Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Some people have no sense of humor. Some people find obscenity where there is none. Case in point: Earlier this year, parents of a kindergarten student in the Annville-Cleona School District made a complaint about The Dirty Cowboy, a humorous picture book that their child brought home from the school library. The parents felt that Adam Rex’s illustrations of the cowboy’s partial nudity in the book were “pornographic” and wanted it banned. In April, the school board agreed with the parents and voted unanimously to remove the book from school libraries in the district.
Note: Before the school board’s vote, the district’s book review committee voted 5-1 to remove the book, with Cleona librarian Anita Mentzer voting against it. Other committee members included Annville-Cleona Superintendent Steven Houser, the assistant superintendent, the technology director, and Cleona Elementary’s principal. (School Library Journal)
There were protests against the banning of The Dirty Cowboy by free-speech organizations and an online petition in favor of repealing the ban that was signed by more than 300 people. The National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression sent a letter to the district asking that the book be returned to school library shelves.
An excerpt from the letter:
The practical effect of acceding to any request to restrict access to materials is to invite others to demand changes to reflect their beliefs, which would leave school officials vulnerable to multiple, possibly conflicting, demands, and leave the library in tatters. T he role of the library is to allow students and parents to make choices according to their own interests, experiences, and family values. No one has to read a book simply because it’s on the library shelf. We strongly urge you to keep The Dirty Cowboy in Annville-Cleona elementary school libraries. The decision to remove the book not only accedes to a specific viewpoint about the acceptability of nudity, but also deprives the entire student body of access to a highly praised book that many students, and their parents, would wish to read. Those who object to this book are entitled to their view, but they may not impose it on others. Any other decision threatens the principle that is essential to individual freedom, democracy, and a good education: the right to read, inquire, question, and think for ourselves.
Tim White reported in the Lebanon Daily News that despite outcry from the community, national media coverage, letters from the American Library Association and other organizations, and numerous pleas to reconsider, “the board refused to take up the matter again, citing concerns of causing a counter-controversy.” The board “stuck to its decision that the book was too dirty for young eyes.”
I’ll let you judge the book in question. Following is…
- A summary of The Dirty Cowboy taken from an article that appeared in School Library Journal
- a link to a Macmillan website where you can view illustrations in the book
- three videos on the subject of the book banning
- a list of honors and awards the book has received
Book Summary (SLJ)
The award-winning book tells the tale of a freckle-faced cowboy who decides to take his annual bath in a nearby river and asks his dog to guard his clothes. But the two get into fracas when the dog doesn’t recognize his fresh-smelling owner and refuses to hand over his clothes. The illustrations carefully conceal the cowboy’s private parts “while still keeping a G rating,” according to SLJ‘s review off the book.
The Dirty Cowboy illustrations
The Dirty Cowboy’s honors and awards include the following:
- Parents Choice Gold Medal
- Golden Kite Award (SCBWI – For Excellence in Picture Book Text)
- First Prize in the 2004 Marion Vannett Ridgway Awards
- International Reading Association 2004 Notable Book
- Bulletin Blue Ribbon (The Bulletin for the Center for Children’s Books)
- Finalist for the Spur Award (Western Writers of America)
- Finalist for Southeast Booksellers Association 2004 Book Award
- Nominated for Georgia Picture Book Award
Comments made by Amy Timberlake, author of The Dirty Cowboy, during an interview with Blogging Censorship:
If one or two parents can get books removed from a public library, where will it stop? Will there be any books left in the library? I tell you, everybody has opinions about books, and everybody has gotten offended now and again by a book. (If you haven’t, you’re not a reader.) It doesn’t mean the book shouldn’t be on the shelves.
Anyway, this is one of the reasons we hire people with special training to care for our libraries. Librarians have a process for choosing and buying books for everybody (and in the case of schools, these books also support the teachers’ curriculum).
It’s one thing to free shelf space because a book is not being checked out, but it’s quite another to have a well-used book banned because of the objections of a few parents…
Some Questions
- Do you think the illustrations of the cowboy’s partial nudity border on obscenity?
- Do you think a book should be banned from a public school library because the parents of one child object to it?
- Do you think that one or two people or an organization should have the right to impose their views of literature and art on others who may have different perspectives from theirs?
