YOU WON'T %$*!@#& BELIEVE THE $#!% THEY WANT OUR KIDS TO READ IN SCHOOL

... Or maybe you will.  After all, this is about the Grand Rapids public schools.

Allegedly without reviewing it, the city school district ordered 140 copies of The Literary Experience as an literature appreciation textbook for advanced placement classes at City High.  After shelling out sixty bucks a pop for the book and receiving shipment, administrators finally got the idea of checking out its contents.  Only then did they discover the mistake they had made.

The Literary Experience is a collection of short stories, the prize pig of which is a 70-page tale of two brothers who cannot utter a sentence without a "s---" or a "f---" in it as they talk about their vile lives of sex, drugs, and crime in the urban jungle.  Now I would have thought that if an honors English cirriculum needed a good story about brothers with a penchant for finding trouble, Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov would have fit the bill.  Certainly a bill less than $60 a book.

Well, at least school administrators, after having failed to vet The Literary Experience before taking delivery of the volume, didn't fail to recognize its unsuitability as a textbook.  Plan "A" is to return the books.  If they can't do that (seeing that they have already stamped them the property of the Grand Rapids Public Schools), Plan "B" is to cut out the pages of the offensive short story from each book before distributing it to students.

Of course, that back-up plan already has the usual suspects hysterically denouncing school administrators as censors.  Need we discuss the idiocy of defining censorship as the adult exercise of judgment as to what textbooks should be used for the instruction of minors?  No, anyone who can't get that, won't ever get it.  Instead, let's turn our attention toward the captain of this ship of fools.  That would be none other than the Board of Education vice president, Lisa Hinkel.

She is horrified at the prospect that school administrators might deny their young charges the joys of reading filth.  Shaken by their tyrannical designs upon our youngsters, Hinkel shuddered, "I can't advocate for cutting pages from a book.  That just goes against everything I believe."  This from the woman who a couple of weeks ago told parents unhappy with the quality of education at the city's public high schools to pack their bags and get the hell out of town.  Maybe it's time parents told Hinkel to pack her bags.

Comments

[Tommy Times]

Hi Bill,

I haven't read Parks's play yet, so I can't say whether I would rate it closer to Hustler or Venus de Milo on the artistic merit scale. But the main objection to it has been its use of profanity, not its artistic merit. I believe that those who object to it on grounds of its profanity would also object to 'Olaf' because of its profanity. Picking up on your point [1], the poems by Sandburg and Owen make a similar point to Cummings without using profanity.

It is worth keeping in mind that the kids who will use this book are AP English students who will be out in the 'real world' in a few months. One would hope that at this stage in their education they are capable of dealing with language that they would hear in an R movie (or even in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.) I suppose that checking 1600 page potential textbooks for this group for bad words is not quite as hard as finding a needle in a haystack, but there are undoubtedly better uses of a teacher's time.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Dan.

By running the Local Area Watch, I already "put up", as you say. What we have been doing to bring the polluters and fraudsters to heel in the Toxic Towers scandal shows that. I'm not sure why people often think that a publicly spirited citizen can only be effective if he has political ambitions and wins public office.

Regards, Bill

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Tommy.

You wrote: "I haven't read Parks's play yet, so I can't say whether I would rate it closer to Hustler or Venus de Milo on the artistic merit scale. But the main objection to it has been its use of profanity, not its artistic merit."

Agreed. Although to be fair to the play's critics, it is not the mere fact of foul language but the volume of it.

You: "I believe that those who object to it on grounds of its profanity would also object to 'Olaf' because of its profanity. Picking up on your point [1], the poems by Sandburg and Owen make a similar point to Cummings without using profanity."

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think the vulgarities and obscenities in it are gratuitous. (I don't recall any profanities, which would be a separate issue.) I don't think that alone excludes the poem from a high school textbook, though I am dubious of its general merit. As you point out, there may be better selections for a high school textbook.

You: "It is worth keeping in mind that the kids who will use this book are AP English students who will be out in the 'real world' in a few months. One would hope that at this stage in their education they are capable of dealing with language that they would hear in an R movie (or even in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.)"

I don't understand this point. I doubt any of the kids in City High's Honors English program are ignorant of the foul language in Parks's play. Even if they were, is it the business of a public school to teach them such a vocabulary -- a vocabulary that is utterly useless? It is not the job of the public schools to prepare kids to deal with the vulgarity and baseness of modern culture. They should be focused upon giving them the education that elevates them above it. It is up to the students' families -- not the schools -- to teach them how to deal with the inevitable encounters they will have with those who prefer to wallow in the muck of society.

You: "I suppose that checking 1600 page potential textbooks for this group for bad words is not quite as hard as finding a needle in a haystack, but there are undoubtedly better uses of a teacher's time."

I strongly disagree, Tommy. Most of the school budget is employee compensation. We are paying out a LOT of money to people to educate our kids, and a critical part of that job is selecting the right textbooks. I fail to see how thoroughly reviewing a textbook is a waste of a teacher's time.

Regards, Bill

[a happy City High Parent]

Bill, I would gladly give you a penny to cover the one cent of 'your tax money' that went to fund this book for City High.

