10 ms·

McMinn County Bans “Maus”, Pulitzer Prize Winning Holocaust Book

129 points by b0sk 5y ago

JaimeThompson 5y ago
This is a repeat of what happened to Dungeons and Dragons books in the 80's and 90's but this time they are coming for actually important books. I say this as a person who plays D&D.
- labster 5y ago
  It depends on which modules. Children definitely need to be protected from the power creep of some splatbooks. Plus they teach drow think they should be in charge of other races and that’s obviously critical race theory.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Taniwha 5y ago
[flagged]
ggm 5y ago
[flagged]
ortusdux 5y ago
The '2021 Survey of North American Teens on the Holocaust and Antisemitism' found that 1/3rd of 8th grade students surveyed "questioned whether the Holocaust was an exaggerated or fabricated event, or that they were not sure if it actually happened". About 40% of the students surveyed learned about the Holocaust via social media. https://www.liberation75.org/survey https://www.liberation75.org/survey
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  Yes, most students don’t pay attention in school most of the time because they don’t find it useful or interesting. This isn’t new.
- jdkjs 5y ago
- Mizza 5y ago
  This is obvious weasel wording. It is good for students to question all things they're learning. I hope they do question it, as I hope they question the sections on manifest destiny and American exceptionalism as well. It doesn't mean that 1/3 of 8th graders are holocaust deniers. EDIT: I read their PDF, this methodology is ridiculous. Their website has the bold claim that "42% of teens have witnessed an antisemitic event", but reading the actual document, that includes hearing about the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on the news, which basically means that 42% of teens read the news. This isn't the kind of source you should be citing if you want to be taken seriously.
- epx 5y ago
  It is natural to certain extent, I did the same at that age. We have a lowpass filter that makes outstanding/outrageous facts (like H) difficult to believe. It takes a while to accept that we humans are actually capable of H, CP and other things. Another instance of that misleading lowpass filter: "if that happened to group J, the J people must have been doing something to deserve it".
srmarm 5y ago
That linked website seems to be overloaded at the moment but I found a good summary here - https://www.rawstory.com/banned-books-in-tennessee/ https://www.rawstory.com/banned-books-in-tennessee/ It's such a shocking and ironic story that I almost wonder if someone planted the idea intentionally to shine a light on the stupid of these people. We really must push back against this nonsense.
- 542458 5y ago
  Your link has the exact same content (word for word) as the parent link as far as I can remember.
- sdrabing 5y ago
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Per the linked[1] meeting minutes that it seems maybe three people in these comments read they don't really care about the book or it's message. They're quibbling about whether or not they can find an equivalent meaning book for teaching the same lessons that uses less foul language. This is the most dry and mundane "book banning" I have ever heard of. Furthermore, the minutes don't say anything about keeping it out of the school library which directly conflicts with what TFA alleges. [1] https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...
  - 542458 5y ago
    I feel you’re dramatically underselling it - the book has also (reportedly; edit may have not been) been banned from the school libraries. But furthermore, the reasons given strike me as extremely silly - I can’t remember any even mildly titillating nudity in Maus - the only nudity I can recall are piles of stripped corpses. And the idea that the phrase “god damn” is somehow inappropriate when coming from the testimony of a survivor of mass slaughter strikes me as bizarre. This sort of moralistic kneejerking is dangerous - something superficially objectionable can be found in a great many works of key significance. The girl at the napalm bombing of Trang Bang village is full frontal nudity - should we erase that powerful image from anything our children might learn? Sometimes nudity and profanity are simply a matter of what happened, and exorcising them means teaching a watered down version of the truth.
slg 5y ago
It is strange how free speech advocates seem to worry a lot more about “cancel culture” than the literal banning of books as part of the fight against “critical race theory” or some other fabricated boogeyman.
- School-Cotton 5y ago
  I’m worried about both. Not everything is a one-dimensional football game.
  - BoysenberryPi 5y ago
    The problem is most people (or at least the loudest people) treat it as a black and white situation. You are either for this or against that.
    - School-Cotton 5y ago
      Yep, including the person I was responding to. I’m trying to combat that mindset.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  Christopher Rufo is not in any way a free speech advocate, and is the person behind all of the anti-CRT laws. He had an interesting exchange with Kemele Foster who predicted this exact outcome.
  - slg 5y ago
    This isn't specifically about Rufo. It is about the people who have embraced him and how those are often the same people who yell "cancel culture" when a comedian's Netflix special is criticized.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      They definitely aren’t the same people. The folks rallying around Rufo largely seem to be traditionalist conservatives, who are often open against free speech. They’re often the same people who support flag burning bans. I can think of a few opportunists who have latched onto him and dabbled in the cane l culture backlash stuff in the past, but they’re opportunists so of course they’re also hypocrites. Who do you mean specifically? [edit] it seems some people disagree. I’d be happy to hear what people think I’m missing, maybe I have the wrong read on this.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jimbob45 5y ago