SOURCES
PA School District Bans ‘The Dirty Cowboy’ for Partial Nudity (School Library Journal)
A-C board to vote tonight on book ban (Lebanon Daily News)
‘The Dirty Cowboy’ author: Book ban ‘ridiculous’ (Lebanon Daily News)
COLUMN: Book ban is not community’s desire (Lebanon Daily News)
A-C residents complain about ‘The Dirty Cowboy’ ban (Lebanon Daily News)
American Library Association opposes ban of ‘The Dirty Cowboy’ (Lebanon Daily News)
U.S. News: School District Bans ‘The Dirty Cowboy’ Book (Newsy)
School districts shouldn’t ban books (Partiot-News)
Annville-Cleona School Board stays strong on decision to ban ‘The Dirty Cowboy’ (Partiot-News)
‘The Dirty Cowboy’ mess is about a lot more than one book (Patriot-News)
Nancy Eshelman: ‘Dirty’ pictures lead to banning of book about a bath (Patriot-News)
Pa. school board, parents spar over banning of Dirty Cowboy (First Amendment Center)
The So-Not-Dirty Cowboy Author Speaks (Blogging Censorship/National Coalition Against Censorship)
Letter to Members of the School Board Annville-Cleona School District (National Coalition Against Censorship and the American Booksellers Foundation)
Phil C,
You wrote: “I’ve never seen the dirty cowboy, so I have no idea if I might consider it “iffy” or not so I am not arguing whether it would affect childs innocence either way.”
I’d suggest you look at images of the book’s illustrations at the following link. Maybe then you’d be able to determine if the book is “iffy.”
http://us.macmillan.com/flickr/index.html#65410188@N06&set=72157629145914377
*****
You wrote; “You are the one that brought up the other organizations out there that are pushing to ban books, not me.”
Do you deny that some fundamentalist religious groups are trying to get books banned from public libraries?
*****
You wrote: “I’m just warning that when groups overreact at every small case, they lose credibility when it comes to something important.”
Do you think that the people who spoke up at a school board meeting against the banning of the book and the people who signed a petition against the book’s removal from their school district’s libraries “overreacted?”
“Do you deny that some fundamentalist religious groups are trying to get books banned from public libraries?”
…Nope, I do not deny that and I’ll say it again if I must. In those cases I fully 100% agree with efforts to counter efforts like that. You are arguing with someone who totally agrees with you. How many different ways do I have to say it? You know, it really gets frustrating when I concede points, or otherwise stipulate. When I agree with you and yet you still come right back with the big hammer you make it very difficult to agree with you.
“Do you think that the people who spoke up at a school board meeting against the banning of the book and the people who signed a petition against the book’s removal from their school district’s libraries “overreacted?”
I definitely do not think that if the people that showed up and spoke at the meeting were local residents and parents that they DID NOT overreact. However, I’m taking a huge leap of faith here that few (or none) of those people were bussed in professional protesters. If that was the case, then I think that yes, it was an overreaction. That is where I draw the line. And I don’t even draw that line too sharply, are there occaisions where outside pressure should be put to bear? Yes, absolutely. MLK is the most perfect example.
OK, I’m done….this obviously has reached the end of any possible furtherment of the cause. For those points we agree. Fine, I agree, but those where we disagree, clearly it’s time to agree that reasonable people can disagree reasonably and walk away without ill will.
Phil C,
“But it still didn’t sound (to me anyway) like a concerted effort of a religious group that was on some kind of mission. It sounded to me like two parents placing a complaint with a school board.”
Did I claim in my post that the removal of “The Dirty Cowboy” from the school libraries in the Annville-Cleona district in Pennsylvania was due to the “concerted effort of a religious group?”
*****
“As I said earlier, this specific case was reported to be a case of two parents that complained when their kindergartner kid brought home a book.”
That is what I wrote in my post. Maybe you didn’t read it carefully enough.
The first paragraph of my post:
“Some people have no sense of humor. Some people find obscenity where there is none. Case in point: Earlier this year, parents of a kindergarten student in the Annville-Cleona School District made a complaint about The Dirty Cowboy, a humorous picture book that their child brought home from the school library. The parents felt that Adam Rex’s illustrations of the cowboy’s partial nudity in the book were “pornographic” and wanted it banned. In April, the school board agreed with the parents and voted unanimously to remove the book from school libraries in the district.”