Keep in mind we are talking about one specific piece of literature in a book used by 17-18 year old students, and the story isn’t even going to be used in the lesson plan and the book itself will not even leave the school property. Bill, you really need to brush up on your facts before you start to chime in and produce “news” about something you know nothing about. Your recent “news” articles are really nothing more than your opinion getting tangled up in information obtained by already biased and questionable sources and then weaving them in with your personal opinions and reporting them as “news”. You are steadily losing credibility.

Out of the 100 students who will handle this book each year, how many do you think will actually take the time to read a story that isn't required reading material? And for that matter in what spare time, if so? The students at City have more than enough homework to keep them busy, on top of preparing for college, exams, applying for grants, scholarships, and completing their required community service hours, etc… But even if they did take the time to read this story on their own time, do you really think it is anything worse than what they would be able to see, read or hear OUTSIDE of the classroom?

Seeing you haven’t read the story in question, you wouldn’t know the answer to the above question. (personally I am not offended by the literary work and would have no problem allowing my City High student to read it… IF it were actually even part of the lesson plan) and even with that said if it were being used in class, I happen to think that my 17 year old would happen to be smart enough to understand what a work of fiction is about. Here in Michigan we allow 16 year olds the responsibility of being able to operate a potentially deadly motor vehicle on the streets once they obtain their drivers license… therefore, I happen to think that if at 16 my child can drive that my child would equally be mature enough to read Top Dog/Underdog that is IF it were actually on the required reading list. BUT it isn’t even being used!

Oddly- you are quick to create hasty generalizations on a topic in which you have not researched. In fact if you had researched this topic at all you would have found that there are other books used in our school system that contain “questionable” literary works in which the teachers are not allowed to include in their lesson plans, one example being The Millers Tale from Canterbury Tales.

FYI, a teacher at City brought this issue to light upon reviewing the book, granted it was after it was purchased, but the still took the time to read it and to bring to bring the topic to light. The teacher did their job... AND I cannot disagree with you more in regards to the pay of our public school teachers. I HARDLY think they get paid enough. Public school teachers are responsible to educate the future of our country and you seriously think they are getting paid “well enough?” I can honestly tell you that I wouldn’t take on their job, not for what they get paid… I think they work hard and deserve much better pay than what they currently are paid.

With that said, after reading many of the posts here I hope that all those so highly concerned enough to rant about the failings of our public schools actually attend the school board meetings, are active in their child’s PTA/PTSA and that they actively participate in making a change. (not just sitting around complaining online). I agree with a previous post that suggested that if Bill is so concerned, he should run for school board. (not that I would vote for him as I believe he could only make our school system worse with his close minded and uneducated opinions).

I must close in stating that I find it mildly amusing, but more disturbing than anything else, that Bill found it necessary to post about a literary work he hasn’t even read, let alone complain about how his tax dollars are being spent when the literature isn’t even going to be used in the classroom. Did you forget that the book contains many other literary works that will be put to good use? Bill and Bridget, I agree open discussion is good, but when you are uneducated on the topic, perhaps it is best that you exercise your right to “keep silent”. To rant and complain is fine, but to do so without following up with action makes your rants pure drivel.

With that said, I happen think many other City High parents also share my opinion that we have more important issues to deal with than worrying about a literary work that isn’t even being taught.

[The Executive Director]

Hello, alleged City High Parent.

You wrote: "In fact if you had researched this topic at all you would have found that there are other books used in our school system that contain 'questionable' literary works in which the teachers are not allowed to include in their lesson plans, one example being The Millers Tale from Canterbury Tales."

"Canterbury Tales" is a fifteenth-century work. If "Top Dog/Underdog" stands the test of time and is considered worthy of study a half millennium from now, I'll reconsider my objections.

Regards,
Bill Tingley
Executive Director, L.A.W.

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor @ L.A.W.]

Dear A Happy City High Parent:

You said the follow above: "I must close in stating that I find it mildly amusing, but more disturbing than anything else, that Bill found it necessary to post about a literary work he hasn’t even read, let alone complain about how his tax dollars are being spent when the literature isn’t even going to be used in the classroom. Did you forget that the book contains many other literary works that will be put to good use? Bill and Bridget, I agree open discussion is good, but when you are uneducated on the topic, perhaps it is best that you exercise your right to “keep silent”. To rant and complain is fine, but to do so without following up with action makes your rants pure drivel"

I guess in your world that means that if you haven't had cancer or a similar serious diseas you can't understand what it is like to go through the difficult treatments, deal with the mental devestation of something possibly kiling you and being at the mercy of others helping you? I guess in your mind you are a cancer or similar disease victim or survivor, but it's always someone else with the disease not you. Hope you are not by my or a loved ones bedside when care and compassion might be needed one day.

I guess in your world that means if you haven't served actively in the military you can't understand if an action plan is going well, if a new strategy might be needed, if a pull out is right or if long term occupation is the ticket? I guess in your mind, if you are not a person in uniform you aren't allowed to have a thought, idea or comment on war. I for one hope you are not the person on the wall watching over our nation each night, my guess is you'd be too busy arguing the details instead of using sound judgement based upon current knowledge and experience to do what's right in keeping the people safe.