Would we not all be better served by abolishing school libraries and replacing them with regional community libraries with select textbooks and such reserved for school kids? If I’m in a high school, I can only have my high school’s books. If I’m an adult, those books are now dead to me. If the books are instead in a public library, many more can enjoy them (and the funding is better distributed as well). I certainly remember being in high school and simply going to my public library any time I wanted a book because the selection was infinitely better.
- majormajor 5y ago
  How are you picturing all these kids getting to that regional library regularly?
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    School libraries could ask for these books via interlibrary loans?
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The abolished school libraries?
- zwieback 5y ago
  Was wondering about the same thing. I grew up in Germany where school libraries weren't a big thing. My kids went to school here but always went to the public library. Probably a much bigger issue in rural areas where the school is maybe the only place where any kind book can be accessed by kids.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > If I’m in a high school, I can only have my high school’s books. What? You can still go to the public library. > If I’m an adult, those books are now dead to me. You will likely find those same books in the public library.
- alar44 5y ago
dukeofdoom 5y ago
It's almost like two sides can play that game. Who started the game anyway? I remember some statues being toppled last year by very progressive minded people. Maybe you know destroying art wasn't the progressive thing to do after all.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  Conservative religious groups have been doing this for decades so implying it started last year isn't really supported by evidence.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    I know both sides engage in this. And I'm not in support.
- chowchowchow 5y ago
  Good grief. We got a real relativist over here. Maybe the “art” you keep and what you remove from public display reflects your values. At least to me, the values of those in favor of keeping southern memorials and banning Maus seem pretty odious.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    These weren't removed by elected officials. But by an angry mob from one side. You're overlooking that little important bit. "Relative" is trying to apply modern values to historical figures. A standard most of your previous presidents would fail. Might as well remove their statues too.
    - chowchowchow 5y ago
      What? You sound aggrieved & not entirely logical. It is relativism to equate taking down the statues and banning this book, unfortunately.
- nickpeterson 5y ago
JaimeThompson 5y ago
This is a link to the board minutes / transcript. It is well worth a read https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...
- jsemrau 5y ago
  Thank your for sharing. As a non-American, it always amuses me how the concept of free speech and [1] exists in the same mind. Lol "Son of a Bleep" [1] "When we see something on television that is a direct quote from an actor or a president,something where it has that inappropriate language, they will blur it out or white out parts of it or they will bleep it"
  - sofixa 5y ago
    But think of the children! What would an 8th grader do if they read the world... "bitch" or "god damn"! Anarchy would then ensue! I'm quite shocked there are adults uncomfortable with reading those types of words enough to decide 8th graders would also be. In a book about the Holocaust, where that's going to be among the last things noticed..
gautamcgoel 5y ago
I read this book as required reading in an AP Literature course, back when I was in high school (in ATL, if anyone is curious). I remember being absolutely blown away by the it - I forgot everything else we read in that course, but this one stuck with me. The last scene, where the narrator's dad confuses him for his other son, who died, is a punch to the gut. Real shame to see this book censored, students are missing out.
- Bobileebob 5y ago
  [flagged]
finolex1 5y ago
I feel like the title should be changed to emphasize that it has been banned from schools, not banned per se. Reading the meeting comments, it seems like most of their objections are with the profanity and nudity in the book. That opens up a very separate sphere of discussions from your standard free speech/cancel culture debates - what topics should kids or teenagers be exposed to?
- danShumway 5y ago
  The linked notes go into this in a lot more detail, but this debate is in regards to an 8th grade class; the teachers had plans to address/censor the profanity and they go into some detail about what those plans were and why they thought it was proper to use this subject matter. I find those arguments compelling: > We understand some of this language is objectionable. When we think about the author’s intent, I could argue that his intent was to make our jaws drop. Oh my goodness, think about what happened and what it would have been like to have lived during that time period and that shock. So, the author chose to use those words, we understand they are objectionable, we understand our community and our families and that’s not something that we see is needed to be spelled out in our book, so we felt it was appropriate to white that out. > What we have done in anticipation of any of those concerns, we prepared a parent letter to go home to inform them of this topic we are about to study. We went ahead and took the step to censor that explicit content and we went ahead and made sure that all of our books are stamped “property of MCS” so that if one does come up for some reason, hey look at these words we are teaching in school, no, that’s not one of our books. ---- I would flip the question on you. When do you think it is appropriate for kids to learn that bad or explicit things exist? When is it important for students to be able to engage with sexual content or profanity in a mature way? Should that be something that happens under guidance, or should we pretend it doesn't exist until they hit college? 