an excuse for censorship and other violations of our first ammendment rights.

So who defines it? The person assigning the books?

I agree, one should be allowed to read whatever book they choose, but I don't think that creating a standards for assigned reading is the same thing as censorship.

For instance, removing the book from the library would be bad, but being able to select a different book from a list to read would be good. More choice is better than forced acceptance.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Some day when I write a novel, I am going to include a few things in it that will seriously anger the religious fundamentalists.

The call for my book to be banned will increase demand for my book tenfold.

That won't be hard to do.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So who defines it? The person assigning the books?

I agree, one should be allowed to read whatever book they choose, but I don't think that creating a standards for assigned reading is the same thing as censorship.

For instance, removing the book from the library would be bad, but being able to select a different book from a list to read would be good. More choice is better than forced acceptance.

Now you see the position literature teachers are in. It's virtually impossible to assign a quality piece of literature to 30 some students with out offending someones parent. Probably the easiest way for a teacher to get into troublei s to teach in a manner that encourages young people to think.

 

[Damocles]

Now you see the position literature teachers are in. It's virtually impossible to assign a quality piece of literature to 30 some students with out offending someones parent. Probably the easiest way for a teacher to get into troublei s to teach in a manner that encourages young people to think.

Or they could include more than one piece of great literature so that people who are squeamish could select a different book. Again, more freedom to choose is good, forced acceptance is bad.

 

[WinterBorn]

Oh shit. You're not going to mention SM's wife are you?

LMAO!!!

 

[WinterBorn]

Or they could include more than one piece of great literature so that people who are squeamish could select a different book. Again, more freedom to choose is good, forced acceptance is bad.

At least some of those books that were challenged were on Alternate Reading lists, not required reading lists.

That was the case of the nonsense in Tuscaloosa.

 

[Damocles]

At least some of those books that were challenged were on Alternate Reading lists, not required reading lists.

That was the case of the nonsense in Tuscaloosa.

I think it is unlikely they prevailed on that. I'm not supporting people that want to ban books, I simply support giving choices to people rather than forcing them to read what you want them to. If the goal of the class is to teach literature and have discussions you can do that as well with two books as with one and not all great literature is controversial.

Personally I would read them both if I were in the class because I simply read everything I can get my hands on.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Or they could include more than one piece of great literature so that people who are squeamish could select a different book. Again, more freedom to choose is good, forced acceptance is bad.

You're missing the point. That alternate would be bound to offend someone else. So when, as a professional, do you take a stand? To me it's like the morons who want to require the teaching of creationism in biology class. Should I have to teach creationsm in my biology class because evolution offends someone?

 

[Damocles]

You're missing the point. That alternate would be bound to offend someone else. So when, as a professional, do you take a stand? To me it's like the morons who want to require the teaching of creationism in biology class. Should I have to teach creationsm in my biology class because evolution offends someone?

Unrealistic and fallacious equivalence.

Two pieces of literature could be found that would make it so that both groups could read one that does not offend. Pilgrims Progress and The Great Gatsby for instance... both are great literature. In your example both are not biology and one should be taught in philosophy class.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Unrealistic and fallacious equivalence.

Two pieces of literature could be found that would make it so that both groups could read one that does not offend. Pilgrims Progress and The Great Gatsby for instance... both are great literature. In your example both are not biology and one should be taught in philosophy class.

And how do you know the other won't offend?

 

[Damocles]

And how do you know the other won't offend?

It doesn't matter if it would, they can choose the other. The point of the class is to teach literature, not to indoctrinate the children into whatever you believe they should read.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

At least some of those books that were challenged were on Alternate Reading lists, not required reading lists.

That was the case of the nonsense in Tuscaloosa.

And some of those books you'd have to wonder why in the world they would be a problem but I do know of instances of Evengelical parents complaining about "The Hobbit" being a required reading assignment.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

It doesn't matter if it would, they can choose the other. The point of the class is to teach literature, not to indoctrinate the children into whatever you believe they should read.

