Originally posted by David TebbWhat about schools/teachers that are choosing books not on writing
However schools have the right to set their own reading policy. A book that has been 'banned' by one school might be required reading in another. I imagine it could also come down to the tastes and preferences of individual teachers.
quality, say, but prejudice? For example, should teachers be allowed
to keep away from books about discrimination (i.e. Black Boy) if
their views or the school's views have a narrow-minded perspective?
Originally posted by rewop63Well stated. 🙂
My own opinion is that information without context and balance is a dangerous thing.
The aim of education should be to help people develop the skills to understand things and make up their own mind. To that end challenging discussions and critical analysis of contraversial literature can be invaluable.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenWhat if the class is on obscenity laws, or if the student is writing a paper on feminist critiques of the presentation of women in pornography? What if the student's parents sign off on their child having using pornography as a primary source, and the student agrees not to create a distracting studying environment by showing other students the pornography? These are just quick remarks, but I don't think we can, in the absence of more information about the student, the school, the assignment, etc., say that there should be a blanket ban on pornography.
so a graphic book of pornography should not be banned in schools?
Originally posted by ArachnarchistWell if newspapers can't publish cartoons of some pea brained middle eastern prophet - who shall remain nameless (but it starts with an M and ends with ammad), why shouldn't school books be censored? Freedom of speech means freedom to say anything as long as it's politically correct, which is a shame. I say stuff it and publish anything you like.
Should schools be able to ban books because of their content?
Is there or is there not freedom of speech in schools?
freedom of speech doesn't apply to children. that is why a kid cannot drive a car or buy liquor or stuff like that. no censorship whatsoever in universities. in schools we should be careful what we teach.
of course, on one hand we ban pornography which is bad(for children 😉) and on another we might ban a good book just because a mother thinks it isn't right for her precious child. so we can screw up our kids either with or without censorship. it is up to us to find a balance between what we ban and what we don't.
Originally posted by ZahlanziWrong. The reason kids are not allowed to drive cars and buy alcohol is because they are physically incapable of dealing with it safely and so likely to endanger their own lives and the lives of others. It is more to do with physical size, strength and experience, whereas censorship is about morality.
freedom of speech doesn't apply to children. that is why a kid cannot drive a car or buy liquor or stuff like that. no censorship whatsoever in universities. in schools we should be careful what we teach.
of course, on one hand we ban pornography which is bad(for children 😉) and on another we might ban a good book just because a mother thinks it isn't ...[text shortened]... r without censorship. it is up to us to find a balance between what we ban and what we don't.
The rest of what you said is more or less correct.
1 edit
Originally posted by SpastiGovWell it took a thread deletion and a post deletion to finally flush out the hyper sensitive politically correct cry baby, turned out to be a trigger happy moderator.
Wrong. The reason kids are not allowed to drive cars and buy alcohol is because they are physically incapable of dealing with it safely and so likely to endanger their own lives and the lives of others. It is more to do with physical size, strength and experience, whereas censorship is about morality.
The rest of what you said is more or less correct.
I received a message not to repeat the word _ _ _ _ _ _ , I dare not even describe it as the 'n' word lest this gets deleted as well. Even to say a six letter word that rhymes with a six letter word beginning with B that means 'larger' is likely to send someone into fits of offendedness.
BTW the moderator used the word in his pm to me so I guess that's ok.
The heading of the message alluded to a racial slure (sic) This was odd, because what I wanted to discuss was the 'voluntary' ban of the word _ _ _ _ _ _ by a NY councillor Leroy Comrie. Never did I point at a person and say _ _ _ _ _ _ . Besides one of the great things about these discussion boards is that we're raceless.
Hey you out there, your race is of no consequence to me.
This is quite topical given the thread on Don Imus, IMHO it is not possible to racially slur anyone, the idea of assigning some trait to an entire race is preposterous. It says more about the person attempting to be derogatory than it does about the people it may be directed at - let them make fools of themselves.