8th grade is not too early for kids to engage with disturbing material in a system where they are warned in advance what they are going to encounter and if additional safeguards are being taken to make that material less offensive to them. Additionally, I would push back on the notion that this is just about censoring specific profanities. The book being taught is a censored version of the book, and the criticism is about censoring at broader levels: > Steven Brady- We implemented that, we chose to do redactions. > Rob Shamblin- So can we take it, as far as it needs to go, because I don’t know that it is going to end with one book. I think the process needs to include a bigger plan to holistically redact things that we don’t want in there. We hope we have good employees, like minded culture, centric folks that fit with McMinn County, that they’re going to make the right discretionary decisions to redact that literature in an appropriate way for the age related presentation. > Steven Brady- After discussing with Mr. Parkison, we felt that was best for our community like you were saying. > Rob Shamblin- My question goes further, can we redact at a larger level than what I saw there. Why do we have to leave some of that, why can’t we gray all of it? I don't think the above conversation is about profanity when people are hoping that we have "like minded culture, centric folks" to make these decisions; when they're saying that even a discussion that sex exists is too much for 8th graders to be exposed to. Because it's not too much, you should be teaching kids at that age that sex exists. My feeling is that there isn't really a magical age where teenagers suddenly become mature enough to talk about sex, what happens is that they become mature over time if they are gradually introduced to these topics in structured environments, in safe spaces with parents/teachers, with people who are guiding them through that process in a deliberative way. And if that never happens, then there is a huge swath of culture that we just can't teach about in schools, which I think would be very harmful to ban. On one hand, we can debate whether or not kids should be exposed to actual representations of nudity or profanities. But on the other hand, if we're already censoring that content, and giving students the opportunity to opt out and informing the parents, and guiding them through the whole process with teachers and considering context -- if that's not enough, then what we're talking about at that point is that we don't want 8th graders to know that sex exists, and that's just not realistic or helpful. How much culture are we going to pull out of our schools over that? I read to Kill a Mockingbird in middle-school. It is a book that discusses rape. I wasn't traumatized by that, 8th graders are old enough to know that rape as a concept exists. Heck, I read sections of the Iliad and of Shakespeare. Are we saying that 8th graders aren't mature enough to engage with that literature?
jterrys 5y ago
Looking at the meeting minutes, one of the board members named Mike Cochran is pretty upset with the comic book. He says its too graphic and inappropriate. There's swearing and the comic goes in great detail about the father of the main character losing his virginity and the mother cutting herself. There's naked depictions. His justification is that he's not concerned about the Holocaust stuff, he thinks the book is inappropriate for 7th-8th graders because of its graphic vulgar depictions. Then he goes on about an unrelated poem that uses the word ecstasy, and is upset that there's a question that children have to answer about what ecstasy is. He thinks its something to do with children being indoctrinated into vulgarity, sexuality, and inappropriateness. ...lol. I hate to break HN etiquette but this isn't so much about Holocaust denialism but really dumb people having really dumb hot takes. It boggles my mind that the depiction of nudity and sexual 'vulgarity' is somehow a greater cause for concern than the depiction of mass murder and dead bodies. Literal piles of corpses are okay but a titty isn't for Mr. Cochran.
- metadat 5y ago
  Classic "American culture" (of the old-school variety) straight from the middle of Tennessee, where in the same document they also choose to disclose they only want "like-minded folks" involved in the process. I think you nailed it on the head, they are desperate to shelter their children until they turn 18 and head off to college. I hope they don't let their kids near an Internet-connected computer or smartphone, otherwise it's all for show- oh, wait.. doesn't pretty much every kid get a phone in middle school or sooner these days? The board members are so antiquated and dusty, it's triggering my asthma even from thousands of miles away. Seriously though, it is sad that how the US public education system curriculum is now basically 100% controlled by the government. When the locals don't like the rules, they find a way around them. Then the rest of us rule-followers suffer through this standardized nonsense. Teachers in the USA nowadays don't get to decide much about the classes they teach, which certainly kills the unique magic I felt some teachers added to their classes and made for awesome experiences growing up. Sad.
atdt 5y ago
From the minutes: > So, my problem is, it looks like the entire curriculum is developed to normalize sexuality, normalize nudity and normalize vulgar language
- ahartmetz 5y ago
  That is a funny quote indeed. Imagine my horror thinking of anyone normalizing these literally worst things in the world.
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
When we say it's being "banned", what is that meant to mean? The way I read this, there is a school board that doesn't want to use a particular book when teaching a course. That seems a long way from "banning the book". It doesn't mean the book won't be available for sale, or for loan from a library, or that the book would be confiscated from kids that happened to be in possession of it. Although I happen to think that the reasons the school board used to arrive at its decision are dubious (I think eighth graders probably know and use worse language than the stuff they're handwringing over), if they can find something that works as effectively for the purposes of the curriculum then it all seems rather overblown.
