New Youngkin ad starring a parent who wanted Toni Morrison's 'Beloved' removed from schools because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone actually read this book? I did two years ago and thought it was horrible. The characters are shallowly conceived, the writing itself is poor (bad sentence structure that made this editor cringe), etc. I was really surprised it received so many kudos, but then I wasn’t. Life is short, and there are so many better books to read.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I find amazing is that after reading Beloved, the conservative religious mom felt compelled to push for a ban on this, and similar books, and promote stricter rules against teaching about the atrocities and gruesome nature of slavery through literature. A compassionate, normal human would’ve been shocked and appalled by slavery itself (not the book) and how harrowing it was to live through . If only she’d have put a scintilla of that effort into combating the long lasting effects of slavery on AAs today. But no, she went the white fragility route

Toni Morrison did not live through this and her book is fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I remember the case when this happened. To be sure, Beloved is a harrowing book, but that's kinda the point of it... Maybe the mother thought "a book about slavery" (in an AP English class!) would be Gone With The Wind?

If you want that kind of control over your child's school curriculum, you need to homeschool.

At least you can all see that books about slavery (from the black perspective) are indeed being taught in our public schools. Funny how Democrats claim that's just not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

This ad is the tip of the iceberg - all of the hype/culture wars over education are organized and funded by groups made up of people exactly like this woman. None of this is grass roots "concern." These are astroturfed campaigns. Don't fall for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The parent in the ad doesn't say she wanted the book removed from schools or banned, but rather wanted students to have an alternative if their parents preferred they not read a book that was as sexually explicit. Which was what a bill passed in the Virginia legislature would have called for but for Terry McAuliffe's veto.

Exactly. She wasn't calling for a book ban. Terry vetoed the bill that would have allowed an alternative book. Some of you are just aren't very bright.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

Agreed.
Youngkin has already had the uber-conservatives, quanons, radical right, etc all locked up all along -- there was zero reason or need to preach to them anymore.

What he didn't have is we few who were undecided; either because we have beliefs that both parties stand for, or because we really don't like either candidate and we're trying to figure out the lesser of two evils... or whatever their reasoning may be, there were plenty of us.

However, this right here is where I draw the line.

This ad was a monstrous error in judgment that I cannot condone.

There's some pretty obvious trolling at work there for you to claim you were undecided prior to this campaign ad.

+1
To that PP I say: Bye!

[Anonymous]

Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was undecided who to vote for in this election, but for Youngkin to placate the entitlement of mothers like this?
Well, it's sealed the deal for me.

This ad was a huge mistake.

This ad is the tip of the iceberg - all of the hype/culture wars over education are organized and funded by groups made up of people exactly like this woman. None of this is grass roots "concern." These are astroturfed campaigns. Don't fall for it.

Exactly. They are pushing these faux wedge issues to muster up votes.

Once in place, they will push true GOP agenda. “Election integrity”, anti-abortion, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

Yes, she did.

A Lake Braddock Secondary School Parent-Teacher-Student Association member, Murphy, 45, has been seeking for six months to have “Beloved” banned until new policies are adopted for books assigned for class that might have objectionable material.

AP English is a college-level class. Mommy has no business approving texts her little snowflake can read, especially since there was a policy in place for students to opt out from books they found uncomfortable to read.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-parent-wants-beloved-banned-from-school-system/2013/02/07/99521330-6bd1-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html#comments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

PARENTS.CAN.ALREADY.OPT.OUT. Youngkin wants bans— bans on “crt”, bans on LGTBQ books.

I'm all for bans on CRT-esque lessons, so I have no problem with that. But you're going to have to cough up a link for the bolded, which is a lie.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet another right wing parent who wants to ban books by Black authors, relating to slavery, etc. That's what this really is about.

Listen carefully:

SHE.DIDN'T.WANT.TO.BAN.ANYTHING.

The knee-jerk reaction from you idiots is so predictable.

Here is a Washington Post article from 2013:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-parent-wants-beloved-banned-from-school-system/2013/02/07/99521330-6bd1-11e2-ada0-5ca5fa7ebe79_story.html

The headline is "Fairfax County parent wants ‘Beloved’ banned from school system" and the article says, "Murphy, 45, has been seeking for six months to have “Beloved” banned until new policies are adopted for books assigned for class that might have objectionable material." The article also notes, "Currently, students can opt out of books assigned in class that they find uncomfortable to read."

So, she did want to ban the book, at least temporarily and a policy allowing students to opt-out was already in place. I suggest that you apologize to the idiots whose knees are reacting just fine.

[Anonymous]

So much misinformation on this thread. First of all, the mother wanted a *temporary* ban on this title in FCPS, only until new rules were put into place to notify parents of sexually explicit materials in school library books. McAuliffe vetoed that legislation.

Murphy sought a temporary ban on the book until new rules governing how schools would handle books with “objectionable material” were put in place, The Washington Post reported in 2013.

In the ad, Murphy recounts how Youngkin’s opponent, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, vetoed legislation she pushed for that would have required schools to tell parents if books assigned to their children contained sexually explicit material.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/mom-wanted-ban-beloved-featured-215512464.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So much misinformation on this thread. First of all, the mother wanted a *temporary* ban on this title in FCPS, only until new rules were put into place to notify parents of sexually explicit materials in school library books. McAuliffe vetoed that legislation.

Murphy sought a temporary ban on the book until new rules governing how schools would handle books with “objectionable material” were put in place, The Washington Post reported in 2013.

In the ad, Murphy recounts how Youngkin’s opponent, former Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, vetoed legislation she pushed for that would have required schools to tell parents if books assigned to their children contained sexually explicit material.
https://www.yahoo.com/now/mom-wanted-ban-beloved-featured-215512464.html

Is it true that in 2013, parents received the entire syllabus and could have their kids read alternate material?