Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Part I
Jonah Goldberg was not pleased with Banned Books Week: Just a Lot of Propaganda Says Jonah Goldberg, the post that I wrote for the Turley blog last Sunday. In my post, I criticized Goldberg’s op-ed titled Banned Books Week is just hype, which appeared in USA Today on September 5th. Goldberg responded to my criticism of his op-ed with a blog post titled Banned Book B.S. Cont’d at the National Review Online (NRO). He said that my effort to come “to the rescue of the Banned Book Week crowd” was “entirely underwhelming.” He added, “A big chunk of her response restates my op-ed while casting her incomprehension as if it’s a rebuttal.”
Goldberg said my insinuation that the threat of book banning is a more serious problem than we realize because of the book challenges that go unreported to ALA (American Library Association) was “incredibly lame.”
Goldberg: The ALA has been saying this for decades, even as the annual rate of reported cases has remained remarkably constant — and low! — for about a quarter century. Moreover, many of the reported cases listed by the ALA are little more than disputes over whether a book is age-appropriate. These disputes don’t end in books being pulled from shelves. They are merely “challenges” — which the BBWers lump in with “bans.” If your seven-year-old comes home with a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and you complain that it’s not age appropriate, your “challenge” gets lumped in with the total number of ominous “bans and challenges.”
I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Goldberg is aware of the types of reconsideration policies libraries have in place and the procedures that are supposed to be followed when a book is challenged. Many book “disputes” never reach the level of a formal challenge when individuals or groups making complaints about books are asked to fill out reconsideration forms. Many complaints can be dealt with easily and amicably. To my knowledge, cases which are resolved quickly don’t get “lumped in” with “bans” or reported to ALA.
Case in point: When I served as a school librarian, a mother spoke to me after school one afternoon about a book her son had borrowed from the library. She handed me the book and told me she didn’t think it was appropriate reading for her child. I listened to her concerns. I told her that she could fill out a reconsideration form if she felt the book should be removed from the library. She told me she wasn’t asking that the book be removed from the library. She said she just didn’t want her son reading it. There was no disagreement. I didn’t bully her into making that decision. That was the end of that book “dispute.” The mother left the library satisfied with my response. I never reported this incident to ALA.
Goldberg’s example of a seven-year-old coming home with a copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover is laughable. I am sure no elementary school libraries or children’s rooms in public libraries include that book in their collections.
I should add that not all challenged books are library books. Some challenged books are those which are included on school reading lists or those which teachers have read aloud in the classroom. Complaints about books such as these would usually be dealt with by school administrators or school boards.
Goldberg is correct in saying that not all challenged books are pulled from shelves. Still, there are books removed from library shelves every year. There are also books removed from school reading lists. Does Goldberg think it’s of no importance or concern because only some of the challenged books are removed or banned?
FYI—Some information on challenged and banned books:
Taken from Book battles heat up over censorship vs. selection in school by Natalie DiBlasio, (USA Today)
Books banned by various schools in the past six months include:
1. Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher
2. Big Momma Makes the World, by Phyllis Root
3. The Bonesetter’s Daughter, by Amy Tan
4. Burn, by Suzanne Phillips
5. Great Soul, by Joseph Lelyveld
6. It’s a Book, by Lane Smith
7. Lovingly Alice, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
8. The Marbury Lens, by Andrew Smith
9. Me Talk Pretty One Day, by David Sedaris
10. Mobile Suit Gundam: Seed Astray Vol. 3, by Tomohiro Chiba
11. My Darling, My Hamburger, by Paul Zindel
12. The Patron Saint of Butterflies, by Cecilia Galante
13. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
14. Pit Bulls and Tenacious Guard Dogs, by Carl Semencic
15. Push, by Sapphire
16. Shooting Star, by Fredrick McKissack Jr.
17. The Short and Incredibly Happy Life of Riley, by Colin Thompson
18. Vegan Virgin Valentine, by Carolyn Mackler
19. What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones
20. “What’s Happening to My Body?”: Book for Boys, by Lynda Madaras with Area Madaras
Source: Jennifer Petersen, the American Library Association
Part II
Goldberg quoted the two paragraphs below from my Turley blog post and described them as “treacle”:
“When a library removes a book from its shelves because someone disapproves of the ideas or opinions contained in the book, that is censorship. When it is done by publicly funded schools and libraries — government agencies — it is a violation of the First Amendment.” (Molly Raphael, President of ALA)
Raphael said we should remember that when a book is removed from a library it is an act of censorship that affects an entire community—not just one individual or one family. She also said that public libraries “serve everyone, including those who are too young or too poor to buy their own books or own a computer.” She added that the reason librarians and library users celebrate BBW is as “a testament to the strength of our freedom in the United States. We celebrate the freedom to read because we all know that we are so fortunate to live in a country that protects our freedom to choose what we want to read. If you doubt this, just ask anyone from a totalitarian society. That is why we draw attention to acts of censorship that chill the freedom to read.”
That’s treacle? Maybe to Goldberg—but not to me.
Goldberg also wrote: If you want to call it “censorship” to pull a book from a library that’s unsuitable for kids or that doesn’t deserve shelf-space compared to a better book, fine call it censorship. But if that’s the case, then there’s nothing unwholesome, dangerous, or sinister about censorship whatsoever. As to whether it violates the First Amendment, that strikes me as nonsense too. Librarians have somehow convinced themselves that they are the final constitutional authority about what should or should not be in libraries, often including relatively unfettered access to online porn.
So…there’s nothing unwholesome, dangerous, or sinister about removing library books that are unsuitable or don’t deserve shelf-space compared to a better book? I’d ask, “Who is supposed to determine which books are unsuitable for children and which books don’t deserve shelf space?” And what about all the quality literature and award-winning books that are often the targets of challenges?
The following three books have been frequently challenged:
Sherman Alexie’s autobiographical YA novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. It won a National Book Award for Young People’s Literature in 2007. (Note: This book was actually banned by the Richland School District in Washington this year. It was later reinstated.)
Lois Lowry’s book The Giver, a novel about a dystopian society, won a Newbery Medal in 1994.
Katherine Paterson’s book Bridge to Terabithia received a Newbery Medal in 1978. Paterson was named the National Ambassador for Young People’s Literature for 2010-2011 by the Library of Congress.
From the Library of Congress:
Katherine Paterson’s international fame rests not only on her widely acclaimed novels but also on her efforts to promote literacy in the United States and abroad. A two-time winner of the Newbery Medal (“Bridge to Terabithia” and “Jacob Have I Loved”) and the National Book Award (“The Great Gilly Hopkins” and “The Master Puppeteer”), she has received many accolades for her body of work, including the Hans Christian Andersen Medal, the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award and the Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts, given by her home state of Vermont. She was also named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress.
Does Goldberg believe that these three award-winning books written by Alexie, Lowry, and Paterson deserve shelf space in a school library? Does he think they are inappropriate reading material for the youth of this country? Does he think more parents should challenge these books?
Part III
Goldberg was kind enough to answer a question that I had posed in my Turley blog post:
Oh, and to answer Magliaro’s question, my answer is Yes, I think it might be a good thing if there were more challenges to librarians’ judgment about what books kids should be reading. Newspapers have a much more obvious and direct connection to the First Amendment, but we don’t consider harsh letters to the editor — i.e. “challenges” to editorial policy — to be censorious. But when a parent questions the judgment of a librarian that’s supposed to be an ominous threat to free speech? That’s bunk.
I’m not sure why Goldberg thinks that newspapers have a more obvious connection to the First Amendment than books do. Do harsh letters to the editor actually censor editorial policy? No. Are book challenges the cause of some books being banned or removed from library bookshelves or school reading lists? Yes.