- pm90 5y ago
  > The McMinn County School board’s ten members voted to axe Maus from curricula and school libraries, citing its use of the phrase “God Damn” and its drawings of “naked pictures,” though those are cartoon mice. They did ban it from the library. The dubious reasons for the ban are actually really important; if that’s ok they will find dubious reasons to ban other books which make them feel uncomfortable as well. The concern seems justified to me.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    What's the difference between banning and curating? A school library doesn't contain all books, so setting some criteria for age appropriateness always happens. You can argue whether "god damn" should cross the line, or the n-word, or hard core porn. Calling it banning stifles useful discussion on what standards are appropriate.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      > What's the difference between banning and curating? When it's a legislative decision, and not the librarian's / teacher's.
      - WillPostForFood 5y ago
umvi 5y ago
How is this any more noteworthy than California schools banning To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn for containing racial slurs?
- ixtli 5y ago
  I’m not sure I agree with that action, though I’ve never heard of it, but your question appears to conflate holocaust education with uncritical deployment of racial slurs. That seems very bad.
  - umvi 5y ago
    If racist language in a book about racism is "uncritical deployment", couldn't female nudity in a graphic novel about the holocaust also be "uncritical deployment"?
- strken 5y ago
  How is it any less noteworthy?
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
The meeting minutes seem to paint a very, very different picture than the article. https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_... This has nothing to do with ideology, the story or the meaning of the book. It's just a bunch of educators and parents quibbling over how much swearing in a book for 8th graders is too much, the message that sends, etc, etc. If anything the in depth quibbling and discussion of potential replacement books makes these people look more competent because it's clear that they're considering it from many angles. I disagree with them and think they care way to much about something that doesn't matter but the point here is that the article's description and most of the comments around here seem far less than honest when compared to the minutes. This is a bunch of self important educators banning a book over stuff that doesn't matter, not a bunch of ideologues banning a book because they don't like the message.
- favorited 5y ago
aleyan 5y ago
This "ban" is removal of the book from required curriculum for 8th graders rather than from the library system, which is what traditionally referred to as a "book ban". Not that I agree with this particular decision, but school boards must be able to make decisions for what is appropriate in their district. It should be just as easy to add a book to the curriculum as to remove it without summoning undue unwelcome outside attention that something sinister is going on. I looked briefly through rather lengthy minutes [1] of the meeting. Objections seem to come down to usage of words like "bitch" and phrases like "god damn" that students would get in trouble for using in the hallways according to existing school rules. The participants seemed quite queazy about saying the objectionable words themselves and instead either referred by their abbreviations or spelling them out by letter. One part of the discussion that was also interesting was they considered censoring the book with whiteout for the offending words and one naked drawing but decided against it. They thought they need to get permission from the author because of copyright laws. I believe these kind of redactions are considered fair use for education under copyright laws. [1] https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Yeah, there's a big difference between "we're not going to force everyone's children to read this book" and "we're banning this book".
- frostburg 5y ago
  It's very important to reserve the use of "banned" for actual bans, this kind of misuse is apparently very common when something like this happens. That having been said, the people debating the issue seem to be grossly intellectually unqualified to be deciding anything regarding the education of others, which should be very concerning.
  - Ancapistani 5y ago
    > the people debating the issue seem to be grossly intellectually unqualified to be deciding anything regarding the education of others I'd say they have the one qualification that actually matters here: they were elected specifically for this purpose by the residents of the school district. Consider that these people are also likely eligible for jury duty, which could very well mean that they would be considered qualified to literally condemn someone to death. Thought of in that light, removing a book from the local school's curriculum seems downright inconsequential.
chadash 5y ago
They didn’t ban a book. They decided to have it not be a part of the eighth grade curriculum. This isn’t an issue of free speech unless you feel that not showing Schindler’s List in third grade classrooms is also an issue of free speech. These people making the decision don’t seem the most informed, but let’s not turn this into something it isn’t. School boards are well within their rights to decide that material isn’t age appropriate.
userbinator 5y ago
diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives Also known as anti-meritocracy? When you hire people because of who they are rather than what they can do, you will slowly destroy competence, and quite understandably, a lot of people should be furious about that.

