Why this? Why that?

This article was taken from an online archive of "The Argus," one of the papers serving the Inside Bay Area [of California] updated 09/30/2006. The article was another "I make my children read banned books and I'm proud of it!" generic type of article, but it contained some information that I found interesting:

Books are challenged for many reasons. Of the 6,364 challenges reported to or recorded by the Office for Intellectual Freedom between 1990 and 2000:

-1,607 were challenges to "sexually explicit" material.
-1,427 to material considered to use "offensive language."
-1,256 to material considered "unsuited to age group."
-842 to material with an "occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism."
-737 to material considered "violent."

Now take a look at this cartoon which I think is pretty accurate: (PIC)

Why do we see such an inversion? Why are books constantly called out on obscene language, sexual or mature situations, and references to the occult while popular television carries them all? TV is littered with mild obscenities across such shows as the sharply occult "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" and "Charmed" (not to mention the new Cartoon Network episodes of "Witch" and the newest incarnation of the Power Rangers titled "Mystic Force") and the heavily sexually charged "Desperate Housewives" "Nip/Tuck" "The OC" and practically all of MTV's programming. And yet "Of Mice and Men," "Harry Potter," and "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" are being publicly burned?

Something is wrong here.

Tell that Venus de Milo hussy to put on some clothes!

This article taken from the New York Times, is one of the first to get me angry in a while.

Ms. McGee, 51, a popular art teacher with 28 years in the classroom, is out of a job after leading her fifth-grade classes last April through the Dallas Museum of Art. One of her students saw nude art in the museum, and after the child’s parent complained, the teacher was suspended. Although the tour had been approved by the principal, and the 89 students were accompanied by 4 other teachers, at least 12 parents and a museum docent, Ms. McGee said, she was called to the principal the next day and “bashed.”

This is outrageous. This, in part, is what turned me so off to teaching in the first place. The fact that an art teacher can get approval to take her students to the distinguished Dallas Museum of Art with 4 other teachers, 12 parents, and a museum docent... and then can be suspended from her teaching job and "bashed" by her superiors because... what, a parent found fine art offensive? Nudity offensive? Does this parent also cover the mirrors inside the bathroom so the child won't catch a glimpse?

Bitter sarcasm aside, this article presents a very startling issue. It seems like all the cards were in place. There were other teacher and parent chaperones. I assume with such a large group there was information sent home, permission slips sent in. Rationally, there was simply no way that a parent could not know that an art museum might feature nudity. And even so, with logic on her side, along with parent approval (except for one), and other teachers present... one parent complains and she looses her job almost instantly. This is unacceptable treatment of teachers everywhere.

The voice of the majority must not be tyrannized... but it certainly should not be elevated to the status of a tyrant itself.

Obscentiy and "Real World" Preparedness

The article I'm commenting on was written by Dr. Selwyn R. Cudjoe and can be found at : http://www.trinicenter.com/Cudjoe/2006/2409.htm.

It's a very good article concerning an issue with literature to be taught in schools containing cuss words in it. I'm not sure where Dr. Cudjoe is located, but I would place the relevance somewhere in the Caribbean due to his mention of the Ministry of Education (which they have there) and the CXC or "Caribbean Examinations Council." Cudjoe comments on a recent objection to the use of Ian McDonald's The Humming-Bird Tree in their schools. It's nice to know that this type of thing isn't occurring just here in the states.

Cudjoe had an excellent argument which I thought echoed some of the words in my first post or focus:

Apart from the desire to expunge "literary material that is unsavory" to our children, the Ministry of Education must offer a better explanation of what literary material is selected and why. ...William Empson, a famous English poet and critic, has argued that "The main purpose of reading imaginative literature is to grasp a wide variety of experience, imagining people with codes and customs very unlike our own."

I love the fact that he used the word "experience" in his discussion, just as I stressed in my first post.

The main point about the article that I wanted to comment on was the theme which I felt pointed out that a few cuss words are the least of our problems when addressing the issues of our young people.

I think of significant importance is the impact of the media on our children. We're always hearing about such protesting about books like Of Mice and Men being vehemently protested against in the schools... but when was the last boycott of the media that you remember? What really has more impact upon young people? Because I know that I read Of Mice and Men in high school, and I remembered that Lenny was a dope who liked rabbits, George had to shoot him, and it was a sad but beautiful book. I actually didn't remember the obscenity in it at all (along with much else of the book). But you can better believe that I can recite every single lyric of all the misogynistic homophobic violent and degrading music that I was listening to at the time.

In an age when 12-year-olds are getting pregnant in school, 18-year-old males are getting put on the sex offenders list for receiving a blow-job in an empty choir recital room, and whole crowds of students are being put in handcuffs for drug trafficking (all three of which happened in my small suburban town) it seems a bit silly to be putting such emphasis on taking a book with a bit of the F-word in it out of schools because it's "corrupting our youth." It's ridiculous.

If nothing else I believe (and I believe that this article says) that the presence of these type of things in school helps to *gasp* educate people about them! I remember when sex-ed began and was being protested against... people saying that presenting such material in schools would encourage children to engage in sex more frequently, etc. Was there the predicted spike in teen pregnancy and sexual activity? No. In fact, some sources report that sexual activity is lower now than it was when sex-ed was not in the classroom (but such findings must be taken with a grain of salt).

What better place is there but a school - the institution which prepares our young people for the "real world" - to address issues like obscenity, nudity, prejudice, racism, sexism, and the evils that this real world will certainly bestow upon our children? I know I would want my child prepared.