*****
I take it you think it’s okay to remove a book from a public school library because two people objected to it. I guess it doesn’t matter that more people spoke against the banning of the book and that 300 people signed a petition against the removal of the book.
Was I pointing “general fingers around?” I don’t know what masturbation has to do with the subject of this post.
BTW, how do you think reading “The Dirty Cowboy” would affect a child’s innocence?
I’ve never seen the dirty cowboy, so I have no idea if I might consider it “iffy” or not so I am not arguing whether it would affect childs innocence either way.
To me, the most important question is the process. Did these parents have an avenue to voice their concerns and was it discussed and voted on. Yes. I’ve already conceded that I think the board made the wrong choice, so there’s no sense in contunuing to point that out. You are beating a dead horse. But the real solution there is to vote those board members out of office. I have no doubt, that If those hundreds of parents who showed up that day to speak actually paid attention and voted, those board members never would have sat there in the first place.
I brought up the masturbation thing because the discussion was clearly expanding to things that “other forces/people/organizations” are doing. You are the one that brought up the other organizations out there that are pushing to ban books, not me. I didn’t bring up Shi Huang, I didn’t bring up German students, I didn’t bring up any of those outside topics.
But since we kept going there, I think that that example (there are plenty of others) just illustrates that there are groups of people trying to push their own agenda on other peoples children in both directions. I’m in the middle and think that both groups are dead wrong.
I don’t like the idea of people going around and banning books, and I also don’t like the idea that people are trying to force their own views of open marriage, alternative lifestyles (pick a topic..) on very young children and utterly disregard the way some parents want to bring up their kids. I think both sides take something reasonable to a ridiculously far out extreme and neither one is right.
You seem to think I’m arguing that the “dirty cowboy” should be banned. I’m not. I’m also not arguing that other books should be banned. I’m just warning that when groups overreact at every small case, they lose credibility when it comes to something important. Put simply, it’s the “boy who cried wolf” approach.
Phil C,
“Ah ha, I had a feeling that was the true agenda”
My TRUE agenda is to speak out against the banning of books from public libraries because a few people/a group may object to the books. It just so happens that there are many religious groups who have worked to ban adult books and children’s books like the Harry Potter series, books with mention of magic or witchcraft, or other subjects of which they disapprove.
*****
Religious Right Censors’ Worst Nightmare: Why We’ll Miss Judith Krug
Apr 14, 2009 by Rob Boston in Wall of Separation
http://au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/religious-right-censors-worst-nightmare-why-well-miss-judith-krug
Excerpt:
It’s pretty easy these days to walk into mostly any public library in the country and check out J.D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye or John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men. You can do that in a large part thanks to a woman named Judith Krug.
Judith, who ran the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom since 1967, was a life-long censorship foe who conceived the now internationally famous “Banned Books Week.” She raised awareness of book censorship in America and devised strategies to combat it.
Judith died Saturday at age 69 after a battle with stomach cancer. We are all a little poorer for that.
Not surprisingly. Judith’s work brought her into conflict with the Religious Right. In 1995, Religious Right activists in Virginia tried to start a new group targeting public libraries. They called it “Family Friendly Libraries.” The organization, which was in cahoots with Focus on the Family, proposed taking all of the books fundamentalist Christians didn’t like – tomes dealing with human sexuality, “the occult,” “non-traditional” families and so on – and isolating them in a special room or getting rid of them entirely.
Judith would have none of that. I interviewed her for a story about the Religious Right attack on libraries, and her views were clear: Censorship was not the answer. Rather, she said, parents should get more involved with their children and make sure the library materials they choose are appropriate.
It was – dare I say it? – a rather conservative solution.
A few years ago, when Religious Right activists nationwide went after J.K. Rowling’s popular “Harry Potter” books, Judith again rushed to the ramparts. Judith knew there was something special about a series of books that had captivated even reluctant readers, and she was not going to let the Religious Right take them away from children. The anti-Potter campaign soon collapsed under the weight of its own silliness.
