Just cover the saucy bits with an image of a gun
I feel bad for laughing at that.
There are plenty of books that are āPGādā down for younger readers.
That book* was part of the curriculum of a class I took in college.
*At least part 1 was, maybe I read part 2 on my own. Theyāre both excellent & worthy of the Pulitzer.
The article is confusing: did the school actually ābanā the book, or simply remove it from the curriculum of a class? Those are two very different actions.
ETA: I remember when Spiegelman came to campus to give a talk about his work & his chain-smoking habit was accommodated by allowing him to smoke in the lecture hall. It seemed weird then; would probably be even weirder now.
I think itās hard to know how many of those parents would have been ok with their kids reading that book as 10th graders, but not as 8th graders.
Itās tricky because one way otherwise good people come to support existing injustice is to just not think about it. To make them good people, we have to let our kids sympathize with othersā pain. But there is legitimate room for disagreement over the age appropriate way to do that.
This is the motion:
I move that we remove this book
from the reading series and challenge our instructional staff to come with an alternative method of
teaching The Holocaust.
There was talk about āsanitizingā it by whiting out parts. Nobody knew for sure how much they could do within copywrite law. There was no desire to postpone the decision until they found out.
Nobody proposed a specific alternative. It appears this is more than just one book, but is the core of a āmoduleā that involves other stuff.
This is the first year they are using this module. There was a question about āwhat did we do last year?ā, probably thinking they could go back to that. The answer is this module got cut last year as they scaled back due to covid.
There was no discussion, pro or con, about keeping copies in the library. Iām confident one member, Mike Cochran, would have opposed that just based on his comment about the āentire curriculumā. Hard to say about the others.
Interestingly, it looks like this was the only agenda item for this meeting.
Not going to link to them for obvious reasons, but Trumpās recent remarks about trans people check off 2, 3, 5, and arguably 8 and 11.
I wasnāt sure where to put this one. Hereās the GOP meddling with the press, trying to control a private company, blatantly stating that Newsmax and OAN are biased and they are ok with that, just so many things going on with this behavior.
I shall sleep better tonight knowing that socialism, whatever that is, will never gain a foothold here.
Some day we may make a distinction between Communist totalitarian states and countries like Sweden, Denmark and Canada that have adapted some socialist policies into their systems: however that would require that we actually define these terms. Much simpler just to make socialism a scary boogeyman.
I will tell you what it means. It means they think people should have to work for what they get and not live on giveaways in most instances. They also think government economic planning should be at a minimum ie we should have a mostly free market economy. Pretty simple concepts there that the majority of people in the US agree with.
Both of those statements are pretty nebulous, and I would imagine that if one were to start talking details, not anywhere near as many people in the US would agree with those details.
As long as we exclude SS and Medicare from the definition, we all agree what socialism is.
Might also need to exclude Public Schools and the Affordable Care Act.
Though we can all agree that Medicaid and Obamacare are definitely Socialist.
Ummm, No.
Quite simply, those are safety net programs. Surely you recognize the difference between those and reorienting the goals of the healthcare delivery system.
Nope. The majority havenāt spent any time or effort at all thinking about this.
(I think you missed my joke)
Guilty as charged.
What was the funny part?
I was joking because āACAā was more popular than āObamacareā.