Archive for February, 2010

An NYU History Teacher Supports Intellectual Freedom

Friday, February 12th, 2010

Johnathan Zimmerman | Feb. 9, 2010 | The Philadelphia Inquirer

Profane, Offensive, and Great: Americans have made a habit of taking misguided umbrage at literature.

“Books should offend you,” a professor told my literature class 30 years ago, when I started college. “They should make you squirm and sweat. They should keep you up at night.”

He paused for effect. “Have a nice a day,” he concluded.

Everybody laughed, of course. But the joke was on us. Americans want to feel good, and they want the same for their kids. So we try to protect them from books that hurt.

Look no further than J.D. Salinger’s Catcher in the Rye, which remains one of the most frequently challenged books in American schools and libraries. When Salinger died last month, obituaries dutifully noted that many schools had removed the book in response to parental complaints.

But these complaints have changed over time, marking an important shift in the culture. When Catcher in the Rye first hit the shelves in 1951, critics condemned it as a threat to the body politic. Now they’re more likely to denounce it as insulting to Christian conservatives, who have happily accepted America’s contemporary gospel: Offend no one.

Early detractors focused on Catcher‘s crude language, blasting the book as “obscene,” “pornographic,” and “immoral.” They carefully counted the number of profanities in it, which topped 700 by some calculations.

Critics at the time insisted that these words were bad for everyone. Like the sex-laden comic books of the era, Salinger’s book was accused of threatening Americans’ shared morals. It would therefore soften them up for communism, which was vying with the American system for the soul of the world.

By the 1980s and 1990s, however, the criticisms of Catcher had changed. The critics were mostly from the so-called Christian right, and they said Salinger’s book violated their distinct values and traditions.

In 1992, for example, a group called Concerned Citizens of Florida asked high schools to remove Catcher from required-reading lists because of its “vulgarity, disrespect, and anti-Christian sentiment.” Profanity remained a problem, of course, but for a different reason: It would offend or alienate the “Christians” in a classroom.

Here the Christian right was borrowing a page from the multicultural left, which was trying to insulate racial minorities and women from school materials that might offend them. Self-appointed censors probed textbooks to purge them of allegedly bigoted or stereotypical content, producing some odd distortions along the way. By the late ’80s, for example, books for elementary school students were more likely to depict female characters as spies, shepherds, or anthropologists than as homemakers.

Most notoriously, African American activists demanded that schools remove Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because it uses the racist N-word to describe Jim, the escaped slave who befriends Huck Finn. Here, too, the critics carefully counted the number of appearances of offending words – more than 200! – and complained that the book insulted their sensibilities.

“I can still recall the anger I felt as my white classmates read aloud the word …,” one black critic wrote in 1982, recalling his encounter with Huck Finn 30 years earlier. “In fact, as I write this letter I am getting angry all over again.”

And so do we all. The Merchant of Venice? Anti-Semitic. Of Mice and Men? Racist. (It uses the N-word, too.) The Harry Potter series? “Satanic,” some parents charge, because it embraces witchcraft.

“Instead of ‘Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry,’ let’s say the book series was about Harry attending ‘Hogwarts School of Racism and Bigotry,’ ” one critic wrote in 2001. “Christians consider witchcraft just as sinful and offensive as racism.”

But all great literature offends someone. I can easily understand why Huck Finn makes African Americans uncomfortable (and I would hope it would make whites a bit nervous, too).

But I can’t understand why we need to shield our kids from these bad feelings. Why, oh why, must everybody feel good? Literature should make us squirm and sweat, because that’s when we really start to learn about the world, which is a messy and disquieting place.

So go ahead, get angry at these books. Yell, scream, and even curse if you want. Just don’t deny kids the same experience. And have a nice day.


Jonathan Zimmerman teaches history at New York University and lives in Narberth. He is the author, most recently, of “Small Wonder: The Little Red Schoolhouse in History and Memory” (Yale University Press). He can be reached at jlzimm@aol.com.

Students’ First Amendment Rights in the Age of the Internet: Off-Campus Cyberspeech and School Regulation

Friday, February 5th, 2010

“Students’ First Amendment Rights in the Age of the Internet: Off-Campus Cyberspeech and School Regulation” Boston College Law Review Vol. 50:2. 561. March 2009

Abstract: “Public school students have been using the Internet to tease, bully, and ridicule their classmates, teachers, and schools. The Supreme Court has held that schools can punish students for some speech without violating the constitution, if it is uttered on school grounds during school hours. Courts, however, have been divided over when, if ever, schools may punish students for comparable off-campus cyberspeech. Because the Supreme Court has provided no direct guidance, this Note examines the Supreme Court’s view of students’ First Amendment rights on campus, the student-teacher relationship, and basic First Amendment principles to determine whether schools may punish students for off-campus cyberspeech that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. This Note concludes that although, in some circumstances, schools may punish students for off-campus cyberspeech that attacks their fellow students, it is unconstitutional for schools to do the same where the student speech targets teachers, administrators, or the school itself.”
For full article, go to http://www.bc.edu/schools/law/lawreviews/bclawreview/meta-elements/pdf/50_2/06_tabor.pdf

Manifee District Has Compromise Plan in School Dictionary Dispute

Friday, February 5th, 2010

By Michelle L. Klampe | The Press-Enterprise | January 26, 2010

The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary will return to fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms at Oak Meadows Elementary School, a committee of Menifee Union School District parents, teachers and administrators decided Tuesday.

