Moms Speak Out on Sexually Graphic Public School Books and the American Library Association

Hear the 50 minute audio.

Listen to these moms speaking out about sexually graphic public school books and the American Library Association.  Wow!  Wow!!  Wow!!!  Wow!!!!  Wow!!!!!

• "3/5/13 Lindalyn Kakadelis, NC Education Alliance. Lisa Reid & Cathy Barnett, by Lockwood Phillips, Viewpoints (WTKF 107.1 FM 1240 AM), 5 March 2013 (find the link to play the 50 minute audio recording).

More at Lisa Reid's YouTube channel, and generally listed here.

I had previously written about these moms:

• "2,300 Petition to Stop School From Requiring Explicit Reading Material," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 8 November 2012.

Guilford County Schools.  Here are "Objections to the Use of The Handmaid's Tale In a Class of High School Minors."  Wow!  Wow!!  Wow!!!  Wow!!!!  Wow!!!!!  Clearly I went to the wrong high school!  "Hence!  Home you idle creatures, get you home!  Is this a holiday?" has been replaced by "the Commander fucks, with a regular two-four marching stoke, on and on like a tap dripping."

URL of this page:  safelibraries.blogspot.com/2013/03/MomsSpeakOut.html

Follow @SafeLibraries

2,300 Petition to Stop School From Requiring Explicit Reading Material

Hundreds of parents in Guilford County are protesting a piece of literature that has been required reading for upperclassmen in some schools for at least 10 years, The Handmaid's Tale written by Margaret Atwood.  ....  Right now the schools offer an opt-out clause for students, but the parents want to take that step further.  And many agree.  They have gathered about 2,300 signatures from parents and students.  But they want to be clear, they are not asking that the book be prohibited in school, just excluded from the syllabus.  

Not prohibited, just removed from the syllabus.  Source:

• "Guilford Co. Parents Want Changes to Required Reading Lists," by Amanda McKenzie, News 14 Carolina, 2 November 2012.

Wow!  Over 2,300 signatures!  Of course from parents, but from students as well!

Watch Parents Speak Up for Appropriate Public School Reading Material

Watch parents speaking at a Guilford County Schools (NC) Board of Education meeting, and see how one parent gets a standing ovation:

• "Guilford County School Board Meeting," by brandonjedd, YouTube, 18 July 2012.
• "The Handmaid's Tale: A Guilford County Parent's Objections," by brandonjedd, YouTube, 31 August 2012.

See the Petition That Garnered Thousands of Signatures

Here's the petition that garnered thousands of signatures online and on paper (and I've reprinted it at bottom):

• "Guilford County School Board: Set Standards That Make Sure Religion Is Not Denigrated," by Lisa Reid, Greensboro, NC, undated. 

Many of the signatures are from concerned citizens, not parents of children who were actually assigned the book or in the school system.  However, school board policy for "addressing challenged educational resources," states, emphasis mine: "When there is a challenge to an educational resource expressed by students, employees, parents or guardians, or citizens of the school's attendance area, the following procedure shall be utilized."  So these thousands of petition signatures really are relevant to the educational issue facing that community.  Here is a news story prominently displaying the signed petitions:

• "Guilford County Moms Want Reading List Criteria Changed," by Mitch Carr, Fox8 WGHP, 1 November 2012.

Details About the Contents of The Handmade's Tale

What's in The Handmaid's Tale?  The book, while deemed appropriate for school children, could not be read on an evening news broadcast for fear of the loss of an FCC broadcast license:

• "Objections to the Use of The Handmaid's Tale In a Class of High School Minors," by PABBIS, Parents Against Bad Books In Schools, undated.  This describes and quotes what's in the book that some may view as inappropriate for school children.
• "Parents Protest 'The Handmaid's Tale' Because It 'Denigrates Christianity,'" by Faith Abubey, News2 WFMY, 25 October 2012.  This news broadcast illustrates how a book required for children in public school is so vulgar that it could not be read on the air to adults.  Watch it, it's remarkable.