Goldberg seems to perceive an adversarial relationship between librarians and parents who are concerned about the books their children read. He wrote: “Any such engagement will fuel disagreements. Bullying parents by claiming that any disagreement with a librarian is censorious does no one any good.”
Are librarians bullies–as Goldberg seems to think? Do librarians “bully” parents by claiming that any disagreement with them is censorious? Goldberg gives the impression that there is constant friction between librarians and parents who express concerns to them about the books their children read. This is not true. In fact, the ALA supports parents’ rights in regard to their children’s use of library resources:
Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children’s—and only their children’s—access to library resources. (ALA)
ALA President Molly Raphael said as much in the response she wrote to Goldberg’s op-ed column in USA Today:
Librarians have always supported a parent’s right to decide what his or her family should read. But in our democracy, other families should be able to make different choices for their own families, not dictated by a particular political or religious viewpoint.
The problem isn’t with parents who are concerned about what their children read and who want to help their children make good book choices. The problem comes when a parent disapproves of a book and decides he/she doesn’t want anyone else’s child to read it. Why should The Giver, Bridge to Terabithia, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian be removed from a library or a school reading list because one parent disapproves of them?
It appears Jonah Goldberg has little respect for librarians or children’s literature. He thinks there should be more book challenges. He thinks there’s nothing sinister or dangerous about certain kinds of book censorship. He claims librarians bully parents. He scoffs at the idea that the removal of books from libraries might violate the First Amendment. I think it’s a sad day when a published book author and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors believes that the American Library Association’s attempt to call attention to the challenging, censorship, and banning of books is just “b.s.”
Part IV
Gordon T. Belt, the Library Manager of the First Amendment Center, wrote the following in Banned Books Week: defending our freedom to read:
“I cannot live without books.” — Thomas Jefferson.
Of all Jefferson’s inspiring and thought-provoking quotes, this one is among my favorites. As the First Amendment Center’s librarian, I have a special affinity for books, and as someone academically trained as a historian, I have an appreciation for the Founding Fathers and for the important words they left behind.
Banned Books Week — Sept. 24 through Oct. 1 — is an annual recognition by librarians and book-minded people that the First Amendment should never be taken for granted. I believe the freedoms embraced by the Founding Fathers in the 45 words of the First Amendment also speak to an implied freedom to read, yet history shows us that the struggle to maintain that freedom has never been easy.
Jefferson believed that censorship only served to draw attention to books that might otherwise be ignored or forgotten. In 1814, Jefferson wrote to his Philadelphia bookseller, Nicolas G. Dufief, concerning Jefferson’s purchase of a book by Regnault de Bécourt, La Création du Monde. American authorities claimed that de Bécourt’s book contained blasphemous material, and had accused the author of selling his book to Jefferson. In coming to de Bécourt’s defense Jefferson eloquently stated, “I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate.”
Throughout our nation’s history, words that have questioned the authority of our government and religious institutions have faced public scrutiny. Even works by our most well-known Founding Fathers have been censored out of fear of rebellion and societal decay.
Part V
Some Quotes on Censorship:
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” – Voltaire
“Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance.” -Lyndon Baines Johnson
“Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there.” – Clare Booth Luce
“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” – Mark Twain
Sources & Further Reading
Censorship On The Rise: U.S. Schools Have Banned More Than 20 Books This Year (Think Progress)
MO High School Bans ‘SlaughterHouse Five’ From Curriculum, Library Because Its Principles Are Contrary To The Bible (Think Progress)
Slaughterhouse Five Sent To Literary Gulag in Republic, MO (National Coalition Against Censorship)
Richland School District Bans The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian Without Actually Reading It (Seattle Weekly)
Richland School Board reverses course on book ban (Tri-City Herald)
“Banned Books Week” worth the hype (Journal Star)
Book battles heat up over censorship vs. selection in school (USA Today)
Banned Books Week: defending our freedom to read (First Amendment Law Center)
CRDL celebrates Banned Books Week (The Morning Sun)
Banned Books Week promotes, protects freedom (Galesburg Planet)
Column: Banned Books Week is just hype (USA Today)
Banned Books Week celebrates Freedom to Read (USA Today)
Banned Books Week: Just a Lot of Propaganda Says Jonah Goldberg (Turley Blawg)
Banned Book B.S. Cont’d (National Review Online)
Censorship and Banned Books: Quotes about Censorship (New Mexico State University)
Sample Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources (American Library Association)
Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (American Library Association)
Notable First Amendment Court Cases (American Library Association)
Anon,
Elaine was specifically saying that DIDN’T get tallied.
