Should books be banned from schools?

[Reborn Outcast]

Should books be banned from reading in schools because of language that was used when the books were written or other things?

 

For instance, To Kill A Mockingbird was banned from ALL schools in Florida because of the racial content and harsh reality of it, even though it is an American Classic. The book was written in 1960, when those terms were used everyday AND the author is NOT racist, she is just trying to give people a better understanding of what was going on.

 

Other books, such as Of Mice and Men and Grapes of Wrath have been banned from schools.

 

Doesn't this violate the First Amendment or something?

 

Does anyone have qualms about this?

[XWING5]

I think it should be up to the individual school. I don't always know if I would agree with their ideas, but in my opinion I think that the school can choose what it wants to teach their students within limits. To consider the circumstances of the sixties, To Kill a Mockingbird may have caused more trouble than it would have helped, though now it is in several schools. For the most part, schools are a little slower on accepting outside influences, but I don't think that is always bad. Cat's Cradle and Cathcher In the Rye were both banned from High Schools, but I don't know if the true importance of those two books could be understood at that level. Not to mention the language and even, yes, the maturity (not meant in a bad way) that would have to go along with the reading. I read them both in college and the depth we went into couldn't be matched with the glossing over we did with The Scarlett Letter in HS. But I am getting wordy. What am I even talking about anymore? Time to open up another.....

[Reborn Outcast]

Yes but do schools really have the right to try and shield teenagers from the reality of what life was back then and what it is like today? When I have kids, I would rather have them read about it than experience it first hand.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Question: Why is it either "don't do anything" or "ban it completely"? Why can't they just remove the racial slur?

 

Books that are biased against racism, such as The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn shouldn't be banned. Racial slur should be removed, though.

 

And no, removing something from a curriculum is not against the first amendment. Banning a book completely is, however.

[Reborn Outcast]

No, they BANNED the book from the school. Not just removed it from the curriculum.

 

And why would the racial slurs be taken out? Thats what helps people learn about how hard the times were for certain ethnic groups. It also give people an idea about the hurt that people felt when they heard those racial slurs which is another incentive for people not to say them.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast

Yes but do schools really have the right to try and shield teenagers from the reality of what life was back then and what it is like today? When I have kids, I would rather have them read about it than experience it first hand.

they shouldnt shield anything truthful from anyone. i read to kill a mocking bird when i was in the third grade along with julius ceaser (very good book) i read the whipping boy in school in fourth grade. they tried to ban of mice and men but there was a petition and the ban was eventually overruled.

[Eldritch]

Schools will always do that to material that they don't like and/or agree with.

For instance, The Lorax, one of Dr. Seuss' greatest children's books, was banned in North Carolina due to the large logging industry.

It's stupid, but stupidity seems to run rampant, especially in the public school system.

[TheHobGoblin]

It does go against the first amendmet. It should be only to schools that agree with it.

[griff38]

We can never have truth and fairness with the supression of knowledge.

I do believe there are limits, you can't yell

FIRE ! in a crowded theater. And the same logic applies to reading as speaking. 4 example, I don't think books on how to make Crystal Meth, or pipe bombs should be available to children.

 

Having said this, I think no book should ever be banned completely.

 

"TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD" is one of the greatest condemnations of Racism I have ever read. The word "Nigger" is used many times in the book. But not by the protagonist, only the antagonist.

The nigger haters in this book end up on the recieving end of the law.

 

If someone wants to ban this book because of the word nigger then obviously they did not read it.

 

PS, I am a Nigger Lover! Queers and Homos too!

[Kuuki]

Originally posted by griff38

If someone wants to ban this book because of the word nigger then obviously they did not read it.

 

 

Yes, Thats a big problem in the US and in the rest of the World today

 

 

To meny people complaining about foolish stuff like that.

 

Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!

[Bonedemon]

I really don´t think it should be banned. The thing Griff said about fire and pipebombs are common sense(a thing which seems to be missing in a lot of places around the USA)

No I think everyone should be able to express their oppinions and children really shouldn´t be isolated from reality.

 

I read about a couple of ridiculous cases in which some schools had adopted a "no-tolerance policy". The examples were extremely moronic. The US of A needs to come to it´s senses.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by Eldritch

It's stupid, but stupidity seems to run rampant, especially in the public school system.