I guess in your world that means if you haven't read every single book, short story, magazine and newspapper article and viewed every written publication in the world, you can't pass judgement on anything. I guess in your mind, unless you have held a book or document in your hand and read it yourself, you aren't allowed a thought, idea or comment on an issue. First, that's not reasonable due to the volume we are talking about. Second, there is not enough time on the clock in our lifetimes to read everything in written print we need to. Thus, relying on reviews, synopsis and references by others must be done or time management can't exist.

You also briefly mentioned that other goods works are in this book. To toss it out due to one story is not sound. I'm sure this piece was intentionally sandwiched by solid pieces on either side of it by the publishers to get it past the censors. Otherwise, if this piece had to stand alone for consideration it might never have made it past the trash bin. The school district themselves confirm the content of this story and support it. Thus, I haven't read the piece nor do I plan to. Word of mouth by parents, kids and teachers has told me it's not the kind of literature I want in my house or in my kids head. I really don't need to find out for myself if the s... word or the f.... word has been abused and misused as it supposedly has. Like all things, we look for references on whether we should consider or not consider doing things, eg; selecting our hospitals and doctors, going to certain movies, considering reading hot topic books, visiting the newest restaurants, listening to national radio personalities and the like. We all make judgements passed upon the general opinion of others and then decide what we should do. Sometimes the homework others have done for us is enough. Other times we need to do more ourselves. Both options are fine.

If you want your kid reading this PP work (that's short for Pulitzer Prize) go ahead. No one is stopping you. By all means, broaden your kids horizens with this literary greatness. I'm sure it will make them highly marketable one day in the work force if they speak what they read to their next boss and co-workers, especially using the same language they found so fascinating in the text. The rest of us respectfully dissent from your opinion. We continue to believe the school district missed the bus big time when they didn't audit this book before ordering it. They didn't proof the content before distributing it (that means the entire content). They didn't take responsiblity for a possible error prior to a public outcry in making sure the book didn't get widely used.

When the state and the city take tax dollars out of my hard earned pocket to run a school district as poorly as they do the GRPS, most of us feel obligated to speak out when a wrong is done. 800 plus kids left the school district this year. Thousands more left in the past few years as well. Hundreds more will keep leaving in light of the quality of the schools. You might support them and want them to continue status quo, but you are one of the few. If more could leave and go to Christian schools, Charter schools and suburban districts without a hassle or further cash outlay, no doubt they would do it in a minute. And be clear, this book issue is just one of many, many mistakes and errors the GRPS continue to make. Kids, parents, taxpayers and other community leaders all express serious concern that these supposed "leaders" are "leading" our kids.

You are a lonely voice of support when it comes to this school system, Happy Parent. At least you won't have to stretch your imagination what's it's like to be the last one left in a defunct school district. You can form an opinion based upon experience because chances are you will be locking the doors, turning off the lights and pulling out of the empty drive way all alone one day. The rest of us will have moved on years earlier by seeking out the advice of others, doing some research ourselves and then based upon personal experience, making a difficult but accurate decision in leaving this district. The numbers will speak for themselves in time. The area will continue to grow. The schools will be at odds. GRPS, zero. Other districts, massive growth.

Regards,

[Suburban Dad]

Happy parents of public school children are few and far between. Those that support the constant wrongs by the school board, the administrators, some not all of the teachers and many absent parents are part of the reason our kids are running wild and undisciplined these days. I'm with Bill and Bridgit on this one. We are the ones who clearly see the GRPS as a glass half empty, empty in more ways than we can count. Sad but true.

Bruce

(p.s. I'm one of the concerned parents who got fed up and got my kids out of GRPS before it got too late. We left because we had to not because we wanted to. Things were getting bad in terms of safety, gangs, discipline and no one actually teaching the kids who cared to learn. We had a bad experience and I'm sure we were not alone).

[a happy City High Parent]

Bridget ,
I believe you have missed the point of my previous post, just to re-iterate in not so many words… I think we have much more serious problems with our school district than arguing about a book that contains a piece of literature that isn’t even going to be taught to the students that are going to be using the book.

It is unfortunate that you are compelled to make hasty and uneducated “guesses” on my thoughts and feelings on non-related topics. With that said I hardly think you are justified in your condescending and callous commentary in regards to whether or not I could be compassionate in the case of a death of a loved one.

And Bill, In regards to my being an “alleged City High parent”- it is really SO impossible for you to fathom the possibility that my child indeed attends City High? There are somewhere around 600 (sorry I don’t have the EXACT number) students that go to City High/Middle. Do you really find it difficult to believe that at least one parent from City has stumbled across your blog or has taken the time to look into the contents of this book? The book in question is going to be used by my child, and therefore I decided to obtain a copy on my own and come to my OWN conclusion on the contents and with that said, seeing the story isn’t even going to be used, I am not concerned. Again we have so many more important issues to deal with in regards to our public school system.

As Bridget has expressed she obtained her opinion based on “Word of mouth by parents, kids and teachers has told me it's not the kind of literature I want in my house or in my kids head. I really don't need to find out for myself if the s... word or the f.... word has been abused and misused as it supposedly has.”

