“Stuff Some Adults Don’t Want You to Read” at Langley

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

What books have liberals/the left tried to ban in VA schools? I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

What books have liberals/the left tried to ban in VA schools? I’ll wait.

I hope you have coffee and good banned book because you are going to wait a long time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The laughable thing here is that parents who are secure in their own values don’t fear their children being exposed to books. They are not afraid to talk to their children about new ideas, and are not afraid of having in their values challenged. The parents who want to prevent their kids from reading these books are the ones who know, deep down, that their own values are wrong.

Let’s get real. The people opposed to Gender Queer aren’t worried their kids will be traumatized by a drawing, they’re afraid their kids will catch the LGBTQ.

But doesn't it also go both ways? I don't support the R or the L banning as a matter of principle. It's the whole first amendment - you have to allow speech you don't like to protect the speech you do like - because we don't want what is able to be said to depend on who happens to be the arbiter because it could be an arbiter we don't like.

But anyway - I don't get my panties in a twist if books are banned either - because it's not going to affect my kids - and it does happen on both the right and the left. They can still read whatever the hell they want, and I also teach them critical thinking and to have a healthy distrust of authority

The people who are really against censorship should be coming out against the censorship on the left too - and there have been plenty of articles linked about that here.

I didn’t advocate for any censorship. Your post is nothing but whataboutism designed distract from the weaknesses in your own position.

No - I’m pointing out that you have double standards on censorship which is apropos.

Expect I don’t because I have not advocated for or supported any censorship. I don’t think you understand what a double standard is.

If you want to strengthen the argument against censorship - don’t only cite the censorship you disagree with in your argument. And you only critiqued the censorship by the right in your argument. Allowing / not criticizing censorship by the left weakens the case against ALL censorship.

This thread is about a book display at Langley. That is literally the topic of the discussion. If liberal parents at Langley also complained about the display, I think they were wrong too.

What books have liberals/the left tried to ban in VA schools? I’ll wait.

There was a big brouhaha at my local ES about a book with the N word. It didn't make the press though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was a ridiculous display clearly done to piss off parents. There is no way it wasn’t done maliciously.

The sad thing is that it is Black History month. Instead of focusing on that and promoting books by black authors and about black history, they are creating displays to cause issues and distract from that.

And PPs all saying it was clever and all that - you are pretty transparent. I know you aren’t dumb enough to really believe they did it to promote reading.

I'm a parent that toured Langley with my 8th grader last weekend. We weren't pissed off at all. I actually thought it was funny, and accurate. I was surprised that the library was so small for such a large high school. That's what parents should be concerned about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it was at Langley. At any other high school in this region, parents would be applauding the librarian, but the rich white bored moms at Langley are outraged. Too many similarities to Loudon families.

Unlike Loudoun county, Mclean is very liberal. I am surprised parents had any issue at all with the display. It was probably just a few nutjobs making a lot of noise.

So maybe the normal majority should ask for the sign to be reinstated. After all, that's what Youngkin wants, that schools should be responsive to parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just the principal. The Region 1 superintendent (Doug Tyson) issued a separate apology as well. It’s just sad they feel the need to apologize for looking for creative ways to encourage kids to read.

There are many, many other ways to better encourage folks to read than this. C'mon - be better.

Better than what? Better than honestly stating the facts to high school students? What was wrong with that sign? It's true. If it embarrasses you that you wanted to ban the books, that's on you. Teens are allowed to know some adults are afraid of teens reading books. In fact it is imperative that they know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it was at Langley. At any other high school in this region, parents would be applauding the librarian, but the rich white bored moms at Langley are outraged. Too many similarities to Loudon families.

Unlike Loudoun county, Mclean is very liberal. I am surprised parents had any issue at all with the display. It was probably just a few nutjobs making a lot of noise.

So maybe the normal majority should ask for the sign to be reinstated. After all, that's what Youngkin wants, that schools should be responsive to parents.

Well, if you take a look at the precincts that send kids to Langley, most of them voted for Youngkin in the majority.

The areas served by Langley are a lot more right-leaning than the rest of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn’t just the principal. The Region 1 superintendent (Doug Tyson) issued a separate apology as well. It’s just sad they feel the need to apologize for looking for creative ways to encourage kids to read.

There are many, many other ways to better encourage folks to read than this. C'mon - be better.

Better than what? Better than honestly stating the facts to high school students? What was wrong with that sign? It's true. If it embarrasses you that you wanted to ban the books, that's on you. Teens are allowed to know some adults are afraid of teens reading books. In fact it is imperative that they know this.