*****
Witch Hunt
Why The Religious Right Is Crusading To Exorcise Harry Potter Books From Public Schools And Libraries
March 2002
By Rob Boston
http://www.au.org/church-state/march-2002-church-state/featured/witch-hunt
*****
Banning Books for Christ in Republic, Missouri
By Hrafnkell Haraldsson
July 31, 2011
http://www.politicususa.com/banning-books-for-christ-in-republic-missouri.html
*****
Schools and Censorship: Banned Books
http://www.pfaw.org/issues/freedom-of-speech/schools-and-censorship-banned-books
Excerpt:
The American Association of School Administrators and the American Library Association define censorship as: “[T]he removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational materials — of images, ideas, and information — on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in light of standards applied by the censor.”[1] As long as people have endeavored to communicate, others have sought to prevent them. Every day someone tries to control or otherwise restrict oral expressions, broadcast messages, or written words. Almost every idea, at one point, has proven to be objectionable to someone.
However, our basic right — the freedom to express ourselves as we see fit — is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution, ensuring the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unpopular or unorthodox. In fact, the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
But despite this, continued attempts to censor words, thoughts and opinions remain constant. The American Civil Liberties Union explains that “the urge to censor is hardly the monopoly of any political group. But the greatest threat today comes from the fundamentalist right, with its ideological hostility to other religious or philosophical systems, to homosexuality, to sex education, and indeed to the basic idea of secular education.”[2]
*****
Freedom to Read – Individual Rights vs. Government Control
http://bannedbookschallenge.blogspot.com/2008/09/freedom-to-read-individual-rights-vs.html
Excerpt:
The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label “controversial” views, to distribute lists of “objectionable” books or authors, and to purge libraries. -From The Freedom to Read Statement, ALA Website-
Banned Books Week is September 27th – October 4th.
•Shi Huang, in 213 BC, started the ritual of burning books when he ordered books destroyed which he perceived as a threat to his rule as the first emperor of China.
•On May 10, 1933 German students from renowned universities gathered in Berlin and other German cities to burn tens of thousands of books with “unGerman” ideas. Books by Freud, Einstein, Thomas Mann, Jack London, and H.G. Wells along with others written by gifted writers went up in smoke.
•In 1980 a cultural revolution was launched and bands of Hezbollahis and Islamists attacked, destroyed and burnt libraries in Iran.
What do each of these examples have in common? They are an expression of a Government’s power to impose its own ideology on a people. Most Americans will read this and believe that what happened in 213 BC China, and 1930s Germany and 1980s Iran is far removed from their own experience in 2008 USA. But they would be wrong.
Americans freedom to read is challenged daily – often by local governments or fundamentalist religious groups. Books in the United States have been censored, banned, removed from libraries and taken out of schools. Often books come under attack because they conflict with somebody’s religious beliefs or they express a point of view which someone deems amoral. When we interfere with someone’s freedom to read we are imposing our ideology on that person.
I believe people have a right to pursue (or not) their own spiritual or religious path; they have a right to voice their thoughts on morality, politics, or world view. But I do not believe they have the right to tell someone else what to believe and then impose that by removing from society any reading material which does not support their ideology.
It’s a lot of links and clips, but I still don’t see a solution in there.
As I said, I’m willing to contend that this board made the wrong decision in this case. But it still didn’t sound (to me anyway) like a concerted effort of a religious group that was on some kind of mission. It sounded to me like two parents placing a complaint with a school board.
And that’s where I part company a little. I think that a system where parents can register a complaint and have a local board that’s elected by the citizens (not appointed and not some kind of overruling czar that has ultimate power) is the right way to do it.
It mimics our justice system, a jury may get it wrong now and again, but it’s still a better system than having a only one judge or mob rule.
And if one just wants to point general fingers around, the other side has gone way too far (IMO) at times too. One fairly reccent example that comes to mind is a former Surgeon General that actually advocated to teach kindergarten children about masturbation in public schools. I mean really, isn’t that just taking it a little too far? Are we really surprised that there was pushback?
Yes, I also see a surge of parents pushing back when it comes to schools going too far, but considering all the pressure out there constantly exposing children to subjects that are way too adult, I don’t blame parents one bit for trying to preserve a few years of their kids innocence.
As I said earlier, this specific case was reported to be a case of two parents that complained when their kindergartner kid brought home a book. Not a coordinated effort to go through the shelves, and I’m trying to point out that the reaction, if you disagree should be proportionate. We’re talking about the difference between a speeding ticket and drunk driving here and I feel like you’re pullng out the breathalizer.
ack…lots of typos in there…my apologies. If I could go back and edit and clean it up I would.