"March Against "Banning Books"; Support for The Handmaid's Tale as Required Reading

I hear there may be a "march" against "book banning" at the school, so I informed many people the day before:

Dan Kleinman ‏@SafeLibraries

BREAKING: @GCSchoolsNC "#book #banning" march @GuilfordCounty 8 Nov re #author @MargaretAtwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" #edchat @OLCIF @OIF

Some support the book being required reading in public school:

• "Battle of the Banned," by Editorial Staff, YES! Weekly, 7 November 2012.
• "North Carolina Mothers on Book-Banning Quest Based On the Bible," by Al Stefanelli, God Discussion, 5 November 2012.

Sourced Information on Book Challenges You Won't Hear From the ALA

For the benefit of the Guilford County Schools Board of Education and the citizens of the school's attendance area, I provide some information, in no particular order, that will assist them in making a decision based on solid resources instead of emotional appeals opposing "censorship" or "book banning" as is likely to be displayed in the "march" against "book banning."  Agence France-Presse said I am "a clearing house for information about challenging books" and I've been advising communities for over a decade so please consider what I say.  Here's more about me, including a telephone number.  Reliable sources are provided, and where I cite to my own writing, the reliable sources are contained therein.  I have not read the The Handmaid's Tale so I will not comment on it, other than to say I support all authors and oppose true censorship.

Let' begin:

1. No book has been banned in the USA for about half a century, Fanny Hill being the last: "Banned Book Favorites: Fanny Hill (Reprise)," by RasoirJ (George Clack), 3:17am, 25 August 2011.  This must be said because of all the false claims of book banning being bandied about, particularly by the media, e.g., "Parents Seek Ban on Certain Books," by Morgan Josey Glover, News & Record (Greensboro, NC), 1 November 2012.  Compare that title and its inherent spin and one-sided effect on the reader with another title that is truthful, namely, "Guilford Co. Parents Want Changes to Required Reading Lists," by Amanda McKenzie, News 14 Carolina, 2 November 2012.  Further, no parent ever bans a book from anywhere, except perhaps his or her own home.  Parents bring their concerns to the schools.  This is perfectly legitimate.  Schools even have the means set up to respond to such concerns.  If the book is indeed inappropriate and removed or some other action is taken such as removing it from a reading list, then the action is taken by the school, not by the parent.
2. Sometimes the claim is made that every single person who ever questions the appropriateness of books for children in public schools is a censor or a book banner:  "The Parent Trap: ALA Uses Banned Books Week to Ridicule Patrons Complying with ALA Materials Reconsideration Policies," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 29 September 2010.  Such claims are false and are intended to bully or intimidate people into silence.  If someone is making that claim, he or she is bullying both the parents and the community generally.  Even a self-described "progressive" librarian knows this is wrong when he says, "Regardless of what the school's decision turns out to be, regardless of its reasonableness or unreasonableness, and regardless of the objectivity or bias within the decision-making process in a specific case, all challenges to a book by a parent get counted as an attempt at book banning":  "Banned Books Week Propaganda Exposed by Progressive Librarian Rory Litwin; ALA Censors Out Criticism of Its Own Actions in a Manner Dishonest to the Core," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 1 September 2011.  Besides, as Dan Gerstein said, "The ... elites have convinced themselves that they are taking a stand against cultural tyranny. .... [T]he reality is that it is those who cry 'Censorship!' the loudest who are the ones trying to stifle speech and force their moral world-view on others."  See also, and you'll love the authors writing in the comments, "Kentucky School Superintendent Exposes False Cries of Censorship; Removes Educationally Unsuitable Books from Curriculum Despite Being on ALA's List for Reluctant Readers," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 30 November 2009.  
3. The creator of the American Library Association's "Banned Books Week" said if a book does not meet its school's selection policy, "get it out of there":  "Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week: An Interview with Judith Krug," by Judith Krug, 46 Curriculum Review 1, September 2006, p.12.
4. Sometimes people who challenge inappropriate material in schools are made to look like they are the only ones who think this.  That is simply false.  2,300+ petition signatures show that is false.  In addition, a Harris Poll shows that is false.  Indeed the poll shows, "A majority of Americans say ... that books with explicit language should not be available to children in school libraries (62%)":  "Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 April 2011.
5. Books that are "pervasively vulgar" may be removed from public schools immediately.  "[A]n unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar":  Board of Education v. Pico, 457 US 853 (1982).  The American Library Association misleads communities on this case by advising on only a part of the truth, not the whole truth.  See, e.g.:  "School Media Specialist Passes Sexual Content Review to Students; Dee Venuto Says It Is Discrimination to Keep Children From Material Including Lengthy, Vivid Descriptions of a Ménage a Trois," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 26 April 2011.
6. There are those who say children should never be kept from anything whatsoever, that they must choose for themselves.  That may be their view, but the US Supreme Court says otherwise in a case that protected children from inappropriate material on the Internet in public libraries:  "The interest in protecting young library users from material inappropriate for minors is legitimate, and even compelling, as all Members of the Court appear to agree":  US v. American Library Association, 539 US 194 (2003).  
7. In Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education of the Tipp City Exempted Village School District, the 6th Circuit Court ruled unanimously that "[t]eachers have no First Amendment free-speech protection for curricular decisions they make in the classroom": "Court Backs Local School Control in Evans-Marshall v Board of Education; ALA Loses Another Means to Propagandize Local Communities," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 22 October 2010.
8. Inappropriate books for children is a concern for everyone, not just "conservatives" or "Christians."  Consider, for example, leading feminist, President Bill Clinton political consultant, and The Beauty Myth author Naomi Wolf who wrote in The New York Times that parents looking at reading for their children "might be in for a surprise."  For example, "sex saturates the 'Gossip Girl' books, by Cecily von Ziegesar, which are about 17- and 18-year-old private school girls in Manhattan.  This is not the frank sexual exploration found in a Judy Blume novel, but teenage sexuality via Juicy Couture, blasé and entirely commodified":  "Young Adult Fiction: Wild Things," by Naomi Wolf, The New York Times, 12 March 2006.
9. You know how you hear that this or that challenged book won awards or is highly recommended by reliable sources?  That is one excuse to promote allowing children access to inappropriate material.  At least one school principal is no longer falling for that excuse, saying, "You rely on a professional service such as Scholastic to review your books.  Everything I read gave glowing reviews and didn't go into the graphic sexual details of the book":  "School Excoriates Book Reviews that Fail to Disclose 'Graphic Sexual Details' in Books for Children; Lush by Natasha Friend is 'Wildly Inappropriate' for Certain Children," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 16 December 2010.  Also see, regarding the Wall Street Journal, "False Censorship Claims Exposed by WSJ Author Attacked for Exposing Truth About Young Adult Books; Meghan Cox Gurdon Decries Incomplete and Uninformative Book Reviews," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 8 June 2011.  And from another school in another state, see, "Humble ISD Now Screens Books, Guests Closer," by Bryan Kirk, Houston Chronicle, 11 September 2012.
10. People view the American Library Association as being authoritative.  The organization has done a lot of good, but not all is good.  Its "Office for Intellectual Freedom" and "Freedom to Read Foundation" were created by a three year Illinois state ACLU leader.  She injected ACLU views into the ALA.  No longer would ALA librarians keep children from harm; suddenly librarians were to provide anything at all and it was up to parents to monitor their own children.  So, as these issues are being discussed, as the parents are being viewed as "censors," remember we are here because of an ACLU leader's effective control of the ALA, and the ALA thereafter changed the playing field and terminology.  Now the parents are wrong for challenging sexually inappropriate materials, and it's called "censorship" or "banning," instead of the schools being wrong for making such material available to children in the first place.  In reality, far from being authoritative, the ALA knowingly and intentionally misleads communities.  (A) In one case, its "Freedom to Read Foundation" quietly granted money to a person in West Bend, WI, leading the charge in seeking to ensure children retained access to sexually inappropriate material.  Only an official request for public records revealed the grant recipient bragging about the $1000 grant.  Neither the library nor the ALA made the grant public.  (B) In another case I recorded an author essentially admitting that the ALA faked its 2010 edition of its annual list of the top ten most challenged books.  (C) Recently the ALA openly suggested that public libraries should begin to consider collecting pornography.  (D) And the ALA joins with similar groups to intentionally mislead schools about challenged books.  (E) Prominent librarians point out that the ALA is the only organization promoting sexually inappropriate material for children.  (F) The author of the Children's Internet Protection Act wrote that the ALA misleads a third of American libraries into potentially harming children.  These are just the tip of the iceberg.  The ALA should not be viewed as authoritative.  If your school hears from the ALA, its argument likely contains similar false and misleading information.  I will help you see through this upon request, and I will use reliable sources.  
11. I have a list of many articles on the topic of public school book selection and reading lists in the following story, which illustrates, by the way, that schools can react immediately to remove inappropriate material without being constrained to follow the American Library Association's suggested constraints: "School Removes Squirting Sperm Book After 8-Year-Old Complains To Her Mother," by Dan Kleinman, SafeLibraries, 14 March 2011.