An alternate dictionary also will be placed in the classrooms, and parents will have the option of choosing which dictionary their child can use, Superintendent Linda Callaway said in a statement about the committee’s decision at a school board meeting Tuesday.

School officials pulled the Merriam-Webster dictionaries from classrooms last week after an Oak Meadows parent complained about a child stumbling across definitions for “oral sex.”

The decision to offer both dictionaries was made by a committee of about a dozen school administrators, teachers and parents. School board policy calls for such a committee to be formed when classroom materials are challenged.

The committee is supposed to determine whether the material supports the curriculum, is educationally appropriate and is suitable for the age level of the students.

The committee met Tuesday to discuss the fate of the Merriam-Webster dictionary, and Callaway read its recommendation at the school board meeting. The statement did go into detail about how the committee came to its decision.

“I just want to thank those who put in the time to resolve this as quickly as they did,” school board President Rita Peters said after Callaway’s announcement.

Parents at Oak Meadows, which is in Murrieta, will be mailed a letter about the two dictionaries as early as today, Callaway said.

Parents who do not want their child using the Merriam-Webster can sign a form at the bottom of the letter and return it to the school.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary was in use only at Oak Meadows, Callaway said.

The alternate is a McGraw-Hill student dictionary. It is already in classrooms, she said.

The collegiate dictionaries were purchased several years ago to allow advanced readers in the fourth and fifth grades to look up words that they didn’t know, school officials said.

Reach Michelle L. Klampe at 951-375-3740 or mklampe@PE.com

Union School Board Backs Book

Friday, February 5th, 2010

 By Clifton Adcock | Word Staff Writer | Published: 1/28/2010

A student’s parents wanted the book banned because it includes a same-sex couple.

A book that was challenged as inappropriate by the parents of a Union Public Schools elementary school student will remain on library shelves, the district’s Board of Education ruled Wednesday night.

The board voted 3-1 to keep the book, “Buster’s Sugartime,” which the parents said was inappropriate because it alluded to a same-sex relationship.

The issue went to the board after the parents took their concerns to the district’s Materials Review Committee in October.

The committee voted 6-1 to keep the book on the school’s library shelves.

The parents, Don and Mary Danz, then appealed that ruling to the school board.

“Buster’s Sugartime,” by Marc Brown, is a condensed version of a 2005 episode of the “Postcards from Buster” series that airs on PBS in which the anthropomorphic animated rabbit Buster visits Vermont during “Mud Season” to learn about the state and how maple syrup is made.

Most of the “Sugartime” episode is devoted to Buster’s following the children of a same-sex couple as they play, make cookies, visit a dairy, have dinner and make maple syrup.

The episode was pulled from many stations after controversy erupted over its showing two same-sex couples.

Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions in 2000 and legalized same-sex marriage last year.

Of the book’s 31 pages of text and pictures, two short passages mention the same-sex couple: “Buster went to visit his mom’s friends Karen and Gillian. They had three children …” and “Lily’s moms, Tracy and Gina, were very good cooks.”

According to the district’s review committee meeting minutes, the Danzes said their kindergarten-age son brought the book home from Thomas Jefferson Elementary School’s media center and that they thought the reference to “two moms” was not appropriate for elementary-age children.

Don Danz, an attorney, told the school board that rather than from a religious or moral perspective, his problem with the book was that it advocated a practice that is not recognized under Oklahoma’s constitution.

“For kindergarten through fifth grade, material that advocates — that’s the author’s stated goal — positions, behavior, relationships which are objectively contrary to well-established Oklahoma law” are inappropriate, Danz said.

“If a subject matter is in- appropriate for a grade level, passing or surpassing all the other criteria (that would make it appropriate) does not save it,” Danz said.

“The tough decision is to pull this book. Don’t make this book part of the curriculum; don’t make same-sex unions part of the curriculum.”

UnionSuperintendent Cathy Burden argued on behalf of the district, saying the book meets the criteria for literature selection and that the same-sex relationship is not the central theme of the story.

She said the book is appropriate for children because it is about Buster’s adventures with the children in Vermont.

Burden said that if the board decided to remove the book, it would set a precedent that could mean that other books would have to be removed.

“If legality in Oklahoma was an issue we were to use in criteria, then we would have to get rid of a lot of books in our library referencing things like pirates and robbers and cattle rustlers and many other topics that are certainly in popular fiction not only for children but for adults,” Burden said.

Board member Ed Payton said the district has students who are children of same-sex couples and that “Sugartime” is similar to other books in the “Postcards from Buster” series that portray the character visiting Muslim and Mormon households.

“I don’t see the advocacy here,” Payton said. “I see the reflection of reality here.”

Nancy McDonald, president of the Tulsa chapter of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said in a written statement that it is important for the children of same-sex families to know that they are accepted.

“Our society embraces all kinds of families,” McDonald said. “It is so important that our young children have opportunities to see ‘their’ families displayed in reading materials, movies, plays, print and to know that the most important thing is that they are loved, cared for and valued no matter what their family structure is.”

Board members Payton, Heather McAdams and Ross Ford all voted to keep the book on the shelf, and Scott McDaniel voted to remove it.

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=331&articleid=20100128_19_A9_Donand368771