Experimentation

Okay, so I have to be really honest with this blog entry and I don’t think that it is going to make Prof. Rozema very happy (Sorry!!).  I thought that the teaching conference was a waste of my time and money.  Told you Prof. Rozema was not going to be very happy.

The thing is, I was REALLY excited to go to the conference.  I was even okay with waking up really early on a Saturday that should have been spent working on end of term projects (like these two, huge, overwhelming pedagogy projects that I have to do).  However, I must have put my hopes too high because I was disappointed.

To begin, the Key note speaker Jacqueline Woodson, while she was relatively funny I failed to follow her speech.  It felt like a bunch of random comments intermixed with snippets from her books.  I did enjoy when she shared her writing with all of us–she really gets at the voice of her characters and presents them well.  Overall, I enjoyed her funny comments and her readings but I honestly can not tell you what the point of her speech was.

After the Keynote, I went to a breakout session that was meant to talk about literature circles.  The presenters wanted to give us a way to connect to both reluctant readers and to literature lovers.  A literature circle composed for reluctant readers is one that allows them to choose whatever book they want to read, whether it is a trashy romance novel, a comic book, or a classic.  When students are able to choose their own book, this makes them want to read it more.

For literature lovers a literature circle is a bit different.  Because they are already reading for fun, these students often need to meet at times outside of the confines of the classroom.  The presenter brought in three high school girls that are part of a lit circle that meets once a month to discuss books they are reading, and things that they are writing.  The girls said that since it was not part of a classroom setting they felt more comfortable because nothing was for a grade.  Plus, they know that everyone there reads and writes just as much as they do so they do not have to feel like the loser “book worm” like they do when they share in class.

So my problems with the session are:

I feel that I learned better ways of engaging reluctant readers during Eng 311 though the use of not only lit circles, but also, Symbolic Story Representations, dramas, games, etc.  This session only presented one idea–which I already knew about. I would suggest that the presenter read Wilhelm’s You Gotta BE the Book to enhance her ideas. 

I think that as far as the after school lit circle for literature lovers goes–it would be difficult.  Many teachers simply do not have the time to stay after school for a couple of hours to hang out with the students.  Regardless of this argument–I think that the people who love literature should not be separated into their own group.  Instead, they should be used to help the reluctant readers enter the story world by showing how they do it.

Overall, the session did not really teach me anything new, but it did demonstrate that lit circles do work.  I plan on using lit circles in my future classroom so it was nice to hear teachers claim that they worked, but it was even better to listen to the high school girls talk about what they enjoyed about lit circles.

The second session that I went to was meant to teach me how to interview well.  However, it was just a bunch of obvious recommendations such as: dress up, know your stuff, and be confident.  I felt rather ridiculous because we “role played” in groups for a little while pretending to be principals or interviewees.  I did enjoy one of the hand outs that they gave titled: “Common Interview Questions/Prompts.”  It seems rather handy for when I practice my interview with someone else, but the questions are rather obvious.  The one idea that I did gain was to visit the school website before interviewing to learn the school colors, mascot, purpose statement, etc. because soemtimes principals will ask these questions to see if the person they are interviewing really cares about the school itself.  I thought that it was a neat idea.

I feel bad that I did not get much out of this conference, but it is the honest truth.  I wish that I would have attended different breakout sessions, because some of them sounded really neat.  This one experience does not put me off to the whole conference thing, so I am sure that I will go to really meaningful conferences later in life, but for today, sorry but, I am still disappointed.  I hope the rest of you enjoyed your time and learned more than I did! 

Censorship was a more difficult topic than I first thought that it would be.  But here are my conclusions of the semester:

I feel that the true question behind censorship is “Why??”  Why are we banning this book? Why do we think it is unsuitable?  Why would we want to keep people away from it? If these questions can be answered sufficiently than censorship seems to be an okay thing.  But see, now I’m asking myself – who determines if the answers are sufficient?  Oh censorship, you tricky subject you! Okay, I guess that overall I think that censorship has leaked into too many areas of our lives and is mostly used with bad intent.  I feel that sometimes subject matter frightens people into claiming that books are “unsuitable.”  To which I would reply that these people need to examine the world around them and see that there are lots of different things that people are exposed to in everyday situations.  Sometimes, these things are confusing and hard to understand.  However, many people (myself included) find that exploring these issues in books helps them to understand the issue and how to deal with it.  Therefore, books dealing with “off color” words such as scrotum, or issues such as sexuality are often helpful. 

