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

[Anonymous]

jsteele 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.

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.

You forgot this part:

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.

Kind of a major omission.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele 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.

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.

You forgot this part:

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.

Kind of a major omission.

That's not really relevant to the question of whether she supported a ban. She did.

Also, as someone who has to spend a good part of his day deciding whether a post is sexually explicit or not, I can tell you that is not always an easy decision. What one parent would consider sexually explicit might not be considered that way by another parent.

[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.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

[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

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

She wouldn’t have been unreasonable in thinking at the time that McAuliffe would have signed, rather than vetoed, the bill providing for notification that was supported by other Democrats, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul (in which case the moratorium would have been lifted).

[Anonymous]

Have people read what kids read in high school now? Most of it’s pretty disturbing. War, genocide, violence are all common themes. I’m not sure how you get through an AP lit class without reading something disturbing.

[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.

Everyone has a right to have foolish opinions about the books they've read.

I'm guessing I know what you're referring to as "bad sentence structure."

Baby Suggs died shortly after the brothers left, with no interest whatsoever in their leave-taking or hers, and right afterward Sethe and Denver decided to end the persecution by calling forth the ghost that tried them so. Perhaps a conversation, they thought, an exchange of views or something would help. So they held hands and said, "Come on. Come on. You may as well just come on."

The sideboard took a step forward but nothing else did.

"Grandma Baby must be stopping it," said Denver. She was ten and still mad at Baby Suggs for dying.

Sethe opened her eyes. "I doubt that," she said.

"Then why don't it come?"

"You forgetting how little it is," said her mother. "She wasn't even two years old when she died. Too little to understand. Too little to talk much even."

"Maybe she don't want to understand," said Denver.

"Maybe. But if she'd only come, I could make it clear to her." Sethe released her daughter's hand and together they pushed the sideboard back against the wall. Outside a driver whipped his horse into the gallop local people felt necessary when they passed 124.

"For a baby she throws a powerful spell," said Denver.

"No more powerful than the way I loved her," Sethe answered and there it was again. The welcoming cool of unchiseled headstones; the one she selected to lean against on tiptoe, her knees wide open as any grave. Pink as a fingernail it was, and sprinkled with glittering chips. Ten minutes, he said. You got ten minutes I'll do it for free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

McAuliffe twice vetoed bills, at least one of which was supported by Democrats like Jennifer McLellan and Sam Resoul, that would have provided for parental notification of sexually explicit material in school assignments so that parents could express a preference for an alternative.

It’s odd to suggest parents can already opt out if there’s no obligation to provide parents with the information that would equip them to exercise that option.

Ultimately there’s a real difference of opinion over parental rights and the extent to which public schools should honor parental preferences. It doesn’t seem wrong to respect the wishes of parents who don’t want their kids exposed to certain sexually explicit material when they are under 18, but the view of the Democratic establishment now seems to be that such material is presumptively acceptable, so long as it serves some other purpose, such as teaching students about the horrors of slavery or making students more sensitive to the discrimination faced by LBGTQ kids. That’s a relatively new perspective on the propriety of sexually explicit materials in schools, and it seems Democrats might want to approach it with greater sensitivity and without so quickly rushing to suggest any parents who have reservations are racists, bigots, or Luddites.

This was 2013. If parents cared, they had google and goodreads. Since Beloved apparently had appeared on the actual AP test many times then yes it was presumptively acceptable in the AP class. No serious response could suggest otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

She wouldn’t have been unreasonable in thinking at the time that McAuliffe would have signed, rather than vetoed, the bill providing for notification that was supported by other Democrats, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul (in which case the moratorium would have been lifted).

In other words, she actually did want to ban it. Sorry, not a ban, a "moratorium."

[Anonymous]

So glad I got to read Shakespeare, Melville, and Ralph Ellison in AP English instead. That is some seriously challenging prose to parse if you’re not from a particular background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad I got to read Shakespeare, Melville, and Ralph Ellison in AP English instead. That is some seriously challenging prose to parse if you’re not from a particular background.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

She wouldn’t have been unreasonable in thinking at the time that McAuliffe would have signed, rather than vetoed, the bill providing for notification that was supported by other Democrats, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul (in which case the moratorium would have been lifted).

In other words, she actually did want to ban it. Sorry, not a ban, a "moratorium."

Normal people not sparring during election season understand the word “ban” connotes a permanent restriction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Yeah, she didn't want to BAN ban the book, she just wanted to, you know, ban it. Temporarily.

She wouldn’t have been unreasonable in thinking at the time that McAuliffe would have signed, rather than vetoed, the bill providing for notification that was supported by other Democrats, including Jennifer McClellan and Sam Rasoul (in which case the moratorium would have been lifted).

In other words, she actually did want to ban it. Sorry, not a ban, a "moratorium."

Normal people not sparring during election season understand the word “ban” connotes a permanent restriction.

Normal people understand that she wanted to ban the book and that you don't want to be in the position of defending book-banners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So glad I got to read Shakespeare, Melville, and Ralph Ellison in AP English instead. That is some seriously challenging prose to parse if you’re not from a particular background.

We make kids read Chaucer. They can read that prose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So glad I got to read Shakespeare, Melville, and Ralph Ellison in AP English instead. That is some seriously challenging prose to parse if you’re not from a particular background.

Morrison was quite explicit about who was and wasn’t her intended audience. Realistically there are a lot of high school students who’ll give up trying to understand her prose for reasons totally unrelated to its sexual content.