129 points by b0sk 5y ago

This is a repeat of what happened to Dungeons and Dragons books in the 80's and 90's but this time they are coming for actually important books. I say this as a person who plays D&D.

labster 5y ago
It depends on which modules. Children definitely need to be protected from the power creep of some splatbooks. Plus they teach drow think they should be in charge of other races and that’s obviously critical race theory.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Taniwha 5y ago

[flagged]

ggm 5y ago

[flagged]

ortusdux 5y ago

The '2021 Survey of North American Teens on the Holocaust and Antisemitism' found that 1/3rd of 8th grade students surveyed "questioned whether the Holocaust was an exaggerated or fabricated event, or that they were not sure if it actually happened". About 40% of the students surveyed learned about the Holocaust via social media. https://www.liberation75.org/survey https://www.liberation75.org/survey

barry-cotter 5y ago
Yes, most students don’t pay attention in school most of the time because they don’t find it useful or interesting. This isn’t new.
jdkjs 5y ago
Mizza 5y ago
This is obvious weasel wording. It is good for students to question all things they're learning. I hope they do question it, as I hope they question the sections on manifest destiny and American exceptionalism as well. It doesn't mean that 1/3 of 8th graders are holocaust deniers. EDIT: I read their PDF, this methodology is ridiculous. Their website has the bold claim that "42% of teens have witnessed an antisemitic event", but reading the actual document, that includes hearing about the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on the news, which basically means that 42% of teens read the news. This isn't the kind of source you should be citing if you want to be taken seriously.
epx 5y ago
It is natural to certain extent, I did the same at that age. We have a lowpass filter that makes outstanding/outrageous facts (like H) difficult to believe. It takes a while to accept that we humans are actually capable of H, CP and other things. Another instance of that misleading lowpass filter: "if that happened to group J, the J people must have been doing something to deserve it".

srmarm 5y ago

That linked website seems to be overloaded at the moment but I found a good summary here - https://www.rawstory.com/banned-books-in-tennessee/ https://www.rawstory.com/banned-books-in-tennessee/ It's such a shocking and ironic story that I almost wonder if someone planted the idea intentionally to shine a light on the stupid of these people. We really must push back against this nonsense.

542458 5y ago
Your link has the exact same content (word for word) as the parent link as far as I can remember.
sdrabing 5y ago
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Per the linked[1] meeting minutes that it seems maybe three people in these comments read they don't really care about the book or it's message. They're quibbling about whether or not they can find an equivalent meaning book for teaching the same lessons that uses less foul language. This is the most dry and mundane "book banning" I have ever heard of. Furthermore, the minutes don't say anything about keeping it out of the school library which directly conflicts with what TFA alleges. [1] https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...
- 542458 5y ago
  I feel you’re dramatically underselling it - the book has also (reportedly; edit may have not been) been banned from the school libraries. But furthermore, the reasons given strike me as extremely silly - I can’t remember any even mildly titillating nudity in Maus - the only nudity I can recall are piles of stripped corpses. And the idea that the phrase “god damn” is somehow inappropriate when coming from the testimony of a survivor of mass slaughter strikes me as bizarre. This sort of moralistic kneejerking is dangerous - something superficially objectionable can be found in a great many works of key significance. The girl at the napalm bombing of Trang Bang village is full frontal nudity - should we erase that powerful image from anything our children might learn? Sometimes nudity and profanity are simply a matter of what happened, and exorcising them means teaching a watered down version of the truth.

slg 5y ago

It is strange how free speech advocates seem to worry a lot more about “cancel culture” than the literal banning of books as part of the fight against “critical race theory” or some other fabricated boogeyman.

School-Cotton 5y ago
I’m worried about both. Not everything is a one-dimensional football game.
- BoysenberryPi 5y ago
  The problem is most people (or at least the loudest people) treat it as a black and white situation. You are either for this or against that.
  - School-Cotton 5y ago
    Yep, including the person I was responding to. I’m trying to combat that mindset.
ch4s3 5y ago
Christopher Rufo is not in any way a free speech advocate, and is the person behind all of the anti-CRT laws. He had an interesting exchange with Kemele Foster who predicted this exact outcome.
- slg 5y ago
  This isn't specifically about Rufo. It is about the people who have embraced him and how those are often the same people who yell "cancel culture" when a comedian's Netflix special is criticized.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    They definitely aren’t the same people. The folks rallying around Rufo largely seem to be traditionalist conservatives, who are often open against free speech. They’re often the same people who support flag burning bans. I can think of a few opportunists who have latched onto him and dabbled in the cane l culture backlash stuff in the past, but they’re opportunists so of course they’re also hypocrites. Who do you mean specifically? [edit] it seems some people disagree. I’d be happy to hear what people think I’m missing, maybe I have the wrong read on this.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jimbob45 5y ago