I happen to be a little different than you Bridget, I am not comfortable with accepting others opinions in regards to the materials (books, movies, etc…) that my child is exposed to.

Bill, just for clarification, The Millers Tale is NOT being used when students at City read the Canterbury Tales. It has been deemed as inappropriate (regardless of when it was written) and is not allowed to be read or discussed by students in class. But it is still contained in a book that students are required to read. (see the correlation here?)

Back to the bigger issue at hand, I have never stated that our public school system doesn’t have problems. My child has attended 4 different public schools within GR before attending City. I was neither impressed nor the slightest bit happy with two of the other schools that my child previously attended. With that said, I have continually voiced my opinion and have taken time to address issues at board meetings, PTSA meetings, visiting the district offices asking to speak directly to those in charge, writing letters and doing just about everything in my power to make a change. Perhaps one could call me one of those persistent “pain in the butt parents”, but I happen to think that change can happen and there is hope for the GRPS system. However, more people need to take action, and I am not talking about doing so by pulling out children out of the district or just ranting in a blog… We need to take action. (by the way I have many GRPS horror story to share if you really want to know more about what our school problems involve- and I can tell you it has NOTHING to do with an unused piece of fiction in a boof being used by City High seniors- if anyone really wants to know)

One last time… I just can’t see how the issue of one unused piece of literature in a book is really that big of a deal especially when there are (as I believe we both agree) much larger issues to address.

Bruce, I am sorry that you had to leave GRPS, however, I completely understand. On the same note, I am not able to move out of the district due to my current financial situation, and as a single parent, I cannot deal with the lack of bus transportation if I were to send my child to a Charter. With that said, I spent over 9 thousand on three years of private school tuition for my child, and almost 7 years later and I am STILL paying off that debt.
So you are fortunate enough to get out... But those of us that are left behind have to fight this battle. Someone has to.

Bruce, can you please share with us what school your children were at in GR and why you decided to leave and what actions you had taken to make a difference before making the decision to leave the district? Your input would be greatly appreciated and your story could help those of us here still fighting to learn what efforts for you were fruitless and a waste of time, and then perhaps some of your efforts may have evoked some sort of change or at least created a stir?

Many thanks,

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Bruce.

I had a similar experience about ten years with family enrolled at Beckwith Elementary and Northeast Junior High. Because of the intimidation and violence there (at a grade school!), I had to move them out of G.R. and into Rockford where they did great.

Regards, Bill

[The Executive Director]

Dear City High Parent (alleged or otherwise),

It is apparent that you have not read carefully what Bridget and I have written in this comment section (nor our other numerous articles on the public schools). If you had, you wouldn't be rehashing points already addressed.

Once again, those of you who believe Parks's play belongs in a City High textbook, a work obviously offensive to common decency, need to make the following case:

[1] A student is more enlightened than coarsened by writings like that of Ms. Parks;

[2] Such enlightenment can only be had through that or similar writings (in other words, if the work's lesson can be learned through non-licentious works, then there is no need to for school authorities to condone its coarseness); and

[3] This particular enlightenment is the business of the public school system to bring about (as opposed to family, church, adulthood, the school of hard knocks, etc).

So far, obscenity-in-the-classroom advocates have preferred sound and fury, insults, and knocking down strawmen to making a sound argument for their point of view. But then, why should they bother when they have the superintendent and the school board on their side to steamroll over those who dissent?

Regards, Bill

[Bridget Dupont-Tingley, Editor, L.A.W.]

Hello Again A Happy City High Parent,

I don't think we need to keep re-hashing what both of us have already said above. Everyone can read the comments and form their own final conclusion on things. The book is not going to be used for now and the incident itself is over.

The bad decisions that led up to such a public outcry is far from over.

Why?

Because the school district as a whole has a long way to go to stopping the flow of kids leaving and those refusing to come back to town. Problems prevail in many areas - gangs, drugs, lack of discipline, some uncaring and uninvolved parents and some disconnected and misguided teachers and administrators. We can't even agree on the basics any longer, what is vulgar, what is profanity, what is filthy and what belongs nowhere in our world let alone a childs classroom. Things such as minding your manners, being kind to others, showing respect and the like were things most kids were taught by parents and teachers without question. Today, the lines are not only blurred, but hard to find at all. So, is it any surprise that examples of bad language, bad behavior and bad decision making continue to make the news headlines? Not only with the kids, but with parents, teachers, administrators and the school board itself. These are all symptoms of a very sick system.

Many concerned parents are choosing to remove their children if they are able to and place the kids in other learning environments. Don't be too hard on those families who can and do leave the GRPS for greener pastures. They are putting their energy toward what they feel is best since we have to choose our battles in this complicated and difficult world wisely. Not everyone has the will to battle a school district everyday. These other parents are choosing to send their kids to school districts that work with the commmunity, empower parents and nuture, protect and engage the children as well. Can you blame them? GRPS just isn't that place.

From what you have stated above, you appear to be an involved parent. You should continue to fight the good fight as long as you are able to. For those who cannot leave like yourself, that is the only way to try and improve things.