Opt Out Provisions Are Just an Easy Way Out

Let me add this about "opt out" provisions.  Opt out rules are really a means to allow the school boards to opt out of doing the right thing in the first place.  Children are supposed to have an equal education and governments bend over backwards to make that happen, correct?  Then why have "opt out" policies as they lead to unequal education.  Children who do opt out are necessarily left out of the classroom discussion of the material.  Schools shirk their responsibility to students when they intentionally allow students to take a path the teacher will not follow.

What is really being opted out is the requirement for fair and efficient education.  In every single case of opting out I've seen, the opt opt process is used to bully students and parents into not opting out because who wants the social stigma of standing out.  For example, most kids want to dress like the others for fear of standing out like a sore thumb.

I know the parents in Guilford County are asking for the ability to opt out.  Likely they do not realize the above.  It is similar to why Guilford County school policy says challenged books "shall not be restricted during the review process."  That policy comes from the ALA.  In reality, schools can toss that aside anytime they wish, as alluded to in the Pico case, just like was done in Phoenix, AZ, where the former head of the Arizona Library Association attempted to bully the school into keeping the sperm squirting book available to third graders while a review was underway.  You see, schools answer to the citizens, not to the ACLU/ALA.

Article and Petition Appear Below

Finally, here is that excellent article I have discussed above and the petition below that:

"Guilford Co. Parents Want Changes to Required Reading Lists" 

by Amanda McKenzie 

News 14 Carolina 

2 November 2012

GREENSBORO — Hundreds of parents in Guilford County are protesting a piece of literature that has been required reading for upperclassmen in some schools for at least 10 years, The Handmaid's Tale written by Margaret Atwood.

Lisa Reid was looking up her son's required reading list for Grimsley High School when she saw the list came with a warning.

"I had never seen a warning label on a public school reading list," said Reid.

It warns of mature content and after these parents read the book, they said it was not appropriate for teenagers.

"They need to be taught in a responsible manner that doesn't allow pornographic material to be read by our students," said parent Cathy Barnette said.

Right now the schools offer an opt-out clause for students, but the parents want to take that step further. And many agree. They have gathered about 2,300 signatures from parents and students. But they want to be clear, they are not asking that the book be prohibited in school, just excluded from the syllabus.

"The petition does not talk about banning books. It talks about setting standards that do not denigrate religion," said Reid.

Reid has brought her concerns and petition to the Guilford County School Board, and while no official response or action has been declared, some school board members are supportive of her efforts.

"I just wonder sometimes how books like this get on there," Paul Daniels said.

Daniels said he agrees that there should be standards that are in line with what the schools already promote in their values.

"We shouldn't be denigrating anybody's faith, not in required reading," said Daniels.

A controversial discussion that will likely continue.

"Guilford County School Board: Set Standards That Make Sure Religion Is Not Denigrated" 

by Lisa Reid

Greensboro, NC

Petition Letter

I just signed the following petition addressed to: Guilford County School Board.

Guilford County schools have assigned reading that specifically targets and denigrates Christianity. Two specific examples are The Handmaid’s Tale and Cat’s Cradle.

The American Federation of Teachers, the National School Board Association and 17 other national organizations have endorsed a document that specifies that 1) Religious conviction must be treated with fairness and respect. 2) Religion must be taught objectively and neutrally. 3) Schools educate about religion—they do not promote or denigrate religion.

The two books mentioned are in direct violation of these provisions.

http://www.sibbap.org/thehandmaidstale.htm

According to the courts, the school board as the public's elected representatives must set the standards in this area. Our school board has not been willing to intervene when religion is denigrated.

We, the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to engage in one of the very purposes for which it exists and make sure that our school assignments do not denigrate anyone’s religion and that in addition, such assignments promote rather than tear down traditional values.