Would we not all be better served by abolishing school libraries and replacing them with regional community libraries with select textbooks and such reserved for school kids? If I’m in a high school, I can only have my high school’s books. If I’m an adult, those books are now dead to me. If the books are instead in a public library, many more can enjoy them (and the funding is better distributed as well). I certainly remember being in high school and simply going to my public library any time I wanted a book because the selection was infinitely better.

majormajor 5y ago
How are you picturing all these kids getting to that regional library regularly?
- zozbot234 5y ago
  School libraries could ask for these books via interlibrary loans?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The abolished school libraries?
zwieback 5y ago
Was wondering about the same thing. I grew up in Germany where school libraries weren't a big thing. My kids went to school here but always went to the public library. Probably a much bigger issue in rural areas where the school is maybe the only place where any kind book can be accessed by kids.
ceejayoz 5y ago
> If I’m in a high school, I can only have my high school’s books. What? You can still go to the public library. > If I’m an adult, those books are now dead to me. You will likely find those same books in the public library.
alar44 5y ago

dukeofdoom 5y ago

It's almost like two sides can play that game. Who started the game anyway? I remember some statues being toppled last year by very progressive minded people. Maybe you know destroying art wasn't the progressive thing to do after all.

JaimeThompson 5y ago
Conservative religious groups have been doing this for decades so implying it started last year isn't really supported by evidence.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  I know both sides engage in this. And I'm not in support.
chowchowchow 5y ago
Good grief. We got a real relativist over here. Maybe the “art” you keep and what you remove from public display reflects your values. At least to me, the values of those in favor of keeping southern memorials and banning Maus seem pretty odious.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  These weren't removed by elected officials. But by an angry mob from one side. You're overlooking that little important bit. "Relative" is trying to apply modern values to historical figures. A standard most of your previous presidents would fail. Might as well remove their statues too.
  - chowchowchow 5y ago
    What? You sound aggrieved & not entirely logical. It is relativism to equate taking down the statues and banning this book, unfortunately.
nickpeterson 5y ago

JaimeThompson 5y ago

This is a link to the board minutes / transcript. It is well worth a read https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...

jsemrau 5y ago
Thank your for sharing. As a non-American, it always amuses me how the concept of free speech and [1] exists in the same mind. Lol "Son of a Bleep" [1] "When we see something on television that is a direct quote from an actor or a president,something where it has that inappropriate language, they will blur it out or white out parts of it or they will bleep it"
- sofixa 5y ago
  But think of the children! What would an 8th grader do if they read the world... "bitch" or "god damn"! Anarchy would then ensue! I'm quite shocked there are adults uncomfortable with reading those types of words enough to decide 8th graders would also be. In a book about the Holocaust, where that's going to be among the last things noticed..

gautamcgoel 5y ago

I read this book as required reading in an AP Literature course, back when I was in high school (in ATL, if anyone is curious). I remember being absolutely blown away by the it - I forgot everything else we read in that course, but this one stuck with me. The last scene, where the narrator's dad confuses him for his other son, who died, is a punch to the gut. Real shame to see this book censored, students are missing out.

Bobileebob 5y ago
[flagged]

finolex1 5y ago

I feel like the title should be changed to emphasize that it has been banned from schools, not banned per se. Reading the meeting comments, it seems like most of their objections are with the profanity and nudity in the book. That opens up a very separate sphere of discussions from your standard free speech/cancel culture debates - what topics should kids or teenagers be exposed to?