“That was the end of that book “dispute.” The mother left the library satisfied with my response. I never reported this incident to ALA.”
See. You even quoted her saying that it wasn’t included in the figures.
That was the point. She was giving an example to counter Goldberg’s claim that that sort of thing DOES end up tallied with the challenges.
I guess if you need a hobby, getting riled up about people on the internet who you think disagree with you, might work. I personally prefer fishing, but to each their own.
I’m going to be sorry I asked, but Rafflaw, can you explain to me what Jim Crow has to do with this bake sale, why you believe the students have not heard of Jim Crow, and what you think this bake sale is all about?
“Have they not heard of Jim Crow in their studies?”
Raff,
They probably have and feel a loss at having missed it.
“Like Bill Kristol, Goldberg is among the worst of the factually-challenged wingnut spawn.”
Blogenfreude,
It would have been impossible for you to make a more apt comparison of these dummies whose success is parent, rather than talent driven.
Elaine,
Those students should be ashamed of themselves. Have they not heard of Jim Crow in their studies?
Off Topic:
Racially heated posting sparks UC Berkeley outrage
Nanette Asimov, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle September 24, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/23/BATO1L8RLL.DTL&tsp=1
Excerpt:
BERKELEY — A Facebook post announcing plans by a UC Berkeley Republican group to sell baked goods priced according to race, gender and ethnicity – “White/Caucasian” pastries for $2 and “Black/African American” pastries for 75 cents, for example – has drawn outrage on campus.
“I’m ashamed to know that I go to the same school with people who would say stuff like this,” responded student Skyler Hogan-Van Sickle on Facebook. “I’m really trying to figure out how someone can be this hateful.”
The campus Republicans, who expect to go forward with their “Increase Diversity Bake Sale” on Tuesday, say the event is meant to mock an effort by the student government to drum up support for SB185, a bill to let the University of California and the California State University consider ethnicity in student admissions. It’s awaiting approval or veto by Gov. Jerry Brown.
Like Bill Kristol, Goldberg is among the worst of the factually-challenged wingnut spawn. Conservative sites don’t have comments enabled because it takes only seconds to debunk their claims.
As far as Anon critiquing you for a lack of linkage that was merely a cheap shot taken to allow him to do his thing. You made clear the source and any reader can Google.
I wasn’t referring to Elaine at all.
I was referring to a widespread practice at many blogs, left and right where you see the blogger deride some other bloggers post or some article somewhere and explain why they won’t link to deprive the first blogger of “traffic”.
Here’s a quickie search just to illustrate the point
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22i+won't+link%22+%2Btraffic+site:dailykos.com
I think that behavior is like shutting Ellen Goodman out of SFU, except it offends me worse, because it breaks the Internet for those trying to play along at home.)
Here is Ellen Goodman’s response to St. Francis University. BTW, anon, privately owned or not, a university is supposed to be a place which encourages the free exchange of ideas. If it does not, it just becomes Fox News Channel with big buildings and maybe a stadium.
http://academeblog.org/2011/09/24/ellen-goodman-responds-to-being-banned-by-saint-francis-university/
That’s a good letter, and it’s clear I share with you our ideals of what a university *should* be.
