Statehouse political observer Martin Hawver recently reported that Kansas Republicans are quietly crafting legislation that would ban "obscenity" from being used by teachers in K-12 public schools. The obvious question: Who decides what constitutes "obscenity" in curricular materials? The Legislature? The conservatives on the Kansas State Board of Education?
A recent statement by state board chairman Steve Abrams that Nobel Prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison’s "Beloved" is "pornography" doesn’t bode well for such an effort.
In light of the crude crusade in 2003 by state Sen. Susan Wagle, R-Wichita, against a University of Kansas human sexuality class, do Kansans really trust social conservatives to micromanage school district curricula?
Many Kansans would see legislative meddling in this area as another heavy-handed and ill-informed attempt to censor schools and trample local control. Doesn’t sound like a political slam dunk.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
21 Comments
I believe it was Socratic who said, “perversion is the one thing you will not do”.It can have many meanings, but I take it as each person has their own idea as to what is perverted.From images to words, to even sexual practices we all have our own concept of what is obscene.The psalm of Solomon have some of the most graphic sexual text within it pages.
There are images and words that most would agree are obscene, it is when we try to rule the less obvious that an individual’s concept comes in. The recent display of a poster picture of an aborted fetus at area school I find obscene. Just as obscene as someone else would find the photo books of David Hamilton.Some of the greatest literature in history, has graphic violence, sex and socially unacceptable activities.But it is intent of such possible offensive subject and not the mere presents of it that must be judged.The story of a thirteen years old girl and a fourteen years old boy in a sexual encounter is disturbing.Yet “Romeo and Juliet” is the best known works of Shakespeare and generally not taken as perversion.Though in the past even this was the subject of a move toward censorship in schools.
The goal should not be to rid our school of what some may find objectionable, but to see that it is age appropriate. “Bolero” would be fine on a High School reading list, but not on a third grade reading list.
Our schools should err on the side of protecting the innocence of children. They’ll be getting a steady diet of the world’s sexual addiction soon enough.
I am trying to think through my high school curriculum to find things that the puritanical couldn’t object to. Romeo and Juliet – intended statutory rape and sexual innuendo, Huck Finn – profane and racist, Canterbury Tales – obscene, Lord of the Flies – violent, My Antonia – extramarital child bearing, Brave New World – permissive sexual attitude, The Awakening – extramarital affair, Oedipus Rex – incest, The Catcher in the Rye – profane. Well, at least they can still read Moby Dick unless we let the environmentalists also have a say, which seems only fair.
Writerdog,
One of the best posts I’ve read here. The problem is while you make perfect sense to any intelligent human, the Kansas Republicans seem to have a limited intelligence.
With the passing of the ID inclusion in public school teaching, the rest of the Republican religious culture seem to think they have a mandate to do anything they want. That, in itself, bodes nothing but ill for the students that will have to compete with the rest of the country for quality jobs.
When are people going to learn that you can’t legislate morality? There is a clause in the Bill of Rights that says something about separation of church and state. Ever heard of it? It is there for a reason, and that reason is to preclude from happening just what these legislators are proposing.
The sad fact is that conservatives find everything offensive and too list every book or other entertainment that they have tried to ban would fill this page. Using the government to fullfill this agenda is both unconstinual and goes against the less government views that they say they believe in.
Our schools should error on the side of reflecting critically on “adult” content as it comes up in literature. Obviously, you don’t do this with first graders, or even fifth graders. But why would we throw out the opportunity to discuss and reflect on far more thought provoking literature because they will get unreflective sexual content from tv and movies? The books teachers are choosing are not romance novels; they are thoughtful books and sometimes thoughtful about sexual content, which taken out of context may seem obscene. We don’t do our children any favors to leave them only tv/movies (which even the most protected will eventually see) to understand sexual content. Hemmingway on extramarital affairs is far different from Bruckheimer. Oh, and don’t tell me that it should be a parent’s decision. The ones that really want to micromanage their child’s education are home schooling/ dogmatic Christian schooling. The rest don’t have time to read The Color Purple with their child and discuss it. Somebody should.
Walker, I sure hope that, by your comment about not “legislating morality”, you forgot that the subject is our children. Surely you don’t infer that there shouldn’t be restrictions on what our children are exposed to in public schools??
If you do agree that there should be restrictions, then aren’t you advocating “legislating morality” and isn’t it just a matter of degree?
Outlander you’re right.ALL LAWS are about morality.The matter of degree is the question.
How long will it be before “obscene” includes anything that disagrees with the radical reactionary world-view?
I would like to comment on, or question, the larger issue of whether soical conservatives have anything to offer in the debate about important issues like social welfare and education?
While I am quite critical of the actions of the likes of Connie Morris and Steve Abrams, I believe it would be a serious error to dismiss everything that comes from social conservatives.