danShumway 5y ago
The linked notes go into this in a lot more detail, but this debate is in regards to an 8th grade class; the teachers had plans to address/censor the profanity and they go into some detail about what those plans were and why they thought it was proper to use this subject matter. I find those arguments compelling: > We understand some of this language is objectionable. When we think about the author’s intent, I could argue that his intent was to make our jaws drop. Oh my goodness, think about what happened and what it would have been like to have lived during that time period and that shock. So, the author chose to use those words, we understand they are objectionable, we understand our community and our families and that’s not something that we see is needed to be spelled out in our book, so we felt it was appropriate to white that out. > What we have done in anticipation of any of those concerns, we prepared a parent letter to go home to inform them of this topic we are about to study. We went ahead and took the step to censor that explicit content and we went ahead and made sure that all of our books are stamped “property of MCS” so that if one does come up for some reason, hey look at these words we are teaching in school, no, that’s not one of our books. ---- I would flip the question on you. When do you think it is appropriate for kids to learn that bad or explicit things exist? When is it important for students to be able to engage with sexual content or profanity in a mature way? Should that be something that happens under guidance, or should we pretend it doesn't exist until they hit college? 8th grade is not too early for kids to engage with disturbing material in a system where they are warned in advance what they are going to encounter and if additional safeguards are being taken to make that material less offensive to them. Additionally, I would push back on the notion that this is just about censoring specific profanities. The book being taught is a censored version of the book, and the criticism is about censoring at broader levels: > Steven Brady- We implemented that, we chose to do redactions. > Rob Shamblin- So can we take it, as far as it needs to go, because I don’t know that it is going to end with one book. I think the process needs to include a bigger plan to holistically redact things that we don’t want in there. We hope we have good employees, like minded culture, centric folks that fit with McMinn County, that they’re going to make the right discretionary decisions to redact that literature in an appropriate way for the age related presentation. > Steven Brady- After discussing with Mr. Parkison, we felt that was best for our community like you were saying. > Rob Shamblin- My question goes further, can we redact at a larger level than what I saw there. Why do we have to leave some of that, why can’t we gray all of it? I don't think the above conversation is about profanity when people are hoping that we have "like minded culture, centric folks" to make these decisions; when they're saying that even a discussion that sex exists is too much for 8th graders to be exposed to. Because it's not too much, you should be teaching kids at that age that sex exists. My feeling is that there isn't really a magical age where teenagers suddenly become mature enough to talk about sex, what happens is that they become mature over time if they are gradually introduced to these topics in structured environments, in safe spaces with parents/teachers, with people who are guiding them through that process in a deliberative way. And if that never happens, then there is a huge swath of culture that we just can't teach about in schools, which I think would be very harmful to ban. On one hand, we can debate whether or not kids should be exposed to actual representations of nudity or profanities. But on the other hand, if we're already censoring that content, and giving students the opportunity to opt out and informing the parents, and guiding them through the whole process with teachers and considering context -- if that's not enough, then what we're talking about at that point is that we don't want 8th graders to know that sex exists, and that's just not realistic or helpful. How much culture are we going to pull out of our schools over that? I read to Kill a Mockingbird in middle-school. It is a book that discusses rape. I wasn't traumatized by that, 8th graders are old enough to know that rape as a concept exists. Heck, I read sections of the Iliad and of Shakespeare. Are we saying that 8th graders aren't mature enough to engage with that literature?

jterrys 5y ago

Looking at the meeting minutes, one of the board members named Mike Cochran is pretty upset with the comic book. He says its too graphic and inappropriate. There's swearing and the comic goes in great detail about the father of the main character losing his virginity and the mother cutting herself. There's naked depictions. His justification is that he's not concerned about the Holocaust stuff, he thinks the book is inappropriate for 7th-8th graders because of its graphic vulgar depictions. Then he goes on about an unrelated poem that uses the word ecstasy, and is upset that there's a question that children have to answer about what ecstasy is. He thinks its something to do with children being indoctrinated into vulgarity, sexuality, and inappropriateness. ...lol. I hate to break HN etiquette but this isn't so much about Holocaust denialism but really dumb people having really dumb hot takes. It boggles my mind that the depiction of nudity and sexual 'vulgarity' is somehow a greater cause for concern than the depiction of mass murder and dead bodies. Literal piles of corpses are okay but a titty isn't for Mr. Cochran.

metadat 5y ago
Classic "American culture" (of the old-school variety) straight from the middle of Tennessee, where in the same document they also choose to disclose they only want "like-minded folks" involved in the process. I think you nailed it on the head, they are desperate to shelter their children until they turn 18 and head off to college. I hope they don't let their kids near an Internet-connected computer or smartphone, otherwise it's all for show- oh, wait.. doesn't pretty much every kid get a phone in middle school or sooner these days? The board members are so antiquated and dusty, it's triggering my asthma even from thousands of miles away. Seriously though, it is sad that how the US public education system curriculum is now basically 100% controlled by the government. When the locals don't like the rules, they find a way around them. Then the rest of us rule-followers suffer through this standardized nonsense. Teachers in the USA nowadays don't get to decide much about the classes they teach, which certainly kills the unique magic I felt some teachers added to their classes and made for awesome experiences growing up. Sad.

atdt 5y ago

From the minutes: > So, my problem is, it looks like the entire curriculum is developed to normalize sexuality, normalize nudity and normalize vulgar language

ahartmetz 5y ago
That is a funny quote indeed. Imagine my horror thinking of anyone normalizing these literally worst things in the world.

