In Banning Books School DIstricts Betray Students

As Banned Book week approaches it appears that the book censors are in competition to suppress some the most interesting and recognized authors and books! Buckling under pressure from vocal individuals with narrow ideological agendas, school districts are betraying their primary responsibility: to provide young people with a quality, wide-ranging education and help them develop into thinking members of society.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Study in Scarlet was banned from a Virginia school district for its depiction of Mormons. Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse Five is one of two books banned in Republic, MO. after a parent complained about material incompatible with the Bible.

And now Monroe Township Schools in New Jersey have decided to pull Haruki Murakami‘s Norwegian Wood and Nic Sheff‘s Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines from a summer reading list after a few parents complained about instances of sexual content. The school district went even farther: it apologized for ever including the books.

But was the selection a mistake?

Murakami has been placed “among the world’s greatest living novelists” and is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Franz Kafka Prize and Jerusalem Prize. Norwegian Wood, a novel about growing up, hugely popular with Japanese youth, was the book that made Murakami somewhat of a superstar in his native country.

Nic Sheff’s Tweak: Growing Up on Methamphetamines is the story of the author’s struggle with drugs. It is a harrowing first person narrative that is likely to teach more about the dangers of drugs than any amount of abstract lecturing. Here is a review from a 13 year old just as it was posted (typos and all):

“all i can say is nic sheff is amazing he is inspiring the book is negitive at one point but gets very positive; he finds himself withought being high and its great it really is an eyeopener and it does kinda scare me; i will never do meth; and reading this book is one of the reasons.. [: GREAT!”

And another from a 14-year old:

“People say this book shouldn’t be read by young teens but people should also see how kids can learn from this. this kids i go to high school now are like Nic and are going down his road. Reading this could make a big impact on their lives.”

(Both reviews were posted on the site of Common Sense Media whose approach to book ratings we have condemned, but whose publication of kids’ reviews offer great insight into how kids themselves see the books adults sometimes fear.)

The selection of both Norwegian Wood and Tweak books as engaging – and educationally sound – summer reading was clearly justified. And so one would expect, given that the books had been placed on the list by a committee of area teachers, librarians, and school administrators and approved by the board of education.

When deciding to remove the books, superintendent Chuck Earling said students see more graphic things on television or in the movies and that only about a dozen people had actually complained.

So why did he not stand behind the professional committee’s selection?

According to Mr Earling: “There were some words and language that seemed to be inappropriate as far as the parents and some of the kids were concerned.”

A few words out of context, a few parental complaints and — bang, the considered selection of a professional committee is overruled? Is that how educational decisions are to be made?  Shame on Monroe Townships School district for lacking the backbone to stand up for the decisions of its selection committee and shame on them for trampling over young people’s need to read fiction that engages with their real-life concerns, fiction that lets them explore and imagine, fiction that helps them make choices and negotiate the difficult process of growing up.

Parents will continue launching complaints, that is for sure. But school districts should take seriously their main responsibility: to educate kids and prepare them for adulthood. Whenever a complaint is made it should be considered by the same committee, which made the initial selection: that committee should then respond to the complainer explaining why a book was chosen. Unless a book was selected based upon unsound educational criteria, it should never be removed just because a few parents object: those parents can always ask for an alternative assignment for their own kids, they have no right to restrict the reading choices of every student in the whole district.

“And Tango Makes Three”

Some believe it is legitimate to shield children and teenagers from information that is perceived to negatively affect that critical time of development. Time and time again, the efforts of artists and authors to incorporate controversial themes in works for children are challenged by parents, schools and libraries. While the right of parents to decide what is appropriate for their children should be respected, the banning and removing of books deprives other families from making their own choices and can send a pervasive, negative message to children about a specific topic or group.

And Tango Makes Three is a true story about the two male penguins, Roy and Silo, at the Central Park Zoo. These two penguins acted like a couple so the zookeeper gave them an egg to raise. Many might be surprised to know that the book topped the American Library Association’s (ALA) list of most-challenged books from 2006 to 2010, and it continues to draw opposition across the United States. The book was first challenged in Missouri, when several parents asked two public libraries to remove it. Complaints have also surfaced in Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and North Carolina.