[Your name]

Follow @SafeLibraries

School Bullies Girl to Promote Political Push for Perks By Displaying In Class Video of Girl's Parents; School Board Misleads Parents Opposing School Book So Only Book Supporters Attend Public Meeting; Media Touts Total Victory And Leaves Out Bullying and Political Trickery; Guest Writer Aldo DeVivo Speaks Out

I am Aldo DeVivo and I and my wife would like to make a public statement regarding what was reported in "Clarkstown Rejects Ban on 'The Perks of Being a Wallflower,'" by Hema Easley, The Journal News, 6 May 2011.

Backgrounder From SafeLibraries

Before continuing with Aldo DeVivo's statement, here is some background from SafeLibraries to better understand what Aldo DeVivo is saying and why:

This story involves a book used by the Clarkstown High School North, New City, NY.  The book is entitled, "Perks of Being a Wallflower."  It contains bestiality and other sexually explicit material, for example:

After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl's head down, and she started to kiss his penis.  She was still crying.  Finally, she stopped crying because he put his penis in her mouth, and I don't think you can cry in that position.  I had to stop watching at that point because I started to feel sick, but it kept going on, and they kept doing other things, and she kept saying "no."

A recent Harris Poll showed most people do not want children in public schools to have access to sexually explicit material.  See "Most Oppose Explicit Books in Public Schools Says Harris Poll."  This is evidence such materials violate community standards.

Further, pervasively vulgar books may be quickly and legally removed from public schools thanks to Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).  This is evidence the law allows for the removal of such material.

School policy called "TEACHING CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES" requires that, "Teachers shall always give fair representation to all sides of issues."  Keep this in mind when reading about a video a teacher showed about the DeVivos that made their daughter break down in tears after she found out it was shown in a different English class.  By the way, "teachers, within their professional judgment, may at times present pertinent, controversial issues to classes and select appropriate curriculum materials approved by the administration."  Did the administration approve the showing of the video that effectively bullied the daughter?  Either way, there's a serious injustice.  And students may be expelled for defamation, discrimination, harassment, or bullying.  What about teachers or the school administration if it approved the video in question that essentially does the same thing, based on the daughter's reaction? 

In my opinion, I fully understand why the school board used trickery, the school teacher and/or school administration used intimidation and bullying, and the media choose to ignore the inconvenient truth.  But read on to see for yourselves.

Continuing Aldo DeVivo's Message

What a scam!  None of us against the book even knew there was a vote.  Just to give an idea of what I'm talking about:

BUDGET

Countdown to the 2011-12 School Budget Vote

There are two remaining public meeting for voters to learn about the 2011-12 budget and express their comments prior to the vote.  Both will be held in the Main Board Room at the Chestnut Grove Administrative Center, 62 Old Middletown Road in New City.

On Thursday, May 5 at the regular meeting of the Board of Education, the Board will hold a public hearing at 8:00 pm.  Members of the community are invited to share their questions and opinions on the proposed spending plan.

So what do you think about that?  Most likely the room was filled with proponents for the book who knew that there was going to be a vote on the book.  These people, using students as pawns, had it staged all along to present their arguments before the board—without us knowing.

What's even more deplorable is that during the day an English teacher decided to show a video clip of an interview my wife and I had with a TV network in an 11th grade English class.  Of course we presented opposing views in that interview.   She was using this clip as a prelude to her having students reading the Perks book.  And she had the students write letters in support of the book for the meeting she knew about but we didn't.  Several students read their letters to the board.  By the way, they've gone back to no parental notices.

Now what I'm about to describe is the depravity and egregious nature of these people.

Keep in mind that when this video clip was shown during the school day, there had not been a decision on the book yet.

Furthermore, our daughter, who is a junior at the school, has close friends and casual friends who don't care about our position on the book.

Conversely, I'm sure there are other students who know our position who may think differently of befriending our daughter.

In any case, between classes, a friend of our daughter mentioned that her English teacher showed a video clip of us during class regarding the book.

My daughter broke down in tears.  How could a teacher show a clip of us knowing full well that showing this would place our daughter in not only an awkward and inappropriate situation, but may also place her in a position of being harassed by other students?

It's absolutely despicable. We don't mind losing in a fair fight, but this was not a fair fight.