 

In the US too? *Sigh*

 

Banning books is wrong (apart from the more obviously harmful ones like 'The Complete Terrorist's Cookbook', or 'The Complete Anarchist's Handbook'). Period. If you think that it conveys a bad message, take issues with the message, not the book itself. In my opinion you should be able to take The Bible, Mein Kampf, The Quoran, The Torah, or Satan's Bible to school, and still be treated fairly. It's called professionalism: You may not agree with your customers' political veiws, but you damn well have to sell to them anyway.

 

It's about freedom of speech here.

 

Besides, banning a book will only: 1) Make you seem unable to counter its points, even if you are perfectly able to do so, and 2) make it attractive because it is forbidden (how many people would, for example, have read The Satanic Verses if there had been no Fatwa?).

[XWING5]

Originally posted by Kookee

Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!

 

But if it was school curriculum it would be forced.

 

I can't say that I always agree with their choices in books, but I do believe that some schools are better judges of what is appropriate for their town, city, or environment in general. My school would not have allowed To Kill A Mockingbird to be read back in the day, as they say, because of the use of the N word. It is not because we (meaning the students at the time) needed to be shielded, but because it was taught to us that the use of that word was unnecessary and wrong. My parents have no problems with that book, but I don't think they would have liked it taught on the general school level. It is something that they would prefer to teach us. Now, is that always right? Probably not, but morals, values, beliefs are different wherever you come from and more often than not, school reflect the attitude of the surroundings. But don't assume that just because some schools are more conservative than say California public schools (just an example), that they are wrong and over-protective.

[ShadowTemplar]

We're not talking about the curriculum, but the school at large.

[XWING5]

Then, at large, I believe schools should be able to ban books it deems inappropriate to be taught to particular grades.

 

Though I don't always agree with their choices.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by XWING5

Then, at large, I believe schools should be able to ban books it deems inappropriate to be taught to particular grades.

 

Though I don't always agree with their choices.

 

Again, at least to my understanding, we're talking about banning books from the premises, not removing them from the curriculum.

[XWING5]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Again, at least to my understanding, we're talking about banning books from the premises, not removing them from the curriculum.

 

Probably my misunderstanding. In that case, with the exception of the common sense stuff already mentioned, I think it is wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe too many English Language books were banned from my school.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by XWING5

Probably my misunderstanding. In that case, with the exception of the common sense stuff already mentioned, I think it is wrong. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe too many English Language books were banned from my school.

 

Lol. Maybe. Well, no harm done.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Like the FCC not allowing uncensored music and talk shows on the radio. If people dont like it, they can change the channel. No one is forcing them to watch or listen or read anything!

What about stuff like nazism, racism, and pro-terrorism? It has absolutely no place in our society.

 

I'm not talking about stuff like saying Bush's agenda to invade Iraq sucks, or to say you're embarrased your president is from your home state (Dixies). That's a political POV that supports a maybe good cause (in this case, prevention of war against Iraq).

 

Nazism and obviosly racist statements serve no good whatsoever, and that's why they can be safely banned.

 

If we ban protests against Bush, we ban democracy. If we ban nazism, we ban a bulk of anti-semitic views.

 

I belive that by the time the constitution was written, nobody cared too much about racism. The most offending statements made in the 1700s were not against people, religions, or ethnic groups: Nobody cared too much about minorities back then. The most offensive statements at the time were statements made against democracy. We care more today, and what we allow to communicate should be changed based on how society changes.

 

Nobody's forcing you to change the channel. But who's not changing the channel? The people who follow the controversial and wrong views.

 

As long as the censoring is sensible, fine with me. If it's not, for example, if they ban saying that the Israeli minister sucks, or that the war on Iraq is wrong, that's not sensible.

 

My two cents.

[munik]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

What about stuff like nazism, racism, and pro-terrorism? It has absolutely no place in our society.

 

Nazism and obviosly racist statements serve no good whatsoever, and that's why they can be safely banned.

 

Nobody's forcing you to change the channel. But who's not changing the channel? The people who follow the controversial and wrong views.

These are personal opinions. If someone believed that your ideals served no purpose, does that mean they should be banned? Somone out there believes in this stuff. Just as you believe in your ways. There's no need to ban it if you disagree with it. That isn't right at all.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

You're right, it does serve a purpose. Good purposes? No.