I just did a library search. It’s available at 2 of the libraries in which I have membership and 7 copies total from the network of libraries. Don’t have access to the school libraries, but then, I haven’t tried.
Banned Books Week Reminds Us That Censorship Is Alive and Well in the Internet Age
By Molly Raphael, President, American Library Association (ALA)
Posted: 09/22/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-raphael/banned-books-week-censorship_b_977058.html
Excerpt:
The week of Sept 24 – Oct 1 is Banned Books Week, a time when libraries, schools, and bookstores celebrate our First Amendment freedom to read while drawing attention to the harms that censorship does to our society and our individual freedoms.
Whether in print or digital format, books are a precious resource, providing us with information, entertainment, opinions, ideas, and a window on lives far different from our own. Free access to books and ideas is the foundation of our government and our society, enabling every person to become an educated participant in our democratic republic. Libraries are an essential part of this process, providing the only access for those who do not have the resources to purchase or access books and information on their own.
Yet, far more often than we may realize, individuals and groups have sought to restrict access to library books they believed were objectionable on religious, moral, or political grounds, thereby restricting the rights of every reader in their community. For example, this summer the Republic (Mo.) school board voted to remove Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Sarah Ockler’s Twenty Boy Summer from the school library as a result of a complaint that the book “teaches principles contrary to Biblical morality and truth.” More than 150 students and their families have lost access to those books; while a local and national outcry caused the school board to return the books to the library, the books are now on a locked shelf and unavailable to students absent the consent of a parent or guardian.
It’s become popular in the last few years to argue that this kind of book censorship is no big deal. Isn’t the decision to ban the books just a way of helping parents protect their children? What does it matter if a book is banned from a school or library if kids can obtain books from online retailers?
Such censorship is, in fact, a very big deal. Such censorship matters to those who no longer can exercise the right to choose what they read for themselves. It matters to those in the community that cannot afford books or a computer, and for whom the library is a lifeline to the Internet and the printed word. And it matters to all of us who care about protecting our rights and our freedoms and who believe that no one should be able to forbid others in their community from reading a book because that book doesn’t comport with their views, opinions, or morality.
Let’s remember that public libraries and public school libraries are for all the people in the community, and that every community embraces a tapestry of beliefs, lifestyles, and values, from gay to straight, from liberal to conservative, rich and poor, and everywhere in between. Libraries are for everyone, and their collections need to be as diverse as the communities that they serve. Just because views are unpopular with the majority in a community does not mean that we should block individuals’ access to those views.
And let’s not forget that publicly funded libraries are government institutions obligated to uphold the First Amendment rights of all people–including young people–to receive information.
Certainly, not every book is right for each reader, and librarians fully support parents’ rights to decide what books are best suited for their children. But no one should be able to make reading choices for other people’s children, or require that the reading materials available to a community be limited to that which comports with their personal beliefs.
Phil C,
“Anyone who thinks differently, or doesn’t want us to expose children and properly orient them into a proper society should just be tossed in jail.”
It’s many of the religious fundamentalists who want everyone to believe as they do and to conform to their idea of what a proper society is. Many of them don’t respect viewpoints that are different from theirs.
Oh those poor persecuted Christians who just want to impose their religion on other via the mechanisms of government in contravention of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise clauses!
There would be no clashes over religion if everyone would keep theirs off the secular form of government our Founders deliberately created.
(:
Back to the topic of banning books:
Banning Books for Christ in Republic, Missouri
By Hrafnkell Haraldsson
July 31, 2011
http://www.politicususa.com/banning-books-for-christ-in-republic-missouri.html
Excerpt:
It’s interesting how we can’t have anything in our public or school libraries that doesn’t perpetuate Christian myth, or to be more precise, is in some way deemed to contradict Christian myth. We’ve seen this time and again, dating back to the earliest days of Christianity, “unfriendly” texts burned out of existence, and sometimes the author for having written it.
We may not burn authors any more, but books are still burned, and when they are not burned they are banned. This is what happened in Republic, Missouri, when two books were deemed “inappropriate” for high school students. The books? Sarah Ockler’s Twenty Boy Summer was removed from the school’s library, and Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five from the school’s curriculum.