Can you believe a budget meeting turned into a vote for the book?

And what they did to our daughter is truly the lowest of the low.  Will there be justice before we are forced to compel it?


NOTE ADDED 6 MAY 2011:

I sent an email to a number of people, some at the school concerned.  Get a load of this automated response:

DISCLAIMER:


NOTICE: Clarkstown Central School District wishes to maintain an environment that promotes mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance of differences.  We believe that all classroom, school, district and meeting environments must promote a positive culture that serves to enhance the emotional well being of all students, staff, parents and visitors to our school district.  It is our expectation that all parties are treated with dignity and respect. As such, we expect individuals to speak in ways that are tactful and respectful.  The district does not tolerate verbal, written or defamatory comments or actions that target specific individuals or groups.

Is there a double standard at work or will the school comply with its own policy?

Were the DeVivos, including the daughter, treated with "mutual respect, tolerance and acceptance of differences"?  Did showing a video for political purposes that caused the DeVivo's daughter to cry "promote a positive culture that serves to enhance the emotional well being [sic] of all students"?  Were the DeVivos "treated with dignity and respect"?

"The district does not tolerate verbal, written or defamatory comments or actions that target specific individuals or groups."  Did the video not target Mr. and Mrs. DeVivo?

What obvious duplicity. 


NOTE ADDED 11 MAY 2011:

Aldo DeVivo received a letter dated 22 March 2011 from Clarkstown Central School District's Deputy Superintendent of Schools Deborah O'Connell stating, "As we continue to move through this process we will keep you informed."  The substance of the letter is shown below.

Not only was Mr. DeVivo not informed, but the school district broke its agreement to do so.  The "Materials Reconsideration Policy" review was not honored by the school, and the matter should be reopened for a proper review:

Letter agreeing to keep Aldo DeVivo informed.  An agreement never honored.

.

Teacher Bullies Student Publicly to Send Message that No One Should Challenge Inappropriate Material; Legal Assistance Needed

Judi Wheeldon- Mother and Activist:
Teacher Censors My Sons' Reading Choice

Read that blog post. See the teacher refuse to allow a child to read "The Giver." See the mother claim censorship and discrimination.

But it's worse. Far worse. Far, far worse.

Very soon I will be presenting this story in full detail. I will show you a family bullied by an entire school system for daring to challenge a public school book. Children ostracized and ridiculed by a teacher, beaten and bullied by students, and the school does nothing to assist—indeed it is part of the problem.

This single mother needs legal assistance immediately. In a subsequent post I will lay out detailed information exposing to the sunlight the tolerance crowd's chronic attacks on a conservative single mother and her children. I have information right now that I will not reveal until my next post, but I think you will find this to be a very sad story that may have resulted in permanent damage to the children.

I am certain this story will attain national attention. I am certain the mother will obtain effective, pro bono counsel. I am certain the school will ultimately lose. I am not certain the damage has not already been done or that the hurt will ever go away.

As the school bullies her children to intimidate her so as to send the message to others not to complain, I am certain good people will not allow such propagandistic jamming to stop them from acting to protect children. I am certain the school's bullying days will soon be coming to an end.

Stay tuned for another post with all the details. I have so much information, it'll take a few days to write it up.

.

Student Decries School P-rn Pushing Policy and Calls for Book Ratings

What follows is an outstanding article coincidentally illustrating why so many American Library Association [ALA] claims of censorship are false, why so many arguments the ALA makes for allowing children access to sexually inappropriate material do not ring true. Various arguments are set out as examples. And it describes why sexually inappropriate material should not be pushed on children, from the viewpoint of eighteen year old student Dia Darcey, no less.

SafeLibraries has been saying that the ALA recommends sexually inappropriate material for children without providing any warning as to the nature of the contents. See, for example, "P-rn Pushers -The ALA and Looking For Alaska -One Example of How the ALA Pushes P-rn On Children." And that is exactly what this student argues: "But in lieu of that, I need some form of warning, a label, a rating or even hint on the outside of literature to let me know the extent of objectionable content therein, no matter how highly the talk shows recommend it or how 'enlightening' it may be.."

This student has written a truly outstanding article. She is an example for all. Therefore, I am reprinting her letter and urge you to read it, keep it in mind, and bookmark this page.