 

Nazism, or the belief that blondes are a "master race" is proven to be a bad thing. None of the ideas where my loyalty belongs to, on the other hand, consists of starting a war to brutally destroy every minority group.

 

It's not just about someone disagreeing with it. It's about the idea being offensive, and being proven to serve more bad than good (supporters of nazism say that it's supposed to bring about the destruction of every minority, which is not a good thing and won't benefit society). If I chose to ban statements made by Republicans, however, that would be wrong because the Republican Party actually aims to improve society.

 

Less offensive communiques than nazism have been banned in the States. When the Norwegians tried to distribute our best-selling comic, Pondus, to the States, no syndicate dared release it because of its "offensive content", which consisted of overweight women beating up an idiot when he harrases them. How is that offensive? Because idiots get beaten up? Because it actually uses characters that are not A4? I really don't know. What I do know is that the States, no offense, has a skewed view on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.

 

It's also forbidden to ridicule the President of the USA as a person, for the same reason as why nazism should be banned: It serves more of a destructive purpose than a good purpose.

 

And it's not against the First Amendment to ban the posession of certain litterature items in your own home or inside a public facilty you're in charge of. "Your rights go to my nose". If I don't want a guy to sit next to me in my home reading My Struggle, I have the right to throw him out, which certainly won't impede on his ability and right to read the book: He can do so outside. It's the same as dress code: You've got the right to wear tops, but the owner of a place also has the right to throw you out if he wants to do so.

 

I agree that some cases of this, such as these two people at a mall who were thrown out for wearing t-shirts saying "Give Peace a Chance" are ridiculous.

[munik]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

It's not just about someone disagreeing with it. It's about the idea being offensive, and being proven to serve more bad than good (supporters of nazism say that it's supposed to bring about the destruction of every minority, which is not a good thing and won't benefit society). If I chose to ban statements made by Republicans, however, that would be wrong because the Republican Party actually aims to improve society.

This is what I'm talking about. If they believe that the destruction of every minority is a good thing, then they are allowed that belief. Just because you disagree with them does not make your beliefs anymore true. You say the republican party tries to improve society? What if my beliefs, and my ideas of a perfect society are in conflict with the republicans? Does that mean one of us has to be wrong, and believe in a bad thing? Or does that mean we happen to have two different beliefs on the same thing? You are allowed any belief you want, no one persons ideals are put above all others.

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Less offensive communiques than nazism have been banned in the States. When the Norwegians tried to distribute our best-selling comic, Pondus, to the States, no syndicate dared release it because of its "offensive content", which consisted of overweight women beating up an idiot when he harrases them. How is that offensive? Because idiots get beaten up? Because it actually uses characters that are not A4? I really don't know. What I do know is that the States, no offense, has a skewed view on what should be allowed and what should not be allowed.

You say banned, but your description says no one wanted to sell it. That is two different things. If I wrote a comic about love, but no one wanted to publish it, does that mean that love is banned in the States?

 

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

It's also forbidden to ridicule the President of the USA as a person, for the same reason as why nazism should be banned: It serves more of a destructive purpose than a good purpose.

I've never heard anyone say it was forbidden to ridicule the president. If that was true, it sure isn't enforced. Read a few politcal cartoons, or watch a political comedian on television.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Okay, here's what I meant.

 

Republicans "claim to" work to improve society, thus they should be allowed free speech, as long as it doesn't break any laws.

 

Nazis, on the other hand, while claiming they're going to save the world, want to destroy it. That, and they're hated by so many people, mostly in Europe and Israel. As I said, it's not about disagreeing, it's about knowing what to allow and what not to allow. Nazis aren't going to do anything good. Ever. That's not something that's "believed", it's a fact. The starting of WW II proves that.

[ET Warrior]

But you CANT ban Nazism, because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Just as you cannot ban the KKK, even though their entire purpose is to be extreme racists and hate minorities. If you start telling people what they can and cannot believe in then you are taking away their free will and ability to actually BE a person.

[C'jais]

Eagle, you have to realize that it's a hideous to try to hide the past. I know reading about Nazism isn't going to be very productive in and of itself, but people must be allowed to know things like this. Hiding the problem doesn't eliminate it. The public must have access to it for seeing all sides of the issue.

 

Banning nazism isn't going to remove it. People won't hear about it anymore, but it'll still exist, and I think knowledge of it makes it less appealing.