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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL, that's a pretty weak attempt to grasp at straws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 [b]insinuate to kids that their parents [/b]are contemptible[b] for not supporting the presence of certain books in a school library.

So many snowflakes out ruining this beautiful day

[Anonymous]

What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

[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.

Parental authority is the "natural outcome of a free and liberal society"? What does that even mean?

PS. You're going to be in for a lot of surprises when your offspring (assuming you even have any) begin to develop their own thoughts.

[Anonymous]

LOL at all the parents who think they control what their children read or view. That horse left the barn the second your kids had access to a smart phone or computer. Unless you have spyware on your home computers, do not give your children access to the internet ever, send them to a school where smart phones are not allowed, and do not let them visit friends with access to the internet, you have very little control over what they see and read. You'd practically have to live in a Amish community to achieve that and even those kids eventually get to see the stuff you don't want them to see.

What is available at their school library is the least of what they see/read on any given day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

LOL, that's a pretty weak attempt to grasp at straws.

DP. To be fair, no parents we know in our community would want to ban these books. To us, book banners are just random adults with fcked-up morals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL at all the parents who think they control what their children read or view. That horse left the barn the second your kids had access to a smart phone or computer. Unless you have spyware on your home computers, do not give your children access to the internet ever, send them to a school where smart phones are not allowed, and do not let them visit friends with access to the internet, you have very little control over what they see and read. You'd practically have to live in a Amish community to achieve that and even those kids eventually get to see the stuff you don't want them to see.

What is available at their school library is the least of what they see/read on any given day.

That's different from promoting certain viewpoints or normalizing certain viewpoints from authority figures.

[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.

Let me get that for you - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/to-kill-a-mockingbird-huckleberry-finn-suspended-by-virginia-school-for-racial-slurs/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

NP to this thread but this is the third or fourth time this has been said. It's just not true. I think that the people who are convinced that there were no such books in their high school libraries were probably just not big readers. I don't mean "didn't read what was assigned" but didn't read much beyond that. I read constantly, and checked out the max number of books per visit, every week, starting in late elementary. I read like, biographies of baseball players because I was running out of books to read (not a baseball fan). Incest, rape, LGBT+ themes, murder, bestiality - your high school had it all, I promise. You just didn't read those books, so you didn't know. And there wasn't a 24-hour outrage mill always looking for new grist, so it wasn't hunted up for the news, so there weren't parents trying to ban those (they did try to ban some), so they didn't end up on a table like this.

But yes, we had banned books displays then too.

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

You think FCPS librarians (and those of many other school libraries) chose to purchase Gender Queer for their libraries for the sole purpose of putting pictures of gay sex in their libraries.

This discussion has officially turned batshit. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

It’s hard to have a conversation with someone whose reading comprehension is so poor. I said nothing about the motivations of the librarians. I only addressed the motivations of the people objecting to the book Gender Queer. Pp said it was because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex acts. I clarified that many parents object to images of any sex acts in public schools, gay, straight or otherwise. It honestly boggles my mind that fact has to be explained to anyone.

DP. That is not what you said. You said that you believe a book depicting heterosexual sex would not have been allowed in the school library in the first place, and that Gender Queer was added to the library's collection "specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex."

If you intended to say something else, that was not clear from your post.

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s a flat out lie. And frankly, I’d argue that if the book depicted a straight blowjob, it wouldn’t have been allowed in the school library. It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex.

You think FCPS librarians (and those of many other school libraries) chose to purchase Gender Queer for their libraries for the sole purpose of putting pictures of gay sex in their libraries.

This discussion has officially turned batshit. It’s like you’re not even trying anymore.

It’s hard to have a conversation with someone whose reading comprehension is so poor. I said nothing about the motivations of the librarians. I only addressed the motivations of the people objecting to the book Gender Queer. Pp said it was because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex acts. I clarified that many parents object to images of any sex acts in public schools, gay, straight or otherwise. It honestly boggles my mind that fact has to be explained to anyone.

DP. That is not what you said. You said that you believe a book depicting heterosexual sex would not have been allowed in the school library in the first place, and that Gender Queer was added to the library's collection "specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex."

If you intended to say something else, that was not clear from your post.

+1

PP is backpedaling.

We can all read what she wrote: "It was there specifically because the images were of LGBTQ+ sex."

[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.

I could not disagree more with you. Knowing what kids should read and encouraging reading are literally key pieces of a librarian’s job. That’s what we pay them for. You don’t know how public schools work if you think every book a librarian recommends needs to be acceptable to every students’ parents. Your sovereignty extends as far as your decision whether to enroll your children in public schools. Beyond that, parents don’t get to set the policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Let me get that for you - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/to-kill-a-mockingbird-huckleberry-finn-suspended-by-virginia-school-for-racial-slurs/

DP. You are misrepresenting that case quite a bit. The parent who submitted the request did not ask that the books be banned from school libraries. She only requested that they be removed from the school curriculum and replaced with other important works of literature addressing the same themes that do not make such heavy use of the N-word, because she believed that having students read these books sends the implicit message that use of the word was okay. School libraries contain many books that are not part of the curriculum, so removing the books from the school curriculum would not have required removing them from the the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What kind of children are we raising who can't handle either Beloved or Maus by the time they are in high school?

Maybe I'm an olds, but my parents never monitored what I read in high school. Wasn't even on their radar to micromanage my teen life to such a degree.

At any rate, the schools have no obligation to cow to over-coddling parents. If you do not want your kid to read the books, tell them so or confiscate them when they come home every night.

Of course, that means going through their backpacks, maybe their lockers if they are smart enough to leave them at school, so it is easier for the hyper protective to make sure no kid has access to the material. Insane.

Your parents didn’t have to monitor anything when you were in high school. High schools would never have those books available. You didn’t have easy access to literally anything on the internet. Life was different- way different.

I think you are really are looking back with rose colored glasses. School libraries absolutely had objectionable (for the time) books available. Maybe you just didn't read or explore the school library a lot?