"An Argument for Book Banning . . . Or At Least a Forewarning of Content," by Dia Darcey, Tulsa World, 11 August 2008 (emphasis added and hyphen added to p-rn).

My advanced literature class has introduced some truly enlightening literature this semester.

"Yay! More black-and-white p-rnography!" I exclaimed as we students were assigned the latest required reading by our English teacher.

In Advanced Placement, we are offered both timeless classics and newer, popular titles to challenge and advance our thought processes. Still, at times, I feel that I'm being subjected to more detail than may be found in an X-rated movie. This kind of p-rnographic content should be banned, or at least censored.

Heck, I'd even appreciate a warning scribbled on a Post-It note inside the front cover.

Personally, I would prefer that my primary sex education NOT occur accidentally during English class. When teachers require this material, they condone the content, whether they like it or not. How can administrators sleep at night when they're promoting this double standard?

"Here, read about this and this and this. Aren't we learning a lot? Whoa, hey! Stop that! Where ever did you ever get that idea?!"

'Monkey see, monkey do' goes doubly for teenagers, and as much as we teens try to prove our maturity, the facts still stand firm: Raging hormones, developing frontal lobes and social stresses combined with ever-widening freedoms create more judgment problems for teenagers than any other age group.

How can intelligent parents block cable, V-chip MTV, ban HALO III and punish us for dirty language, but not bat an eyelash as we pull out our homework assignment to annotate the (at least) R-rated "Beloved" or "Catch-22"?

What, you think it won't affect us because it's on a page? Because it's not a series of moving pictures or graphics? Because it's in print, it requires an advanced vocabulary and increases our comprehension? Some of the most influential mediums in the world were and are books. Anyone ever heard of the Bible? "Mein Kampf"?

What we listen to, what we watch and, believe it or not, what we read, affects us.

When faced with my resistance, my English teacher does her best to give me a few reasons that we, as high school seniors, are exposed to these kinds of books:

Art is art, and those who would define, refine or confine it lose its very essence.

Who is to say what is acceptable and what is not, and how long will it be until the tyranny of politically correct editing creates a real "1984" state?

The truth is only truth when it flows without barrier or constraint, letting loose the human soul to spring unfettered across the wide expanses of creativity!

Only illiterate, ignorant zealots want to censor books — we fear what we cannot understand!

Truly discerning readers are able to appreciate the author's purpose in including any language, events or descriptions.

Personally, and as an AP literature student with a kick-butt ACT reading score, I'm a bit skeptical of the generalizations that all censorship is the product of ignorance and can be placed on the same level as cannibalism, deforestation and Hitler. It seems to this ignorant National Merit Scholar (not to drop titles or anything) that everyone is anti-censorship because none of us wants to be labeled a philistine.

Book-banning is bad, of course — it's censorship. It is simply un-American to chain the creative tendencies of our budding authors because of fogey old ideals.

I am not advocating censorship. I'm asking the schools and publishers alike to consider my point of view. Even as an 18-year-old "adult," I would like a choice in my exposure to gratuitous sex, violence and language, even in the name of learning, literature or art.

I would prefer compelling literature without the public-pleasing passages that "elevate" the book to best-selling status. But in lieu of that, I need some form of warning, a label, a rating or even hint on the outside of literature to let me know the extent of objectionable content therein, no matter how highly the talk shows recommend it or how "enlightening" it may be.

In every other entertainment industry, producers are required to rate their product so the public can make an informed decision. Which is the greater travesty? Depriving the reader of information, judgment and free choice and calling it freedom of speech, or risking the buzzword "censorship" to facilitate knowledge and choice?

Voltaire is credited with the remark: "Though I may not agree with what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it." It's a truism of freedom of speech and indeed, of all American liberties.

I would not like to contradict, but rather augment, this passage with another phrase: However, I do not have the obligation to read, listen to or analyze whatever garbage you have randomly passed off as "art" this afternoon.

Dia Darcey (918) 581-8336
Jenks graduate and rising Brigham Young University freshman satellite@tulsaworld.com

By Dia Darcey, Satellite Correspondent
Copyright © 2008 , World Publishing Co. All rights reserved.
CREDIT: The Tulsa World