Poll: Parent Censorship

[ACM_Shadow]

So this woman was afraid that her daughter would be reading a book about an older guy trying to seduce a younger girl.... has she watched TV in the last decade, it should be the students choice to do it or not. Also using excuses like Religion to get out of main subjects like maths, english, science, pe, etc is a stupid excuse, to get out of minor classes like sex-ed however is fine, after all. We see so much sex related programs and advertising's on TV nowadays.

 

[Jadak]

I can't wait until you start learning about Sexual Education. Post another thread like this when you do. It's very entertaining.

Personally, I was going under the assumption that they were at were at grade level beyond sex-ed. If they're reading novels about middle aged pedophiles, and aren't even in high school yet, the mother might have a point.

 

[Thaius]

I think no, partially because it's not the job of the parents to control what the school teaches...

So you're saying the government should have more control over a kid's learning than their parents?

The world is truly doomed...

 

[Steve the Pocket]

I think anytime a parent takes an interest in what their child is doing and applies some reasonable censorship to try and make their child a better person, it's the good kind of censorship. The parent knows their child better than a school or government official, they should make the decision for that one child only and leave the other kids to learn how their parents want them to, or the school system if the parents can't be bothered.

We shouldn't have people like Michael Atkinson, we should have responsible parents keeping adult games out of kids hands. Like I assume the parent in the article would.

This, so hard. While I don't agree with the mother's decision, necessarily, I think she deserves credit for keeping it confined to a personal matter when the vast majority of parents either (A) would not even give a second thought to what their kids are being exposed to, in or out of school, or (B) would demand that the book be removed from the curriculum entirely, as well as banned from the school's library and possibly the planet Earth.*

The second group is why we have REAL censorship in this world. Things being legally restricted to certain age groups (as if people magically jump over some maturity hurdle on their thirteenth and eighteenth birthdays) or even made illegal to buy at all (in post-Enlightenment, Western countries like Australia and Germany no less). The only reason such things exist is because of people in Group B, many of whom aren't even whiny parents but adults who have just decided they know what's best for other people's kids and by God they'll make sure their opinion is the only legal one to have! What's worse, I've seen posts in this very thread that essentially support this approach ? everyone who recommended she join the PTA and try to influence the school's curriculum is basically saying she should try to censor what other kids read.

But the first group has its own problems too. All those other posts that pointed out that by age fifteen, most kids are already involved in worse than what's in that book... they say that as if it's a good thing. Well, clearly this mother does not see it that way, and neither do the people in Group B. Why do you think they're so paranoid in the first place? If more parents would control their kids, other parents wouldn't be so convinced they have to control other parents' kids for them. I mean, yeah, some would, but it would be a small minority that nobody else would pay attention to, much less put in charge of stuff.

* OK, so it isn't really the vast majority, but it sure feels that way sometimes.

 

[ffs-dontcare]

I don't believe the mother was right to do this, because at 15 the girl should be allowed to make her own decision as to what she reads.

What if someone got out of science, or history, because some part of it "offended them?"

They do. The excuse is called religion.

How did I know someone was going to say this?

 

[Aesir23]

If the girl has something about her past in which she was sexually assaulted by an adult, then I would support it. But if it's just because the mother finds the material offensive, then it's not right. Unfortunately, it is up to the parent since they fund the child's education.

 

[Pegghead]

That's just silly. Then again perhaps her daughter was sexually assaulted at an early age and she feels she might not be ready to be reminded of that.

 

[Viridian13]

They do. The excuse is called religion.

Yep, my school excused religious kids from the Sexual Education part of Phys. Ed. Showers must be traumatizing for those poor kids.

And yeah, screw Lolita (it was an option for my Grade 12 final essay, heh), that girl's mom should try reading a Stephen King novel. Damn, I didn't sleep for a week after reading Cell.

THANK YOU!

 

[Sacman]

Hell no censorship is completely wrong in my opinion...


and what happens at the end of the book does he get some 12 year old ass?

 

[wynnsora]

They shouldn't have gotten away with it, it really isn't fair. I don't care if it "offends" them. To kill a mockingbird could be "offensive" too because it deals with racism. I've read both, in all honesty I think it'd be a load of crap to censor the books. Then again, I also find it frustrating when they put Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet in modern english.

 

[Scrythe]

I'm suddenly reminded of how every school in my county bans books left and right.

And now I feel like dry heaving.

EDIT: By the way OP, it's spelled "Lolita". Not a bad book.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

I guess the parent is in her right to do that, even though hiding reality from your kid will usually do nothing but hurt them in the long run. But what I think is the fucked up thing here is that the teacher has to make a separate curriculum. If you want to shelter your daughter like that homeschool the *****. The rest of the world should not have to come to a screeching halt because your stupid ass gets offended.

 

[Danpascooch]

So you're saying that public school taxes fund....what? The local bakery?

You're completely wrong, every tax paying citizen that lives in a reasonable proximity to a public school (IE close enough to send their child there) is funding it through their taxes.

I made no comment on taxpayer dollars I said that you were coming at the issue from the wrong direction.