And here’s where Christian intolerance for other viewpoints comes into play.
The school board claimed that the books were banned because they were not “age-appropriate” (Slaughterhouse Five has too much swearing, as though kids these days can’t surpass Vonnegut even on an off-day and Twenty Boy Summer has too much sex, as though kids need a sex-primer to “do it”) but according to the original complaint the problem was not age at all, but the Bible. Wesley Scroggins, a Republic resident, charged in the complaint that got the whole ball rolling that the books “teach principles contrary to the Bible.”
Another book Scroggins wanted banned was Speak, by Laurie Halsey Anderson, a young adult novel about date rape. The school board decided to keep that one. Given how full or rape the Bible is, and the Bible’s endorsement of rape, it’s difficult to see how anything dealing with rape could be against biblical principles.
The narrow-minded Scroggins (perhaps we should investigate his life to see how in accord it is with Biblical principles) said, “I congratulate them for doing what’s right and removing the two books.” The Christian bigot had to suffer his share of disappointment as well: “It’s unfortunate they chose to keep the other book.”
Of course, only one of the voting board members had actually read all three books…
Clearly the only solution to this problem is to just ban all religious nuts. Anyone who thinks differently, or doesn’t want us to expose children and properly orient them into a proper society should just be tossed in jail.
Let’s ratchet up the rhetoric and abandon any possible chance of recourse by making it really hateful and full of spite and vengeance. Maybe then they will get the point that they just aren’t wanted in this country and go back into the caves where they belong.
Turn up the pressure…We should all march, have protests, show them just how much we all hate them and everything their backwards stupid bible tells them.
While we’re at it, ban all vestiges of crosses, rip out any mention of god on our public buildings, our money, ban Christmas, Easter…everything.
Yup, that is exactly what this country needs. This is the one true way to bring peace and harmony to America.
:~(
Elaine,
Ah ha, I had a feeling that was the true agenda
“It’s many of the religious fundamentalists who want everyone to believe as they do and to conform to their idea of what a proper society is. Many of them don’t respect viewpoints that are different from theirs.”
I thought this was about a book on “Dirty Cowboys”. As a white person if I were to generalize “many people of color dont….” I would be scorned and ridiculed.
And as a person whos agnostic myself, I nonetheless strive to be considerate of others beliefs just as I would hope they would respect mine. It’s also very easy with a computer right in front of me to look up our founding fathers words. And I can’t help but wonder where you get the idea our founders didn’t hold religion very dear. You won’t find more powerful words of religious humlity than those found in all of their inaugural addresses. Look at Lincoln who fully committed this country to war if it took us 250 years because he felt so deeply that we would be judged and his religion told him tha tit was the right thing to do. You can find examples in every other president as well.
They clearly did NOT ever recognize a specific church. That is absolutely true and deliberate, but they all called upon divine providence.
And it’s not a harmful thing. It doesn’t hurt me to hear it, I don’t mind.
Have churches or individuals done horrible things, you betcha. I could easily fill 5 pages of examples. Here in California a disgusting pervert minister of the Catholic church is on rial for abusing a 5 yr old boy and making him even abuse his younger brother. Makes my eyeballs hurt thinking about it. That man will pay. However I’m not going to pain everyone with the same cloth and I also won’t deny that there are also Mother Thersas out there too.
This couple didn’t want their kid reading a book. that’s it.
I’m still waiting to hear a reasonable solution to the problem. I’ll even grant you that this board made the wrong decision. So lets take that off the table entirely.
However, what’s the solution?
I think that the local community elects a school board to represent them and all matters big or small even this book go before the board so that no one person can pass judgement on whether a book is good or bad.
Sounds like a reasonable system to me. Perfect? No. What’s your system? What’s your solution? I’ve yet to hear of a better one.
We could go the way of Mao and Stalin. They flat out banned all religion, look how that turned out. Millions upon millions of their own citizens dead.
Or perhaps we do it by a pure democracy. Do it according to whatever group can muster up more people to march and protest. If you shout and scream the loudest you win. Is that the way we should decide these matters? I say, that will result in nothing but riots and chaos. There’s a perfect example of what happens under that law, it’s called the French Revolution. That didn’t turn out very well either did it? By the time they were done they were sending children to the guillotine all in the interest of what they called “democracy”
I liked that cat.