On the other hand, this is good reading to:
The Shadow University, written by two long-time friends and civil liberties advocates — one more liberal, the other more conservative — illuminates the attack on liberty that has dominated our nation’s college campuses for nearly two decades.
This book shows how the best aspects of the 1960’s — free speech, equality of rights, respect for private conscience, and a sense of undergraduate liberties and adult responsibilities — have died on our campuses. What is left of that heady decade are its worst part: self-appointed “progressives” who seek to enforce moral and political orthodoxies through abuse and coercion rather than reason. In a nation whose future depends upon an education in freedom, colleges and universities are teaching the values of censorship, self-censorship, and self-righteous abuse of power.
The Shadow University, published by The Free Press in hardcover in 1998 and, the following year, by HarperPerennial in paperback — both still in print — is yet more relevant since 9/11. Faculty members who eagerly dismantled the structures of liberty in the 1980s and 1990s have now discovered that one reaps what one sows, and that censorship is a weapon that, if tolerated, all sides may use. If the past twenty years proves anything, it is that liberty is non-partisan and an essential way of being human, morally, politically, and intellectually.
The Shadow University is an urgent call to all those concerned with liberty — liberals, conservatives, and everything in between — to join together in defense of liberty for the next generation, by restoring free speech, equality of rights, fair procedures, and respect for private conscience and individuality on our colleges and universities.
Read the book.
The censoring of Ellen Goodman at SFU is way down on the list. So is Elaine’s tallying of the banning of a book merely because a parent comes by to say, she thought this book was inappropriate for her kids. Call the waambulance.
Elaine,
A marvelous and as usual exhaustively presented re-rebuttal. Be very proud that your original piece stung Goldberg enough that he needed the
NR Blog to respond. I think you hit a nerve. Sadly, this dumb little rich Momma’s boy has reached a level where people pay attention to his specious drivel, as so well put by Frankly. As far as Anon critiquing you for a lack of linkage that was merely a cheap shot taken to allow him to do his thing. You made clear the source and any reader can Google.
“I don’t want to put words in Mike S’s mouth, but my perception of some of what he as written would suggest that he thinks that there is no reason to keep this book from children. It certainly seems to be the case his parents would have let him read this book, and he also seems to feel that if it was good enough for him, it should be the standard for all kids.”
Anon,
You state my position exactly. Now in fact I was unable to read “Lady
Chatterly’s love until I was 15 in 1959. This was because it was banned until a court case that also included “Tropic of Cancer” and “Fanny Hill”.
“Chatterly” and “Cancer” were wonderful books by great writers. I found
“Fanny” somewhat boring.
I would and did allow my children to read whatever they wanted, at whatever age they wanted to read it. I think that should be the position of any intelligent parent, if only to get an idea of your child’s real interests, unmediated by the parents’ pushing their direction and because the reading level of the child will self edit the complexity of the idea. When a child reads material above their level of maturity it encourages learning and growth as they try to make sense of the content.
One of the main reasons I think our society is so messed up is because many Americans are immature sexually in that their ideas of sexuality are skewed by an overlay of moral belief that sex is somehow dirty and pleasure from it is wrong. Since our sexuality generally blossoms at puberty, far too many teens imbue this way of thinking and that perverts the healthiness of their sexual fantasy life.
In the case of the “puberty juiced” male, women become objectified as T & A’s and sex is seen as penetration and release. For females, due to the unhealthy obsession with their chastity which runs headlong into their own raging hormonal systems, they sublimate sexuality into the nonsensical romantic (I’m referring to the classic idea that actually began in the middle ages) idea of love, thus becoming prey to poor choices of partners. The mandatory education for both sexes in their teens should be reliable methods of birth control, coupled with the understanding that
sexuality is so much more than quick copulation.
