2 ms·

> These are books that are not only inferior to other options, they should not be taught in schools even if they were the last books on Earth. GP comment was ar

> These are books that are not only inferior to other options, they should not be taught in schools even if they were the last books on Earth. GP comment was arguing TKAM belongs in this category FWIW, upon re-reading the entire thread above our posts, I don't see the extreme stance you're suggesting. "There are a ton of books that are inappropriate for use in the classroom." is the closest I see, which could be seen as a call for a total and extreme ban, but that's by no means the only way to read that comment. > You can give teachers the freedom to modify their curricula while still mandating that some books make it into the curriculum. I don't dispute this, but you can also give teachers the freedom to modify their curricula while mandating that some books don't. In fact, my understanding is that for most curricula there won't be much of a difference between the two. High school literature curricula are wide, not deep. I originally had a few paragraphs here going through all the stuff you have to touch on in a high school curriculum, but suffice to say that you want a decent balance of books across american literary periods, as well as contemporary literary subgenres (southern gothic vs. Western, plays vs. poetry). And you have maybe a year to do it. If you force someone to include a contemporary novel on race, they'll probably have to exclude the other relatively contemporary novel on race. > do you really trust that teacher to move in the correct direction when given the freedom to select any other unbanned book? I perceive the major issue as more apathy and effort (some combination of "well I learned it this way and I'm fine" and "I've been teaching the same novel for 10 years, I don't want to change my curriculum") more than like, overt racism on the part of teachers. Like I'm sure there's some of that, but I expect it's not the whole of the problem.

jjk166 6y ago
> FWIW, upon re-reading the entire thread above our posts, I don't see the extreme stance you're suggesting. "There are a ton of books that are inappropriate for use in the classroom." is the closest I see, which could be seen as a call for a total and extreme ban, but that's by no means the only way to read that comment. I agree, I wasn't so much stating that GP comment was actually trying to say TKAM is as bad as Mein Kampf, but rather use the absurdity of a curriculum including Mein Kampf to illustrate the wide gulf between "books that aren't as good as others" and "books that don't belong in a classroom at all" > If you force someone to include a contemporary novel on race, they'll probably have to exclude the other relatively contemporary novel on race. Precisely. I'm not arguing that TKAM should be in the curriculum come hell or highwater. If the teachers only teach the better book, that's an improvement. If they teach both that's also an improvement. No matter what, so long as teachers comply with the mandate it's a win. As I've stated before, the problem is not switching, it's banning. Simply banning leaves open the possibility for selecting a book which is worse, or not even covering the subject at all. > I perceive the major issue as more apathy and effort (some combination of "well I learned it this way and I'm fine" and "I've been teaching the same novel for 10 years, I don't want to change my curriculum") more than like, overt racism on the part of teachers. Again, this was meant to be a tongue in cheek way of saying banning a book can lead to unintended consequences. I highly doubt that a teacher in this day and age will switch to something overtly racist, or at least I doubt they'd get away with it for long. That said, there is a very good possibility that this random teacher who is neither an expert on race nor particularly enthusiastic about finding the ideal book on exposing their students to racism might select something that looks to them like a good book for the task but is in reality more problematic than TKAM ever was. Further, because of its prominence over the past 60 years, there is a lot of readily available material out there to help a teacher properly teach TKAM. A coordinated move to some new standard which likewise has such support material is sensible, but there's no guarantee the apathetic teacher left to their own devices will both pick a book with good supplemental material and access that material, so it's entirely possible you get them to switch to a better book but they teach it worse. So to reiterate the overarching point: banning books is a good way of preventing books that have no place in a classroom from being accidentally or maliciously added to a curriculum. Banning books is a terrible strategy for promoting the adoption of a specific book. Either we are dealing with the first scenario, in which case I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why TKAM is unacceptable, or as so many are claiming, this is an example of the latter category, in which case the question of why such a terrible strategy was employed has yet to be satisfactorily answered.

jjk166 6y ago

> FWIW, upon re-reading the entire thread above our posts, I don't see the extreme stance you're suggesting. "There are a ton of books that are inappropriate for use in the classroom." is the closest I see, which could be seen as a call for a total and extreme ban, but that's by no means the only way to read that comment. I agree, I wasn't so much stating that GP comment was actually trying to say TKAM is as bad as Mein Kampf, but rather use the absurdity of a curriculum including Mein Kampf to illustrate the wide gulf between "books that aren't as good as others" and "books that don't belong in a classroom at all" > If you force someone to include a contemporary novel on race, they'll probably have to exclude the other relatively contemporary novel on race. Precisely. I'm not arguing that TKAM should be in the curriculum come hell or highwater. If the teachers only teach the better book, that's an improvement. If they teach both that's also an improvement. No matter what, so long as teachers comply with the mandate it's a win. As I've stated before, the problem is not switching, it's banning. Simply banning leaves open the possibility for selecting a book which is worse, or not even covering the subject at all. > I perceive the major issue as more apathy and effort (some combination of "well I learned it this way and I'm fine" and "I've been teaching the same novel for 10 years, I don't want to change my curriculum") more than like, overt racism on the part of teachers. Again, this was meant to be a tongue in cheek way of saying banning a book can lead to unintended consequences. I highly doubt that a teacher in this day and age will switch to something overtly racist, or at least I doubt they'd get away with it for long. That said, there is a very good possibility that this random teacher who is neither an expert on race nor particularly enthusiastic about finding the ideal book on exposing their students to racism might select something that looks to them like a good book for the task but is in reality more problematic than TKAM ever was. Further, because of its prominence over the past 60 years, there is a lot of readily available material out there to help a teacher properly teach TKAM. A coordinated move to some new standard which likewise has such support material is sensible, but there's no guarantee the apathetic teacher left to their own devices will both pick a book with good supplemental material and access that material, so it's entirely possible you get them to switch to a better book but they teach it worse. So to reiterate the overarching point: banning books is a good way of preventing books that have no place in a classroom from being accidentally or maliciously added to a curriculum. Banning books is a terrible strategy for promoting the adoption of a specific book. Either we are dealing with the first scenario, in which case I have yet to see a compelling argument as to why TKAM is unacceptable, or as so many are claiming, this is an example of the latter category, in which case the question of why such a terrible strategy was employed has yet to be satisfactorily answered.