Maybe because he was on the side of the angels. ((*_*))
leejcarrol,
The cat would hiss and spit because I was messing. He never lost any blood. I did.
Matt, maybe he just disagreed with you.
Malisha,
After his name was Butch, he was dead. He weighed about 30 pounds. Big cat.
He used to bite me and make me bleed. The cat had an attitude problem.
Matt J — what was your cat’s name AFTER it was Butch?
Elaine M.
Why should an award-winning book be removed from school libraries because the parents of one child thought that looking at the illustrations in the book might lead children to reading pornography?
============================================
You’re a moron. I’m going to let my cat poop in your flower garden. His name was Butch.
‘The Dirty Cowboy’ mess is about a lot more than one book
June 09, 2012
By Tim White
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2012/06/the_dirty_cowboy_mess.html
Excerpt:
Although the district had a policy in place based on nationally accepted book complaint processing standards that called for consideration of the work in its entirety, including its value to literacy, awards and reviews and the book’s acceptance generally, board discussion centered solely on those three or four images that showed the uncovered cowboy, his parts concealed by a bird, a cloud of dust or his dog in the foreground.
Despite community outcry, national media coverage, letters from the American Library Association and the National Coalition Against Censorship and numerous pleas to reconsider, including a petition signed by more than 250 local parents and taxpayers, the board refused to take up the matter again, citing concerns of causing a countercontroversy.
Although ACSD board President Tom Tschudy stated that he felt “reasonable minds can disagree,” he asked one parent if he would like him to bring Hustler magazine into the elementary library.
Is comparing a children’s book about taking a bath to Hustler magazine a reasonable comparison?
An undeniable correlation exists between literacy and success later in life, and parents are alarmed when one complainant can dictate immediate removal from their children’s reach of widely accepted, engaging material paid for by their tax dollars.
Perhaps just as disturbing is that a local school board, rather than finding some sort of compromise solution, would abandon its fiduciary responsibility to support accepted educational material, seek community input and limit risk to the district, all in favor of giving in to a specific and subjective viewpoint of partial nudity.
Given the school board’s apparent unwillingness to engage in further dialogue, one must ask if board members really believe that “reasonable minds can disagree”?
The members of the community who spoke at the May 17 board meeting presented reasonable and valid arguments in support of returning the book to the library.
Yet despite those reasoned arguments, the board has not seen fit to re-examine its decision.
In fact, it is obvious to us that the school board has little interest in finding an alternative, instead taking the position that its decision is the final word in the matter, not to be overturned.
If school administrators, who were apparently influenced based on one family’s subjective opinion alone, can then use their influence to persuade the entire school board, what does that say about those we have elected who are responsible, not to make their views the law, but to reflect as much as possible the views of the entire community?
Where was their common sense and critical thinking on the night this vote took place?
It is perhaps especially sad that this irrational ban is taking place the year author Ray Bradbury passed away. Bradbury wrote “Farenheit 451” in 1953, a novel warning of the dangers of censorship and book banning. Those problems clearly exist almost 60 years later.
Phil C,
You wrote: “Let the librarians figure it out… That’s perfectly stated. In this case, the librarians did figure it out along with the local school board.”
You implied that the librarian went along with the decision made by the school board. She did not. She was a member of the book review committee and the only person on the committee who voted against the removal of the book. The final decision was made by the school board.
I think you either miss my point or choose to miss my point: One parent/ two parents/one group who disapprove(s) of a book should not impose their views of literature on everyone else. Why should an award-winning book be removed from school libraries because the parents of one child thought that looking at the illustrations in the book might lead children to reading pornography?
Evidently, you have no understanding of the book challenge policy that libraries have. Many complaints can be handled by the librarian in a discussion with a parent. Not all parents who disapprove of a library book demand it be removed from the shelves. They just ask that their child not take the book out again. These parents must have demanded that the book be removed. The issue never would have been taken to a book review committee if these parents hadn’t requested the book’s removal.
To all of you who want to think about freedom of the press? Who is Karl Rove’s mentor? Won’t apologize for that.
Elaine, I did read your post.
I don’t agree with banning books. Except in very limited circumstances.
Tell Nurse Ratchet to do it. As long as she isn’t the librarian.