My point regarding the mother was this: if she wants to choose how her child is educated, she needs to choose her school. That is, she needs to choose private education. If she is choosing public education (or cannot afford anything else) then she is in no position to influence the school's curriculum.

Also I realise that you were pulling an example out of the air to make your point, but bakeries are private industry.

You said that she needed to use a private school where she actually funds the education, what I am saying is that she already actually funds it.

My point is, no, she should not be able to say: "I want my child taught x y and z" but since she is funding a portion of the school she should be able to choose to forgo a select few specific details of the education once in a while.

If she can't afford to choose private education then why do you say she is in no position to influence what her child is exposed to? That makes no sense. It's not about her deciding what the school teaches, it is about her choosing not to expose her child to a specific detail that is not a core cornerstone of the school curriculum, in this case, it is a specific book. So, if she cannot afford to send her kid to a private school, she doesn't deserve to say: "I don't want my child reading that?". Poor or not, assuming she is not tax dodging, she would still be funding a part of the school, and as a parent she should have some authority on a few select non essential things she does not want her kid exposed to.

I disagree with her decision, but she undoubtedly has every right to make it.

 

[jpakaferrari]

I like to read many of the books that have ever been on banned book lists. Catch-22, Chocolate Wars (weird book not my favorite but kind of funny), Catcher in the Rye, etc. etc. there are a ton of them. In my high school we probably read a good number of books that were on banned lists at one time or another and I think I was all the better off for having a wide range of experience with literature instead of a closed of view of the world.

 

[justhereforthemoney]

Getting out of science because you're offended by the theory of evolution; leaving gym class because your beliefs say you must not spill any blood. Yea these things happen.

 

[Danpascooch]

I think this was a bad decision on the mother's part

That said, I think it is completely justified that she has the right to control aspects of her curriculum like this. After all, parents are the ones that fund the public school system, they should without a doubt be able to exercise some control over the institution that they fund. I do not agree with the mother's decision in this situation, but I do agree with the principle of parents being allowed to influence the public school system. If they do not put checks on the schools, who will? I know this is not the case, but what if the school started passing out porn in the classes for all of the kids to read? The parents would not let that happen.

I think that's why there are such things as parent teacher associations and school boards. That being said, how far should we go? Burn books like Nazi's? Sarah Palin would say yes. I think it's just a bunch of parents who don't want to take the time to parent their children correctly by explaining concepts they have issues with. Pretending that disagreeable topics don't exist only serves to make children less capable of coping in the world when they're adults.


Oh yeah, and parents who still want to shelter their children can always home-school them.

I don't think it is as much of a slippery slope as you make it out to be. Let me reiterate that I disagree with about 95% of the acts of parental interference in schools.

What I do agree with is the fact that parents have the authority to influence some aspects of what their child is exposed to.

Kind of the "I disagree with what you say but will defend to my death the right for you to say it" philosophy.

Again, if you want to control what your kids are exposed to there's private school and home school. Otherwise you have to go with the reasonable person standard. That being, would the average reasonable person on the street freak about this? No? Then kindly remove your stick.

Literature is one area where I just feel like parents who don't know anything about it should just leave it alone. This girl was like 15 I think the post said, any parent who had done their job should have prepared their 15 year old for content on the maturity that you might see in a PG-13 movie.

While I agree with your point that parents should be able to get involved, it should be on a larger scale and not have special considerations for every child. I think they should have to prove that material adds nothing to their child's education before it is removed from the curriculum though. Not just say that the idea offends them.

1.) Not everyone can afford private school, or has the time required to homeschool their child, or the money to hire a private tutor for home.

2.) This is not about how much parent's know about literature, or whether this mother made the right decision (she didn't she's an idiot, she should have let her kid read the book). It is a fundamental question about how much parents can influence their children's education.

3.) Just because an average person wouldn't freak doesn't mean her position is automatically wrong (though it is in this case). For example, some children have to forgo certain things due to deep seeded religious beliefs, most children don't have a religion that requires you to forgo eating lunch on certain days or not singing in music class or whatever, but that doesn't mean we should just go "kindly remove your stick, *****" and force them to do something against their religion (I know this one wasn't a religious issue, I am just saying that imagine if things operated the way you just described)

4.) 99% of the time parents don't do what this woman did because they worry that the book is just useless educationally, they do it because there is something specific in the book that they don't want their kid exposed to. The teacher could pass out Playboys with math equations written across the centerfolds bare breasts and it would add a bit to their curriculum, but it would still be wrong (I know that is an outrageously extreme example, I am just trying to drive my point home)

5.) You want parents with these ideas to get involved on a larger scale? IE have the book banned for everyone and not just their kid? I think if the book is not essential to the kid's curriculum (and no, this book wasn't) then parents should have the right to say: "I don't want my kid reading that, I find it very offensive". Parents often make stupid use of that right, but I think it is important that they have it


EDIT: I know my position can be very confusing, to summarize, my position is this:

I believe the mother made the wrong decision in this case.

but I also believe that she has the right to make that bad decision.