Fortunately, nothing stings a district quite like a reduced head count at the beginning of the year. GRPS is feeling that pinch year by year. Hundreds of children and their families flee the district. Each student lost ends up costing the school district thousands until the final tally ends up in the millions. When letter writing campaigns don't work, when attending school board meetings and being shut down when you don't say the right things don't work and when the system turns a blind eye to cries for help, nothing like a much smaller check will do the trick.

Until GRPS improve, we will continue to have something to say about it and so will our readers. That's what a blog is all about.

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback.

Regards,

[Rollnggrnade]

Bill,

Perhaps you missed this part of my response: "'the Brothers Karamazov' is a good book that everyone would do well to read." I said only that any Advanced Placement literature class should cover contemporary material AS WELL AS the classics. In fact, it's very likely (given the recommendations the AP board makes for students who wish to take AP classes) that these students have already read The Brothers Karamazov before they even set foot in the AP English class.

Yes, the classics are out-of-touch with contemporary society - HOWEVER - often reading contemporary literature that was influenced by the classics can serve as an excellent bridge back to those classics, giving students a valuable frame of reference.

You can wax nostalgic about the non-existent golden age all day long if you like, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Ancient Greece was less "debased" than our culture is today - and yet some of the most hallowed "classics" came from that era. Shakespeare contains plenty of debauchery as well as profanity (of its day). Funny that no one objects to having the students read Titus Andronicus.

To your point - in fact it does matter "how you square it" - because one person's "gutter language" is another's prose, and one person's "pornography" is another's art. The idea that we can (or should) ensconce high school students in a cocoon away from reality is both impractical and ineffective. The point of a literature class is to teach students to think for themselves about literature - and that means exposure to a broad range of artistic endeavors.

As far as research goes, I'd be happy to go look something up. Are you asking for studies that analyze the effects of profane/violent literature on high school age children? Would you actually change your opinion if I was able to find scholarly studies that show reading such literature in a controlled environment like an AP English classroom does not result in the moral corruption of youth?

[Rollnggrnade]

LAWfanclubmember,

Don't you know? It's perfectly fine for adolescents to read grotesque and ultra-realistic depictions of violence - just so long as they don't read anything about profanity or sex. After all, it's not rampant depictions of violence that are responsible for our "debased" society - it's dirty words and nekkedness (neither of which 17-year olds would know anything about were it not for the corrupting influence of the evil public schools).

;-]

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Grenade.

"Yes, the classics are out-of-touch with contemporary society - HOWEVER - often reading contemporary literature that was influenced by the classics can serve as an excellent bridge back to those classics, giving students a valuable frame of reference."

That would be true only if human beings had no essential nature and were, for example, merely constructs of their immediate environment. Of course, that's nonsense.

What makes us human today is that same thing that made our ancestors human. The human condition is universal throughout both place AND time. Therefore, the classics do communicate abiding truths about who we are and the very fact their settings are unfamiliar and exotic to us (or as you say, "out of touch") emphasizes that universality.

None this argues against contemporary literature being used in the classroom. It is only to say that the value of contemporary literature does not lie in that it is contemporary.

"You can wax nostalgic about the non-existent golden age all day long if you like, but you'd be hard-pressed to argue that Ancient Greece was less 'debased' than our culture is today - and yet some of the most hallowed 'classics' came from that era. Shakespeare contains plenty of debauchery as well as profanity (of its day). Funny that no one objects to having the students read Titus Andronicus."

First of all, I would. "Titus Andronicus" is a lousy play that just happens to have a famous author. ;)

Seriously, did you get my point that "The Brothers Karamazov" is far superior to "Top Dog/Underdog" as a work about the trouble brothers can get into? Apparently not. If you had, you wouldn't be writing nonsense that I'm waxing nostalgic for the golden age of the classics. Again the value of the classics is that they teach us about the human condition in all its glory AND misery.

"To your point - in fact it does matter 'how you square it' - because one person's 'gutter language' is another's prose, and one person's 'pornography' is another's art."

Yes, but the person who thinks they are prose and art is depraved. That is because those things are devoid of beauty. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. It is not subjective. It is the revelation of the God-given essence and purpose of things, and so is objectively intelligible to us all. We ignore beauty to the detriment of our pleasure of what is good and true in this world. We despise it, by proclaiming the profane and obscene as beautiful, at the cost of our humanity.

"The idea that we can (or should) ensconce high school students in a cocoon away from reality is both impractical and ineffective. The point of a literature class is to teach students to think for themselves about literature - and that means exposure to a broad range of artistic endeavors."

Yes, that is what good literature should do. The idea that if one argues literature need not be vulgar, obscene, or profane to do this, he is then arguing for a shield against reality, is assinine.

"As far as research goes, I'd be happy to go look something up. Are you asking for studies that analyze the effects of profane/violent literature on high school age children? Would you actually change your opinion if I was able to find scholarly studies that show reading such literature in a controlled environment like an AP English classroom does not result in the moral corruption of youth?"