The source of controversy surrounding the book is that some readers have distorted this story of an alternative family to be about encouraging homosexuality. The two most cited lines in support of this argument are the comment by the zookeeper that “They [Roy and Silo] must be in love,” and one section mentioned, when describing Roy and Silo’s activities, that states that “(t)hey slept together”.

While And Tango Makes Three could be used to introduce children to LBGTQ issues, another potential lesson is one of tolerance. Banning the book in a particular community could potentially lead to alienating homosexual individuals and couples, and possibly children. The book conveys to children the importance of strong family bonds. That Roy and Silo both were male penguins did not deprive them of the ties necessary to raise and care for their child.

In light of ALA’s Banned Books Week (coming up this fall from September 24-October 1)  we decided to gage public opinion about And Tango Makes Three through a short survey.  Of the 59 people that we surveyed online and at New York City’s South Street Seaport, 86% felt comfortable with this book being available to children.  The second question in our survey asked how surprised people were that a book of this nature was the most controversial book in the country. The plurality (44%) of respondents was surprised by that fact. However, while the large variety of responses conveyed that people understood why the book would cause controversy, they were surprised that it was the most challenged book in the country.

Recently, the school board of Republic High School in Missouri voted to remove Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse 5 and Sarah Ockler’s Twenty Boy Summer from the school curriculum and the school’s library. As Banned Books Week approaches, it is important to remember the benefit books contribute both within schools and as a leisure activity.

Thanks to everyone that participated in our survey and make sure to check back for more information as Banned Books Week approaches this fall!

The Privacy Network

Photo from flattr.com

As Facebook continues to dominate the social media sphere, new competitors emerge to challenge the weaknesses apparent in its design.  One of the most recent of this breed is the social networking site Pidder. Drawing on fears of data-mining and even “social media background checks”, Pidder focuses on privacy protection to a user-unfriendly extreme.

After using Pidder we concluded that while it may trump other social networks in privacy features, it is no serious threat to them.  The great allure of sites like Facebook is that when you post pictures, statuses, comments etc. all of your friends can see them.  The purpose of social networking is to make yourself accessible to a larger social circle than could be possible just through face-to-face communication. Unfortunately, the transition of users to a platform that is independent from already popular sites (Google, Yahoo) faces huge challenges to building a critical mass.

As an experiment, we created accounts on Pidder for some hands-on testing. For starters, creating and setting up an account required numerous video tutorials and levels of identification, including different account levels (some at a cost), identities, personas, wallets, and ID cards. The process is confusing and annoyingly time-consuming.

At the next stage of use–to become friends with someone on the site–you need to send them (over a different medium) a unique ID code that changes each time you add a new friend, as well as create a pass-code for your account that only they can use. This takes out the possibility of “friend requesting” that boy/girl at school you just met after talking for a few minutes without exchanging email addresses and deep secrets. But even once you have “made friends” on the site, there’s not much else to do. Pidder makes it complicated to share photos, or even message one another. There seems to be a new lock and key for every feature on the site.

Despite these pitfalls, Pidder offers desirable privacy settings not found on mainstream social networks.  While sites like Facebook store your data even upon deletion, on Pidder, all data is encrypted in your browser before it uploads to Pidder; this means that only the creator and person with the pass code for that data can access it.  With different wallets, ID cards, and pseudonyms, Pidder also focuses on different levels of privacy for different groups within your social network.

With all these layers of privacy it’s hard to call Pidder a truly social network.  While it may satisfy the needs of some, it’s privacy system makes communicating impractical. Pidder may be a great place to talk in “private” but ultimately, playing with privacy settings on other sites may be more realistic. Pidder’s presence, however, sheds light on the apparent duality between maintaining privacy and connecting with others online.

While current users seem to have to choose between two extremes, there remains room for a site that strikes a better balance.