I find that teachers/librarians and parents are all very important figures in the education and growth of a child. We know for a fact that parental involvement is a key driver for differences in education outcome, as we compare and contrast the different levels of student performance among the schools in Fairfax County. Fairfax County does not send particularly poorly qualified teachers to certain schools.

There needs to be a cooperative relationship between parents and teachers, and not one where one undermines the other in front of students/kids. By "cooperative" I don't mean that there won't be any disagreements; far from it. However, if there are disagreements, they can discuss and debate with each other directly as adults, instead of dragging in the kid to choose who to side with. This sign is the teachers/librarians trying to undermine the image and authority of the parents. It's telling the kids that their parents are wrong for setting boundaries in reading materials. Teachers may not agree with the choices of parents, but trying to pit kids against their parents is evil.

[Anonymous]

I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was a ridiculous display clearly done to piss off parents. There is no way it wasn’t done maliciously.

The sad thing is that it is Black History month. Instead of focusing on that and promoting books by black authors and about black history, they are creating displays to cause issues and distract from that.

And PPs all saying it was clever and all that - you are pretty transparent. I know you aren’t dumb enough to really believe they did it to promote reading.

I'm a parent that toured Langley with my 8th grader last weekend. We weren't pissed off at all. I actually thought it was funny, and accurate. I was surprised that the library was so small for such a large high school. That's what parents should be concerned about.

The school library is under-utilized in Langley. Kids have very few opportunities to go there and make use of it. When I was in high school, I could go to the library if I finished lunch early, or had a skip period. I don't believe this is true for Langley. There are well-stocked libraries in the area served by Langley, so I don't believe a large library in Langley is particularly useful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line--the parental-control-over-public-schools movement is a successful Republican tactic to fire up voters. It worked for Youngkin, and it will work for other politicians in future elections. While we all sit here exercising our 1st amendment rights by having spirited discussions about what is or isn't taught in public schools, Republican strategists are laughing all the way to the polls.

It will backfire in NoVa if it becomes 100% associated with crazy Trumpkins looking to pick silly fights, and it makes it harder to attract talented staff to Langley. There are already disincentives to work there given how expensive housing is near the school and its reputation for meddling parents. The parents who run with these things live in a bubble and think that what gets people excited in Alabama, or even Purcellville, is going to resonate in Fairfax, and generally it doesn't.

DP. You must be joking. Do you have any idea just how many moderates are sick to death of these stunts? Sorry, to disappoint, but Trump and “Trumpkins” have nothing to do with this. Why do you think Youngkin won? Because so many people - including a lot of Biden voters - are done with this “equity/woke” BS infecting our public schools. Talk about living in a bubble - you seem not to have learned anything at all. See you at the polls this fall.

Oh, and btw - Langley is one of the most sought after schools in which to teach. Inform yourself a little better.

Because suburban mommies threw temper tantrums and screeched about how they were “forced” to become one issue voters because their kids had virtual learning during a pandemic.

Bingo.

They love their temper tantrums and will pick any random topic to express their OUTRAGE.

[Anonymous]

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have found this whole thread an insightful discussion of the pros and cons of banning books in schools. Most posters have been civil and sincere (with some exceptions, of course, because this is DCUM after all). Wouldn't it be nice if our kids could have this very same discussion with their peers at school guided by an experienced adult like a librarian? Teaching critical thinking is one of the things our schools have traditionally done best. Let's not shut it down.

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

The sign referenced "adults", not "parents"

I can't believe the book banning side believes that they are actually on the right side of history here. They're just the newest generation of hypocrites trying to keep their kids from being exposed to the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not if the librarian is self-righteous enough to believe that they know better than the parents in terms of deciding what books the kids should read. Remember that parents have the ultimate sovereignty over the education of their kids. Having met certain very-basic requirements for child welfare, the parents are free to educate their kids how they see fit. Teachers and librarians must realize that this authority is the natural outcome of a free and liberal society.

Yes, and we have the option to home-school them if we're so scared of our high schoolers reading books. Otherwise parents use their "sovereignty" to send the kid to a school. Schools tend to employ one or multiple librarians, and part of their job is literally to choose what books should be available for the children at that school to read. Imagine being so self-righteous that you go and do something like....your job! The horror.

This type of disingenuous characterization of a situation does not help the conversation, not one bit. The point here isn't about reading particular books or reading books in general, it's about teachers and parents not undermining each other during their individual interactions with the kids, and recognizing that parents have the ultimate say in what their kids learn. It is not the teacher/librarian's job to insinuate to kids that their parents are contemptible for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.