No, I am not asking for such research. To argue that the issue can be settled by scientific research is to fall prey to scientism -- i.e., the belief that all that is true is ultimately verifiable by scientific means. In any event, if such research were to have any merit, it would have to be a broadly-based longitudinal study, and no one has done anything like that.

Regards, Bill

[Jamie]

Rollnnggrande, you mock others and seem oblivious to the idea that violence, profanity, promiscuity and lack of decency found in school textbooks, teaching tools, music, magazines, t.v., video games, internet culture and fellow students are THE culprits to causing our youth to be misguided and off. Families without fathers, divorced parents and politically motivated teachers don't help the problem either by the way.

I wonder if you scoff at our current breakdown in societal norms perhaps because you are not raising kids at this time? Or perhaps, you yourself were raised in a family that didn't believe in societal norms so, you have no concept of them? Even if parents have tight control at home about what their children read, hear, watch and who their children take as friends, nothing seems to nullify solid and involved parents with their kids quite like our unrestrained public schools (mandatory sex ed, no American history, no control when it comes to behavior, no serious punishment for breaking the rules, etc), fellow students with troubled home lives and teachers who don't care or have simply given up. This mix is a serious recipe for disaster. When you remove sound historic boundaries like learning to love your country, having a belief in a higher power, respecting others and having good manners toward family, friends and acquaintances (yes, that means no cussing), you take away what makes us human and we become animals.

Dirty words and nakedness might seem like silly little things to you, but the long term implications are grand when placed in the hands of those who aren't ready to handle it yet.

[daschoon]

Bill,

I hate to do this, but I have to point out the somewhat prejudicial leanings toward literature of both sides of this arguement. Without even discussing expletives, the point of Parks' work is that it presents a culture that should not be representative of the one in Grand Rapids (but sadly, sometimes is).
As discussed, this play is not actually being used, so it's besides the point. My point is that the Brothers Karamazov and Canterbury Tales are fine works of literature, but there is a reason that the former isn't touched in most high schools and the latter is only glazed upon--because centuries old white European perspectives are not as applicable to an increasingly diverse and global world.
None of the respondents seem to be picking up on this, nor do you or Bridget. Unfortunately, it paints a picture of who is having this discussion, and when you put it into context with all LAW's writings about violence and failure in GRPS with absolutely no mention of race, I have to wonder how connected its authors are with society around them.
Also, to your dismissal of my suggestion that you become part of the solution. I disagree with you.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Dan.

"I hate to do this, but I have to point out the somewhat prejudicial leanings toward literature of both sides of this arguement. Without even discussing expletives, the point of Parks' work is that it presents a culture that should not be representative of the one in Grand Rapids (but sadly, sometimes is)."

My complaint with Parks's play is not WHAT she says but HOW she says it. Indeed, I haven't read the play, so I don't know what it is about. But I do know that it is obscene. Obscene works have no place in a high school English class, period.

Anyone who thinks otherwise has to make the case as follows:

[1] A student is more enlightened than coarsened by writings like that of Ms. Parks;

[2] Such enlightenment can only be had through that or similar writings (in other words, if the work's lesson can be learned through non-licentious works, then there is no need to for school authorities to condone its coarseness); and

[3] This particular enlightenment is the business of the public school system to bring about (as opposed to family, church, adulthood, the school of hard knocks, etc).

Tellingly, none of the advocates of Ms. Parks's has done so.

"As discussed, this play is not actually being used, so it's besides the point."

No, it's not beside the point. Its presence in the classroom has been specifically endorsed by the superintendent and the school board. They rejected the simple expedient of excising the play from the textbook. There is no prohibition against using the play as part of City High's cirriculum. The GRPS authorities have made it clear in no uncertain terms that Parks's play belongs in the classroom.

"My point is that the Brothers Karamazov and Canterbury Tales are fine works of literature, but there is a reason that the former isn't touched in most high schools and the latter is only glazed upon--because centuries old white European perspectives are not as applicable to an increasingly diverse and global world."

The real reason that "The Brothers Karamazov" isn't used in public high schools is that Dostoyevsky makes the case that Christianity is the only defense against the nihilism that began moving into the wider culture of Western Civilization in the mid-19th century. Heaven forbid that students should be exposed to that idea.

And this leads us to your next point. Dostoyevsky's indictment of nihilism is directly relevant to the cultural crisis we currently face, most virulently in the urban underclass. If Parks's play has any merit to it, no doubt it is also an indictment of the pointless ruin of so much life in the inner city. I suggest that we will still be reading Dostoyevsky to understand how nihilism destroys the human soul a half millennium from now long after Parks's play is forgotten.

"None of the respondents seem to be picking up on this, nor do you or Bridget. Unfortunately, it paints a picture of who is having this discussion, and when you put it into context with all LAW's writings about violence and failure in GRPS with absolutely no mention of race, I have to wonder how connected its authors are with society around them."

What you are not picking up, Dan, is that I reject out of hand that skin color determines one behavior, character, or fate. Granted there are social pathologies that seem to predominate among blacks in the urban underclass of this country. But race (or racism) is not to blame for this. When I lived in England I witnessed the same pathologies running rampant through the urban underclass there, which was mostly white. So race is relevant to the problems in the GRPS only to the extent that we allow a kid to use his skin color as an excuse for his poor conduct.