As a 15 year old virgin the sexuality in both books was very instructive and especially in Lawrence quite beautiful. The sex scenes in Lawrence were of a lyrical beauty that taught me much in my treatment of women when I began to have sexual relationships. It taught me how to be a lover and not merely a “stud” measuring my sexual prowess, as if even such a thing as sexual prowess exists as a judgment of manhood.
Now as far as your criticism of Elaine’s piece goes I find it typical of your
methodology here. You start off by stating this is one of the few time you agree with Goldberg and then go on to denigrate Elaine and attempt to revive Goldberg’s points. When oh when Anon, will we ever see you take a straightforward position, in depth rather than mild allusion, against the
depredations of Right Wingers? You’ve certainly expounded at length as to your take on Elaine’s failings, why doesn’t that same length of critique fall upon those of the Right?
Anderson’s Speak Under Attack, Again
By Rocco Staino September 23, 2010
School Library Journal
http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/slj/home/886910-312/andersons_speak_under_attack_again.html.csp
Excerpt:
Just in time for the American Library Association’s Banned Books Week, Laurie Halse Anderson’s Speak (FSG, 1999) is under attack once again. This time, Wesley Scroggins, an associate professor of management at Missouri State University, is cautioning parents of the Republic School District against what he refers to as “soft porn” books used in the curriculum, including Speak, which is about rape.
Scroggins’s op-ed piece in Missouri’s News-Leader has generated more than 300 comments on the newspaper’s website, is the topic of several blog posts, and prompted its own Twitter feed (#SpeakLoudly).
School Library Journal spoke to Anderson about the controversy.
Last Sunday at 6:39 a.m. you first tweeted about Wesley Scroggins’s article, in which he calls Speak, immoral, filthy, and soft pornography. What’s been the reaction to that tweet and your blog post about it?
The reaction has been astounding. As of right now, more than 25,000 people have read the blog on my website. Another 15,000 have read it on Jezebel.com. Hundreds and hundreds of people have commented and posted their own stories about speaking up about being raped or sexual abused. A Twitter feed #speakloudly was set up by an English teacher and the subject became one of the most heavily tweeted on Sunday. Someone created a Twibbon campaign. Another person made a blog button. I am suddenly fielding requests for interviews and commentary. Countless people have established giveaways and donations of Speak and the other two books under fire: Slaughterhouse Five (Random, 1969) by Kurt Vonnegut, and Twenty Boy Summer (Little Brown, 2009) by a new YA author, Sarah Ockler.
It must feel good to have so much support in such a short period of time.
I keep needing to stop and breathe deeply so I can take it all in. When Speak was published, there was some whispering that this was not an appropriate topic for teens. I knew from my personal experience that it was. This notion was validated by thousands and thousands of readers who connected with me to thank me for the book. They said it made them feel less alone and gave them the strength to speak up about being sexually assaulted and other painful secrets.
Those readers and their parents, teachers, and librarians changed the world [with their support]. I wrote the book. I wrote the blog post. My readers took up the challenge and are now speaking very loudly. They have slammed Scroggins’s comparison of rape to pornography and are demanding that school boards everywhere follow the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment of our Constitution.
These readers have changed the world by declaring that rape victims have nothing to be ashamed of, but that book banners like Scroggins do.
Can you share an example of how Speak has made a difference in someone’s life?
I have heard from many survivors of sexual assault who told me that they didn’t dare tell anyone about being attacked. They held in the physical and emotional trauma, sometimes for decades. Often they turned to drugs, alcohol, or cutting to cope with the emotional pain. Then they read Speak. Melinda gave them the courage to speak up for the first time, to tell what happened, and to get the help they deserved. I have heard from even more people who were not raped, but who found a piece of themselves in Melinda. Her story strengthened them, too.
How’d you find out about his op-ed?
Someone tweeted about it on Saturday and my daughter, Stephanie, blogged about it Saturday night.
Is this a part of a movement in Missouri against YA literature?