NovemberWhiskey 5y ago

When we say it's being "banned", what is that meant to mean? The way I read this, there is a school board that doesn't want to use a particular book when teaching a course. That seems a long way from "banning the book". It doesn't mean the book won't be available for sale, or for loan from a library, or that the book would be confiscated from kids that happened to be in possession of it. Although I happen to think that the reasons the school board used to arrive at its decision are dubious (I think eighth graders probably know and use worse language than the stuff they're handwringing over), if they can find something that works as effectively for the purposes of the curriculum then it all seems rather overblown.

pm90 5y ago
> The McMinn County School board’s ten members voted to axe Maus from curricula and school libraries, citing its use of the phrase “God Damn” and its drawings of “naked pictures,” though those are cartoon mice. They did ban it from the library. The dubious reasons for the ban are actually really important; if that’s ok they will find dubious reasons to ban other books which make them feel uncomfortable as well. The concern seems justified to me.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  What's the difference between banning and curating? A school library doesn't contain all books, so setting some criteria for age appropriateness always happens. You can argue whether "god damn" should cross the line, or the n-word, or hard core porn. Calling it banning stifles useful discussion on what standards are appropriate.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    > What's the difference between banning and curating? When it's a legislative decision, and not the librarian's / teacher's.
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago

umvi 5y ago

How is this any more noteworthy than California schools banning To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn for containing racial slurs?

ixtli 5y ago
I’m not sure I agree with that action, though I’ve never heard of it, but your question appears to conflate holocaust education with uncritical deployment of racial slurs. That seems very bad.
- umvi 5y ago
  If racist language in a book about racism is "uncritical deployment", couldn't female nudity in a graphic novel about the holocaust also be "uncritical deployment"?
strken 5y ago
How is it any less noteworthy?

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

The meeting minutes seem to paint a very, very different picture than the article. https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_... This has nothing to do with ideology, the story or the meaning of the book. It's just a bunch of educators and parents quibbling over how much swearing in a book for 8th graders is too much, the message that sends, etc, etc. If anything the in depth quibbling and discussion of potential replacement books makes these people look more competent because it's clear that they're considering it from many angles. I disagree with them and think they care way to much about something that doesn't matter but the point here is that the article's description and most of the comments around here seem far less than honest when compared to the minutes. This is a bunch of self important educators banning a book over stuff that doesn't matter, not a bunch of ideologues banning a book because they don't like the message.

favorited 5y ago

aleyan 5y ago

This "ban" is removal of the book from required curriculum for 8th graders rather than from the library system, which is what traditionally referred to as a "book ban". Not that I agree with this particular decision, but school boards must be able to make decisions for what is appropriate in their district. It should be just as easy to add a book to the curriculum as to remove it without summoning undue unwelcome outside attention that something sinister is going on. I looked briefly through rather lengthy minutes [1] of the meeting. Objections seem to come down to usage of words like "bitch" and phrases like "god damn" that students would get in trouble for using in the hallways according to existing school rules. The participants seemed quite queazy about saying the objectionable words themselves and instead either referred by their abbreviations or spelling them out by letter. One part of the discussion that was also interesting was they considered censoring the book with whiteout for the offending words and one naked drawing but decided against it. They thought they need to get permission from the author because of copyright laws. I believe these kind of redactions are considered fair use for education under copyright laws. [1] https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/1818370/Called_Meeting_Minutes_1-10-22.pdf https://core-docs.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_...

josephcsible 5y ago
Yeah, there's a big difference between "we're not going to force everyone's children to read this book" and "we're banning this book".
frostburg 5y ago
It's very important to reserve the use of "banned" for actual bans, this kind of misuse is apparently very common when something like this happens. That having been said, the people debating the issue seem to be grossly intellectually unqualified to be deciding anything regarding the education of others, which should be very concerning.
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > the people debating the issue seem to be grossly intellectually unqualified to be deciding anything regarding the education of others I'd say they have the one qualification that actually matters here: they were elected specifically for this purpose by the residents of the school district. Consider that these people are also likely eligible for jury duty, which could very well mean that they would be considered qualified to literally condemn someone to death. Thought of in that light, removing a book from the local school's curriculum seems downright inconsequential.

chadash 5y ago

They didn’t ban a book. They decided to have it not be a part of the eighth grade curriculum. This isn’t an issue of free speech unless you feel that not showing Schindler’s List in third grade classrooms is also an issue of free speech. These people making the decision don’t seem the most informed, but let’s not turn this into something it isn’t. School boards are well within their rights to decide that material isn’t age appropriate.

userbinator 5y ago

diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives Also known as anti-meritocracy? When you hire people because of who they are rather than what they can do, you will slowly destroy competence, and quite understandably, a lot of people should be furious about that.