The fact is NO ONE is stopping any student from getting the best education he can in the GRPS because of his skin color. I've been on this planet long enough to see how real bigotry has receded in this country to the point that its occurrence is exceptional and newsworthy and no longer a commonplace. Consequently it is racially patronizing to not hold all kids to the same standards of conduct because of skin color.

"Also, to your dismissal of my suggestion that you become part of the solution. I disagree with you."

A couple of things, Dan. First, I am already part of the solution by what I do here along with Bridget and the others. As I said before, public service is not realized only through political office.

Second, it should be apparent how pointless it would have been for me to seek appointment to the Board of Education. They winnowed the candidates down to usual suspects whose employment and credentials in the government/non-profit sector cast them with a mindset amenable to the current boardmembers. No one who believes radical change is needed had a chance.

Regards, Bill

[daschoon]

"What you are not picking up, Dan, is that I reject out of hand that skin color determines one behavior, character, or fate. Granted there are social pathologies that seem to predominate among blacks in the urban underclass of this country. But race (or racism) is not to blame for this."

By missing my point, I think you've proved it. This isn't about racism. It's about universality. Even in Grand Rapids, and especially in GRPS, there are different cultures and contexts.
Actually, I picked up on your insistence that all people are equal quite easily. It's the basis of your entire GRPS theory isn't it? That the problems there could have nothing to do with the parents or other cultural issues and thus must be the fault of the overpaid teachers and administrators.

[The Executive Director]

Hi, Dan.

I'm not sure how my rejection of racial and cultural determinism means I think everyone is "equal quite easily". What I have repeatedly argued is that each of us has the same essential nature.

Also, if you have read what I have written about the problems with our public schools, you would know that I lay the primary blame with parents who won't do their job. Public schools can only do so much to overcome bad parenting, but I fault the educrats for promising, in exchange for reaching ever deeper in the taxpayer's wallet, to fix what they cannot fix.

Regards, Bill

[daschoon]

I've read your previous posts. That wasn't the impression I got whatsoever.
Are you saying administrators at Rockford, Caledonia and charter schools are roughly equal to those at GRPS and that it is the parents that make the difference?

[The Executive Director]

Dan,

Read "The Pig in the Python", one of our highlighted articles. (Left sidebar.)

Regards, Bill

[RollngGrnade]

Bill,

When it comes to literature, human beings do not have an "essential nature" (whatever that means). Literacy is not encoded in our genes and as such is a construct of our environment (both past and immediate). Just as "the Brothers Karamazov" had to be translated from Russian into English - it must be translated from historical times into contemporary times. The "abiding truths" only become "abiding truths" after the process of translation has occurred.

What makes us human today is the subject of great debate. The vast majority of what one might consider "the human condition" is not, in point of fact, universal - especially not the finer points. There is a whole world out there full of humans who do not abide by the same morality nor value the same aesthetics that we do.

The irony here is that if you actually think that the human condition is universal, it begs the question "why are you worried what a bunch of AP English students read in a class?" If our condition is universal, the fact that they're in immediate proximity to profanity and adult themes should have absolutely no bearing on their future behavior.

I'm not sure what to make of your reliance on Straw Man arguments. I never claimed (nor implied in any way) that the "value of contemporary literature does not lie in that it is contemporary". That's patently absurd. The only argument that I made was that it is possible to have solid, well-constructed contemporary works that ALSO impart "abiding truths" like the classic works. In fact, YOU'RE the one arguing the absurdist converse: essentially that contemporary literature that uses profanity and deals in lascivious subject matter CANNOT have value. In fact - you refuse to even read the play you're lambasting!

No, I admit I didn't pick up on your reference of "Karamazov" being an analog for "Top Dog/Underdog". That you were able to make such a comparison makes it all the more infuriating that you can't understand why there's value in using such a comparison to help students to gain a more coherent understanding of both works.

I don't really know what I can say to someone that actually believes beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. But then again - I don't know what I can say to someone who believes the Earth is flat either. This inability to have a logical discussion probably explains your penchant for logical fallacies; speaking of which...

Another Straw Man; nobody is saying that literature MUST be vulgar, obscene or profane. All I'm saying is that such qualities DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY DISQUALIFY something from being good literature.

"The Truth" in this case, is perfectly falsifiable. There are all sorts of longitudinal studies that have been done on the effects of the exposure of various types of media to children. If reading profanity (et al) leads to the denegration of someone's character - that can be borne out by evidence.

[RollngGrnade]

Jamie,

I can virtually guarantee that I've read far more about the effects of violence / profanity / promiscuity / decency (whatever that is) on youth than you have. I'm not oblivious to the concept at all. In certain instances, exposure to certain types of media content can harm childhood development. At best, however, the studies on this subject can only demonstrate a correlation - which in no way implies causation.

That said, there's a considerably body of evidence that shows very clearly that children can be damaged by viewing (or being unwitting participants in) ACTUAL examples of sexual or violent content in their homes. Given this reality, it's utterly dismaying to see the degree people focus on the latter.

That said, however, the content and context of what we're talking about here IN NO WAY relates.

