Book Banning In Belleville
It was only a couple of weeks ago that the nation observed book banning week. Many folks joined up at small gatherings (as I did) to read segments of banned books, or to hear comments that ‘concerned’ people around the nation had registered about this or that book.
While there was a gasp or snicker from those assembled when some of the comments were read aloud, everyone knew that none could be taken lightly. After all, there is a censorship mood that lurks just under the radar in far too many communities.
I suspect most folks think censorship happens ‘over there.’ Some other place far from our protected world of sanity and civil liberties.
Think again.
It is as close as Belleville, Wisconsin.
And the attempted censorship needs to be stopped.
I have never felt so threatened by a book or written word of any type that I had to have it removed from the general public, or in the Belleville case, the classroom. If any topic is brimming with controversy then that makes it a top-notch teaching moment. Instead of wanting to shut down the discussion it should be encouraged. That is, after all, one of the foundations of a full education. Some of the topics that are filled with controversy may be passed over by studens as they glance at news headlines, so if they can be presented in an informed and intelligent manner inside a class setting one has to ask what is the problem.
The Belleville School District must not cave to this attempt at censorship. After all once a rock starts rolling downhill it is hard to stop.
Which book is next?
Belleville School District superintendent is currently deciding whether a book being read by high school freshmen should continue to be a part of the curriculum.
It comes following a complaint from a parent who wants the book banned from class.
The process started in September and a decision has still not been made.
The concerned parent said she believes the book is offensive enough to affect other students and she wants it replaced as required reading.
“This is the first complaint we’ve had on it,” said Superintendent Randy Freese.
For more than eight years, “Staying Fat for Sarah Byrnes” by Chris Crutcher has been the first book ninth-grade students at Belleville High School read.
The book, which follows two friends in high school, discusses some controversial topics, WISC-TV reported.
“The religious stuff, the abortion, the profanity — the theme underneath it all is it’s a bullying situation and how people respond to that,” said Freese.
These topics have one concerned parent asking the book be removed from the classroom.
The bottom line is that as we talk about the Juan issue NPR is about as good as it gets in this nation for news reporting. PBS ‘NewsHour’ in the same level, too. NPR is our BBC.
Therefore the NPR role of news analyst has to remain higher than most who care less about their standards. The analyst adds layers of perspective to a story and so when personal opinion is interjected by someone on-air then that makes it is harder for the listener to frame their own opinion or feel they are getting as unbiased news and insight as possible.
There has been no shortage of this topic being talked about…on Thursday on NPR I listened to almost an hour of talk regarding this matter. There are countless others doing the same on-air or in print.
That Juan in no longer on NPR was a choice he made. There are all sorts of limitations on speech. In line at the check out counter at my grocery store a lady and I chat elections all the time. When I mail a box at the post office I never would dream of having such a conversation.
Juan was in the same position. With his NPR job came some rules of the road. That he chose to cross it does not mean NPR is not concerned about the First Amendment, or that the larger issue is not getting lots of attention and debate in the country.
In the classroom the rules of the road are open conversations and new ideas and dare I hope for too much when I suggest even frothy debate gets thrown into the mix. So when one wants to limit the debate in the classroom that is far different, in my opinion, from going against an expectation of someone in a job as a news analyst for a company that has set up rules and guidlines on how they want opinions of on-air staff handled.
On Juan williams you noted: NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.” Here you write: “If any topic is brimming with controversy then that makes it a top-notch teaching moment. Instead of wanting to shut down the discussion it should be encouraged.” How do you reconcile these statements without dancing the whole politically correct dance?
I appreciate that on your blog you have never deleted one of my comments–rabid as they sometimes strike you. When I say something which strikes you as crazy, you address it. Is it that your own personal standards are higher than NPR? If so, why defend them?