7 ms·

I'm not sure why this is being voted down... maybe because there isn't anything to back it up. But, I do think in a way it is a defacto ban. There will be some

I'm not sure why this is being voted down... maybe because there isn't anything to back it up. But, I do think in a way it is a defacto ban. There will be some kids who seek out this book, but chances are those are not the kids that need to read this book. When you take important literature out of the classroom, you are preventing the kids who would at least pick up the main ideas from getting at those main ideas.

burgerbrain 16y ago
Exactly. The purpose of removing this book from the reading list is to reduce the exposure the student body has to it. The intended effects of "removing the book from the reading list" and "banning the book" are identical. Because the intent is the same, it should be treated and vilified as a ban.
electromagnetic 16y ago
Edit: Just realized a key difference, I'm used to the GCSE reading lists not the US-style 'Required' Reading list. I remember getting Terry Pratchett novels in my reading list. A defacto ban is "We're removing it from our reading list, removing it from our library... but we not discouraging our students from reading the book". Removing it from a reading list isn't a defacto ban, it's modernization. If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. I don't care what text, even if it's one of my own beloveds just PULL IT and put in something the children will read and will learn from. Brave New World is a classic, beyond perhaps, but if kids today aren't learning from it then so long. For every new book that goes on the list, an old one is going to come off of it. I'd much rather see kids get something like Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett that they'll respond to. Fuck, give them Harry Potter or a goddamn Halo novel if the kids will actually read it.
- culled 16y ago
  But the problem with your argument is that, at least according to the article, the kids don't have a problem with the book. It's just one parent who doesn't like it and is preventing it from being assigned.
  - electromagnetic 16y ago
    Sorry, it's just the opposite: > it seems a Native American student who was required to read the book took issue with the its depiction of native people. The girl's mom, Sarah Sense-Wilson, agreed... The child misunderstood the terminology being used and the parent likely didn't read the book to comprehend the difference. However, on face value we have no way of understanding the full situation. Is this a school with a high-percentage of native students where the terminology, time and time again will be misunderstood? Just because this is the first student to complain and the first parent to be a decent enough (if misguided) parent to actually follow through with their child's complaint, doesn't mean this isn't the first child to be turned off in this school from the terminology. Change 'Savage' to Nigger and you'll offend black students in other areas, perhaps Chink and you'll offend Asian students. It just happens that this book has bad terminology for the students that were reading it that is preventing at least this student from getting to the meaning behind the words. Furthermore, this could all have been avoided by competent teachers. Perhaps introducing the book before requiring students to read it would have avoided this. We're dealing with 80 year old books with 80 year old social mores and terms. You're going to get problems sooner or later somewhere or other. It's inevitable, get over it assign a different book with the same message.
    - sukuriant 16y ago
      Or keep the book and hire competent teachers. And then pay those competent teachers the salary they deserve for training the next generation.
      - electromagnetic 16y ago
        Yes, but that would require people to actually want to pay taxes for the things they want. It would be like paying for competent non-tazer psycho cops.
        philwelch 16y ago
        Americans pay more for their crappy schools and incompetent teachers than every other rich country in the world pays for their good schools and competent teachers.
- Nitramp 16y ago
  > If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. That seems like a very weird understanding of education to me. The whole point of the exercise is getting children to read something they might otherwise miss. If students oppose a book's content - very good, you have a debate running, and you can clearly learn from that (e.g., Huxley's use of the term savages does not dehumanize them, quite the contrary). Education is not about taking the easy path to something, it's about taking the hard path, and learning on the way.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    > Huxley's use of the term savages does not dehumanize them, quite the contrary I would go as far and explain those parents who are so afraid of it, that it's just a word that means something for the "civilized" characters of the book that's very different than it means to us or them. And that "civilized" is also just a word. Meaning is in the brain of the reader. A book is only dehydrated knowledge. You have to add a brain to it.
jules 16y ago
Really banning it would be a more effective tool to make sure that more students read it.

burgerbrain 16y ago

Exactly. The purpose of removing this book from the reading list is to reduce the exposure the student body has to it. The intended effects of "removing the book from the reading list" and "banning the book" are identical. Because the intent is the same, it should be treated and vilified as a ban.

electromagnetic 16y ago

Edit: Just realized a key difference, I'm used to the GCSE reading lists not the US-style 'Required' Reading list. I remember getting Terry Pratchett novels in my reading list. A defacto ban is "We're removing it from our reading list, removing it from our library... but we not discouraging our students from reading the book". Removing it from a reading list isn't a defacto ban, it's modernization. If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. I don't care what text, even if it's one of my own beloveds just PULL IT and put in something the children will read and will learn from. Brave New World is a classic, beyond perhaps, but if kids today aren't learning from it then so long. For every new book that goes on the list, an old one is going to come off of it. I'd much rather see kids get something like Monstrous Regiment by Terry Pratchett that they'll respond to. Fuck, give them Harry Potter or a goddamn Halo novel if the kids will actually read it.

culled 16y ago
But the problem with your argument is that, at least according to the article, the kids don't have a problem with the book. It's just one parent who doesn't like it and is preventing it from being assigned.
- electromagnetic 16y ago
  Sorry, it's just the opposite: > it seems a Native American student who was required to read the book took issue with the its depiction of native people. The girl's mom, Sarah Sense-Wilson, agreed... The child misunderstood the terminology being used and the parent likely didn't read the book to comprehend the difference. However, on face value we have no way of understanding the full situation. Is this a school with a high-percentage of native students where the terminology, time and time again will be misunderstood? Just because this is the first student to complain and the first parent to be a decent enough (if misguided) parent to actually follow through with their child's complaint, doesn't mean this isn't the first child to be turned off in this school from the terminology. Change 'Savage' to Nigger and you'll offend black students in other areas, perhaps Chink and you'll offend Asian students. It just happens that this book has bad terminology for the students that were reading it that is preventing at least this student from getting to the meaning behind the words. Furthermore, this could all have been avoided by competent teachers. Perhaps introducing the book before requiring students to read it would have avoided this. We're dealing with 80 year old books with 80 year old social mores and terms. You're going to get problems sooner or later somewhere or other. It's inevitable, get over it assign a different book with the same message.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    Or keep the book and hire competent teachers. And then pay those competent teachers the salary they deserve for training the next generation.
    - electromagnetic 16y ago
      Yes, but that would require people to actually want to pay taxes for the things they want. It would be like paying for competent non-tazer psycho cops.
      - philwelch 16y ago
        Americans pay more for their crappy schools and incompetent teachers than every other rich country in the world pays for their good schools and competent teachers.
Nitramp 16y ago
> If the kids at a specific school don't seem to respond well to a text, PULL IT. That seems like a very weird understanding of education to me. The whole point of the exercise is getting children to read something they might otherwise miss. If students oppose a book's content - very good, you have a debate running, and you can clearly learn from that (e.g., Huxley's use of the term savages does not dehumanize them, quite the contrary). Education is not about taking the easy path to something, it's about taking the hard path, and learning on the way.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > Huxley's use of the term savages does not dehumanize them, quite the contrary I would go as far and explain those parents who are so afraid of it, that it's just a word that means something for the "civilized" characters of the book that's very different than it means to us or them. And that "civilized" is also just a word. Meaning is in the brain of the reader. A book is only dehydrated knowledge. You have to add a brain to it.

jules 16y ago

Really banning it would be a more effective tool to make sure that more students read it.