And that's a false accusation on your part. You're assuming that a literature teacher doesn't have sound pedagogical reasons for assigning a certain book as a reading assignment.

 

[Damocles]

And some of those books you'd have to wonder why in the world they would be a problem but I do know of instances of Evengelical parents complaining about "The Hobbit" being a required reading assignment.

I actually understand that one more than 1984. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a secular parallel story, with Gandolf even dying and coming back to life as "The White"...

 

[Damocles]

And that's a false accusation on your part. You're assuming that a literature teacher doesn't have sound pedagogical reasons for assigning a certain book as a reading assignment.

If you select only the reading you believe they should read, it is most definitely somebody else choosing the reading and can be seen as indoctrination. My point wasn't that it was their goal to indoctrinate, it was that limiting choices does not promote the actual intent of the class, it just makes the job easier. I'd prefer to make their job a bit more difficult and give people more choices and allow them to avoid that which you professed they have a right to avoid.

 

[Lao Tse]

see. mott wants indoctrination. He's an internationalist fascist.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

see. mott wants indoctrination. He's an internationalist fascist.

that's a damned lie! I'm a Methodist!

 

[Mott the Hoople]

If you select only the reading you believe they should read, it is most definitely somebody else choosing the reading and can be seen as indoctrination. My point wasn't that it was their goal to indoctrinate, it was that limiting choices does not promote the actual intent of the class, it just makes the job easier. I'd prefer to make their job a bit more difficult and give people more choices and allow them to avoid that which you professed they have a right to avoid.

Again, a false assumption. I'm reasonably sure that a literature teacher has valid pedagogical reasonse for the reading list they choose.

For example, if you wanted to teach using dialect in American literature what alternative would you chose that is superior to Huckleberry Finn? Should you provide an alternative because it uses the word niger (never minding the fact that Jim is the only noble character in the whole damn cast of rascals and villians)? If so, what alternative would you use that demonstrates this literary devise as well or better than Huck Finn?

Besides, isn't being offended or disturbed by what you are reading part of the learning experience? One of the most disturbing books I've ever read was "All Quiet on the Western Front". Should a teacher provide an alternative to this because many find the subject of the mass slaughter of young men disturbing and offensive or disagree politically with the content?

 

[Damocles]

Again, a false assumption. I'm reasonably sure that a literature teacher has valid pedagogical reasonse for the reading list they choose.

For example, if you wanted to teach using dialect in American literature what alternative would you chose that is superior to Huckleberry Finn? Should you provide an alternative because it uses the word niger (never minding the fact that Jim is the only noble character in the whole damn cast of rascals and villians)? If so, what alternative would you use that demonstrates this literary devise as well or better than Huck Finn?

Besides, isn't being offended or disturbed by what you are reading part of the learning experience? One of the most disturbing books I've ever read was "All Quiet on the Western Front". Should a teacher provide an alternative to this because many find the subject of the mass slaughter of young men disturbing and offensive or disagree politically with the content?

Again, I am reasonably sure that the intent of the class can be served, if a little more difficult, allowing choices on that reading list as well.

I prefer the job to be a bit more difficult and people have choices allowing them to avoid that which you, yourself, proclaimed they had a right to avoid, while you believe that a teacher should be stubborn, and regardless of being seen as indoctrinating they should stick to their guns, and force people to read even things that they have a right, again that you stated they had, to ignore if they felt it would offend.... Your reasoning is circular. First you say they have a right to just "not read it" if they feel it would offend, then you say that they cannot be offered any other choice.

It doesn't have to be superior. They can pretty much choose anything by O. Henry and fit that bill.

Yeah. Teachers should have that power... not.

Let me get this directly from you again... Do they have a right not to read that which offends them?

 

[Lao Tse]

pedagogical oligarchical academic syndicalism?