A case in point: During the first Bush administration, there was a push by Tommy Thompson and his group to promote marriage amongst poor people. My initial liberal reaction was “Oh yeah, they are trying to push off their debt burden of welfare receiving women on to unsuspecting men”. Micky Klause (sp?) from Slate, has written a lot on this subject and has participated in Think Tank type activities on this very subject. Thompson, et al. had solid quantitative and qualitative data indicating the benefit to children in poor families of having fathers involved with their lives.
The above data should not come as any surprise. And as a divorced parent, I generally support the involvement of father’s in childrens’ lives. I felt shame for my reflexive liberal spin on a serious subject.
My lesson: Because some people represent social conservative causes, that fact alone, is not enough to render their efforts or ideas unworthy. We all need to listen, consider, and debate as needed when it comes to these important subjects.
Good post, Steven E. I think that there is a lot that each side can learn from the other side. We seem to automatically see something through our own red or blue-tinted glasses without really seeing what “the other side” is truely saying.
NoJoCo,Thank you. You summarized my point quite well.
As a certified social studies teacher I have found it hard to get a job here due to budget cuts, hiring freezes locally, and a Republican legislature and state school board that have fought against increases in education funding. Now they want vouchers to pull even more funds out of the school.Forget about firing teachers over what some dim bulb politician decides is obscene. You are already running off your best future teacher, me included. Should I wait another year for things to change here or move now while I might still get hired in a state that values education and the educators.You can’t fire someone if you can’t afford to hire them in the first place. You’ll run out of teacher to fire long before these idiots at the state level come up with new reasons to fire them.
Outlander,
“If you do agree that there should be restrictions, then aren’t you advocating “legislating morality” and isn’t it just a matter of degree?”
Define morality. What’s immoral to you may be the everyday norm to someone else.
Of course our children should not be assaulted with visual, or verbal abuse of any kind. But when you start legislating it, arn’t you opening up the whole debate to the fringe dwellers? As in the KBOE? Is that what you want, and mean, when you question my post?
The current board of education, in my opinion, is not qualified to say what, or what not, should be restricted from our childrens education. They have proved that to the rest of the United States satisfaction.
And, in my humble opinion, neither is the current Kansas legislature. I am not advocating either a Liberal or a Conservative agenda. What I am advocating is that the legislature drop the plans altogether.
You and I both want what’s best for our children. That starts with discipline and strong parental involvement, not some legislatures idea of morality.
There are already safeguards in place. Most School libraries have an advisory board. Some are on a distract level. Judging books for content before they ever go on the shelf. Every complain, no matter how silly on the face of it. Are investigated and reviewed. Look at your own schools and see what the policy is.
Those wanting or thinking that the state needs to be involved are those that had their complains denied or simple go on someone else complain that they were ignored. The present six State board members time is limited. They need to make as many changes while they are still there. As morals change with the passage of time. So does what is seen as obcene.
My Grandpa told me his father warned him of the downfall of the country. That this new dance was the devil’s dance and would corupt the youth. The dance was the waltz!
I bet President Carter’s new book will be banned, but who reads anyway. The closed minded legistlators and BOE certainly don’t. I wonder how many have actually read Steinbeck. Kids won’t be able to “Catcher in the Rye. lol
Walker:
If you are saying that you favor local school board, rather than state legislature or state BOE control, then I agree with you. As a general rule, I am all for pushing down decisions to the lowest government level possible.
But leaving standards to a local board is not without it’s problems. Every board will have different standards or interpretations. The politics will just be local rather than state.
If you are saying that there should not be standards in the schools, (and I don’t think that’s what you mean) then I think that you are off base.
Steven haven’t you heard the latest “marriage proposal”?Senator Sam is sponsoring a bill to give co-habitating couples $6,000 to get married, therefore shrinking the welfare costs.In my humble opinion this would play right into the scam artist mentality. When the offending couple gets the check (after marrying) they cut a check to the divorce lawyer and pocket the profits without ever changing.It’s a huge problem when poor people know they’ll have more money if they don’t get married.
“A recent statement by state board chairman Steve Abrams that Nobel Prize-winning novelist Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” is “pornography” doesn’t bode well for such an effort.”
And Steve Abrams knows this how? Did he read it and, if so, why? Is he a closet porn reader? Has he read Lynn Cheney’s book, “Sisters”? Purely for research and to make sure it isn’t “wrong” for the rest of us to read, of course.
RD,Yeah, isn’t it noble of the censors to sacrifice their own moral health and salvation, by reading such awful stuff, to benefit humanity?
Allie, I hate to burst your bubble, but there are teachers who use romance novels for teaching plot/story structure and characterization. And I’m sure the Christian Inspirational Romance authors wouldn’t agree with you on the sexual content of their books. Not that I don’t agree with much of what you said. I find legislating “decency” ridiculous, but deep inside, I have a Puritan soul. Go figure.