Single-parent households and divorce aren't preferable, but the historical alternative (staying in a bad marriage and inflicting untold emotional trauma on the children) is worse. Blaming fictional works in the mass media for our divorce/single parent rates is a completely unsupported premise. In fact, it's wholly disproven by numerous other nations that have far more liberal "social norms" than we do and who raise more well-adjusted children than we do.

As for your ad hominem attacks, I'm not raising children - but I was raised in a very "normal" household; we had sit-down family dinners that everyone was expected to attend until I left for college. I know all too well the value of a loving, stable, two-parent household on my development; it's the reason I'm in the position I'm in today.

The problem, though, is thinking that imposing social norms (especially the social norms you're talking about here with respect to banning literature) is to be credited with my development. It's not. Since adolescence I've consumed a steady diet of violent and sexually-explicit material in the form of movies, TV, the Internet, video games, etc. I'm none the worse for wear; in fact I'm the more literate about the world for having been exposed to that content.

What's ACTUALLY to credit for my success as a human being (if I might be so bold as to suggest that I am) is the fact that I had parents who devoted enough time on my development. That's where your solutions won't pan out; a two-parent household will do just as poorly at rearing a child if both parents work so much that they entrust their child's development to their daycare center and the public schools.

Mandatory (COMPREHENSIVE) sex ed is proven to reduce negative sexual consequences in youth (where as Abstinence-Only sex ed has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a dismal failure). It's a fact. I don't know how you can oppose something like that.

As for teaching US history - there's plenty of that going on as well; you've obviously not been in a public school US history classroom if you think that. There's also plenty of the faux-patriotic brainwashing that you're talking about. There are also controls and serious punishment.

Dirty words and nakedness are very serious things to me. What's silly is your claim that they're to blame for the various ills that plague our society. That said, however, your next point was perfectly correct:

"... the long term implications are grand when placed in the hands of those who aren't ready to handle it yet."

That's absolutely right. If children have caregivers to explain to them the images and concepts they're seeing throughout their lives - they'll most often grow up perfectly well-adjusted. The solution isn't to ban all content that you think is 'indecent' - it's to foster that kind of parenting.

[Jamie]

RollngGrnade,

I am curious about something. You say you had solid parents who raised you in an intact family with a proper upbringing. I don't know to the contrary so, I will support what you say. In regards to your parents, did they allow you to: read and watch pornography, did you get to cuss and swear in front of them, did you get to engage with their blessing in early sexual interactions and they gave you condoms and the girl birth control, and so on and so forth? I am guessing they did not provide these to you rather, you learned about them as all kids do as they grow into young adults naturally. If on the other hand, they indoctrinated you into all of these things as a child with their blessing, that would be interesting indeed. Also, did your teachers and professors and community leaders lead you into these things or did you find them, discover them, understand them on your own? Just curious.

Also, you choose to base all your analysis on things that you have read, researched and analyzed. That in itself is fine, but you seem to border on the clinically detached on this issue. Meaning, it appears if you have not found a research report, article or book that supports an outside possiblity of something else you refuse to give it consideration. Your constant dismissal of anything that you yourself have not yet lived through or experienced is distressing. I may be the lone voice of dissent, but what I pick up is someone who has possibly been over-exposed to profanity, vulgarity, sex, violence and the like that you have become immune or unemotional about it. You are disconnected in such a way that it supports why I remain concerned for the generations of today and tomorrow. Too much exposure = detachment to what's right and wrong. Such lack of emotion does not bode well for boys or girls who eventually become men and women.

I really can't say it better than Bill did earlier, "Yes, but the person who thinks they are prose and art is depraved. That is because those things are devoid of beauty. Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. It is not subjective. It is the revelation of the God-given essence and purpose of things, and so is objectively intelligible to us all. We ignore beauty to the detriment of our pleasure of what is good and true in this world. We despise it, by proclaiming the profane and obscene as beautiful, at the cost of our humanity".

You and I, RollngGrnade are simply worlds apart when it comes to what's vulgar and what's beautiful, what's right and what's wrong and when we need to pull back from the abyss less we fall into complete darkness.

Jamie
Grand Rapids

[W.T.]

Our democratic society allows people to deny God, burn the flag, cuss, swear, be naked, pass out drugs (illegal as this may be they still get away with it), encourage sexual activity and the open use of birth control and anything else they want as they work toward what they feel is a perfect world.

I believe we don’t have to accept this supposed liberation of the masses and many of us won’t. We will choose to fight just as hard for a cleaner, more decent and more respectful society regardless of what a researcher or university study tells us should be happening. As RollngGrnade notes above, and Jamie supports, research and data has its place. But, the reality of those results may be something altogether different. As we all know, studies can be flawed, data specially selected for optimum results, data thrown out if it does not meet set criteria, etc. Seeing the results of a breakdown in common and decent boundaries is the proof of what is happening in the real world around us. Some choose not to see it. Some do. I feel the results and I see the results. It's not good anyway people like RollngGrnade clinically try to spin it.

Bill, Bruce, Jamie, Bridget and others, I’m with you guys on this one.

Wishful Thinking