That is an excellent question. A few days ago Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian (Little, Brown, 2007) was banned in a high school very close to the one in question. That makes me suspicious, but I don’t want to characterize this as a movement until we have more information from people in these communities.
Author Laurie Halse Anderson – Poem about her book “Speak”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic1c_MaAMOI
This guy thinks SPEAK is pornography
by Laurie Halse Anderson
September 19, 2010
http://madwomanintheforest.com/this-guy-thinks-speak-is-pornography/
Excerpt:
Remember last September, when the book banners crawled out of their pits of nastiness to try to remove YA literature from classrooms and libraries?
It is September again, my friends.
Wesley Scroggins is an associate professor of management at Missouri State University. He was also a speaker at Reclaiming Missouri for Christ, a recent seminar whose purpose was to “To educate our pastors, legislators, educators, students, and all citizens as to the truth about America’s Christian Heritage and the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment and function of our legal, legislative, and educational system, and to work towards the successful reestablishment of these values in our society.”
(Note: I love Jesus. My dad is a United Methodist minister. I point out Scroggins’ affiliation with this group so readers can understand his larger agenda.)
Wesley wrote an opinion piece in the News-Leader of Springfield, MO, in which he characterized SPEAK as filthy and immoral. Then he called it “soft pornography” because of two rape scenes.
The fact that he sees rape as sexually exciting (pornographic) is disturbing, if not horrifying. It gets worse, if that’s possible, when he goes on to completely mischaracterize the book.
Some people say that I shouldn’t make a big deal about this. That I am giving him more attention than he deserves. But this guy lives about an hour and half from the school district that banned Sherman Alexie’s THE ABSOLUTELY TRUE DIARY OF A PART-TIME INDIAN this month.
My fear is that good-hearted people in Scroggins’ community will read his piece and believe what he says. And then they will complain to the school board. And then the book will be pulled and then all those kids who might have found truth and support in the book will be denied that. In addition, all the kids who have healthy emotional lives but who hate reading, will miss the chance to enjoy a book that might change their opinion.
All because some wingnut grabbed the opinion page of his newspaper, bellowed his lies, and no one challenged him.
That is unfortunate….I think all forms of material should be made available so people if so inclined could make informed decisions….But then lots of folks like to be spoon fed….or follow the leader…or not get involved because it does not affect them…..YET…..
Thank you Elaine….
AY,
105 years to be exact.
Otteray,
I enjoyed reading Goodman’s columns in the Boston Globe. She was a voice of reason and wisdom. Here’s an excerpt from her final coulmn:
Ellen Goodman writes of letting go in her final column
January 1, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/31/AR2009123101743.html
Excerpt:
Looking backward and forward. I began writing my column when my daughter was 7, and I leave as my grandson turns 7. I began writing about Gerald Ford and end writing about Barack Obama. I began on a typewriter, transmitting columns on a Xerox Telecopier. Now I have a MacBook on my desk and an iPhone in my pocket.
I celebrated my lucky midlife marriage in these pages, sent my daughter to college, welcomed my grandchildren, said farewell to my mother. I upheld Thanksgiving traditions in this space and celebrated them with a family that evolved far beyond my grandparents’ idea of tradition. I wrote about values and pushed back against those who believe they own the patent on this word.
It has been a great gift to make a living trying to make sense out of the world around me. That is as much a disposition as an occupation.
Now, when people ask what are you going to do next, I am tempted to co-opt Susan Stamberg’s one-word answer when she left her anchor post at NPR: “Less.” I am more tempted to say, simply, “We’ll see.” After 46 years of deadlines, it is time to take in some oxygen, to breathe and consider.
At the risk of sounding like a politician one step ahead of the sheriff, I want to spend more time with my family and fulfill the fantasy of a summer on my porch in Maine. But of course writers write — even more than 750 words at a gulp — and former columnists can get involved in causes that require something more than a keyboard.
Looking forward and backward, it is never easy to know the right moment to step onto that next stage. At a farewell lunch — which I described as the “sheet cake lunch” — my editor and friend read aloud some vaguely familiar words by a columnist 30 years my junior.
“There’s a trick to the Graceful Exit. It begins with the vision to recognize when a job, a life stage, a relationship is over — and to let go. It means leaving what’s over without denying its validity or its past importance in our lives.
“It involves a sense of future, a belief that every exit line is an entry, that we are moving on rather than out.”
Elaine M.,
We are saying 100 years right….
Good news in Massachusetts:
Mass. library undoes century-old Twain book ban
September 23, 2011
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2011/09/23/mass_library_undoes_century_old_twain_book_ban_1316785092/
Excerpt:
CHARLTON, Mass.—A Massachusetts library has put the Mark Twain work “Eve’s Diary” back on the shelf more than a century after it was banned.
The Charlton Public Library’s trustees this week unanimously voted to return the book to circulation, reversing the board’s 1906 decision to ban the 1905 short story.
Trustee Richard Whitehead said the move was made to coincide with the American Library Association’s Banned Books Week.
The book was written from the perspective of the biblical Eve. It was banned because trustee Frank Wakefield objected to nude illustrations of Eve. Whitehead tells The Telegram and Gazette (http://bit.ly/r0CFgm) he considers the illustrations works of art.
Here is Ellen Goodman’s response to St. Francis University. BTW, anon, privately owned or not, a university is supposed to be a place which encourages the free exchange of ideas. If it does not, it just becomes Fox News Channel with big buildings and maybe a stadium.
http://academeblog.org/2011/09/24/ellen-goodman-responds-to-being-banned-by-saint-francis-university/
Has anyone here been to a liberal blog (conservatives do this too) where they say, “so and so wrote X and it’s so stupid that … but I am not going to link to X and give them the traffic. You can google it on your own!”
That’s like Saint Francis University refusing to let Ms. Goodman speak.
I think both are bogus, in that even if you disagree with someone, you can learn a lot and refine your own position by listening to them. As Oro Lee’s speaker might say, “aren’t you confident enough in your own position that you can listen to what others have to say?”
I can’t believe how dumb and stupid many liberal bloggers are to talk about some other blog they dislike and refuse to link to it.
I think it indicates they are scared, and also indicates they are probably bending the truth.
However, it’s also totally different as well.
First SFU’s not allowing Goodman’s speech is not a government ban — SFU is a private, religious organization.
If it’s censorship, it’s censorship of the mildest form. Here stuff is available on YouTube in bookstores, all over the net. They are denying her a stage, they aren’t even denying the ability of their students to listen to her.
It’s a Catholic University, what do the students and parents expect?
If they don’t want even this form of censorship, they can send the kid to the State school.
My agenda in this is an encouragement of diversity. And that diversity should make the country and her people wiser and stronger. That’s what I believe. I have no problem with a private school engaging in this behavior, and good on them for creating a unique educational opportunity as they see fit. I would not force them to educate their students according to some rigid committee’s idea of what curriculum’s should be. And as long as they are legal nor should their policies have to hew to Elaine or Blouise’s notion or propriety.
AND THAT is the actual First Amendment position regarding SFU. StFU.
Now, my other reason about this, frankly, is Israel, which seems out of place in this discussion, and a stretch, and you’re probably right.
I would like to see a two state solution in Israel, and right now, the way things have been going recently, apparently lots of non-Jewish people are back to favoring a one state solution, even if that ends the Jewish characteristics of Israel. That’s fine, it should be a secular democracy.
Well, I disagree. Let Israel be Jewish, and let Palestine be Arab and mostly Moslem.
And let a Catholic University be a Catholic University, even when that means they exercise their right to be stupid.
On the other hand, bloggers that do not link to the people they are arguing with are cowardly douchebags and frankly, breaking the net. For their ego.