However, there are times when censorship is good.  I would not want to thrust ideas upon people if they are too immature to handle them.  It is one thing for students to go to a library, pick out a book, and read it on their own.  It is quite another to have a teacher in the front of the classroom force children to read things that they may not be ready to explore.  If teachers want to teach books that may be controversial they will want to be ready with arguments to back up why they are teaching a book (like the activity that we did in class for I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.)

So, overall I feel that censorship has gone too far in that it affects everything from standardized tests, to novels in class, and even war.  However, if there were no rules at all then teachers/people would be able to get away with whatever they wanted and I think that in the end many students could be harmed by certain novels if they are not ready to deal with the issues presented. 

The final thing that I want to talk about is blogs.  I feel that blogs are a great addition to a literary classroom.  Teachers could ask students to post thoughts, feelings, etc. about the novels in class.  They can also post discussion boards where students can talk about issues in the book or answer questions.  It takes the literary discussion away from the classroom and in doing so gives everybody a place to express what they feel about a novel being studied.

In these last three posts about censorship I have tried to get off of the obvious topic and expand my knowledge about different types of censorship and different reasons for censorship.

During my semester look at censorship I learned that there are many different reasons: to guard our children from items that we feel they should not be exposed to, because of certain morality issues, and more recently I learned that it can be used to standardize our language. 

Today, I want to talk about extreme censorship. One of my last posts was about Abdel Kareem Soliman who was censored even went to jail because of what he posted on his blog.  This post is about the most extreme censorship of all.  Bombing.

A suicide car bomber blew up the Mutanabi book market in Baghdad.  This is not just simple censorhip of one book because it says a sexual word—this is censorship of reading and knowledge in general.

The authors Sumana Raychaudhuri and Saswato Das state

“The symbolism was clear: The suicide car-bomber wanted to strike at the heart of
Iraq’s intellectual life… it is clear that the bombing, which killed and injured scores and left a 20-foot-wide crater, was targeted at those who think, read or are interested in learning.”

 

They think that the best retaliation to the bombing would be to rebuild the book market.  They think it would be a symbol showing that no matter what happens that the people of Baghdad will continue to gain knowledge.

Now, I do not think that it is the best of ideas to re-build just because it will probably be attacked again, but there are other ways to retaliate.

“A popular Arab saying holds that “Cairo writes, Beirut prints,Baghdad reads.” For a thousand years, Baghdad has been a leading cultural light of the Arab world, and this is not the first time its books have been desecrated.”

 

I think that if the people of Baghdad find ways to keep reading even with all of the war and destruction that they will send the message that no matter what –they will not stand for this type of censorship and will continue to educate themselves.

This article taught me to look at the reasons behind censorship.  Are the people who are doing the censorship doing it because they want to protect me, or are they doing it to send me a message that I can not learn.

The reasons behind censorship determine whether or not censorship is okay.

Sumana Raychaudhuri and Saswato Das.”A tradegy for all who love books.” Newsday. March 14, 2007

I know that there are a lot of people in my 310 class that are looking at standardized testing.  This post is for all of you!!  Check out this article that I found about the process that tests go through in order to be “non-biased.” The author Cristi Laquer feels that  

“the process of bias and sensitivity review is something perhaps more sinister: a particularly stunning demonstration of how the inertia built into bureaucracy can maintain a concept of standardization that actually requires censorship to function.”

Laquer talks about many different sentences and words that had to be cut out of questions just because someone on the panel thought that it would be biased towards one group or another.  Anything dealing with religious beliefs, the word wizard, and even a story dealing with mountains had to be cut out. Now, I can understand where words carrying religious connotations need to be cut out, but “mountains”?!?!.  Honestly people, just because students do not live in the mountains does not mean that they do not know what they are.  But apparently 

“children from non-mountainous regions might not understand it.”

Laquer was on a panel that just dealt with vocabulary questions.  They had to make sentences that would be used in a vocabulary section on a standardized test.  So, my feelings on the whole thing are that trying to “fix” our standardized tests is becoming almost ridiculous. Honestly, the point of vocab is not always whether or not a child knows a word, but if they can derive its meaning based on its context.  So, using a story about mountains would not really matter because it is not about personal experience but more so about developing meaning through what a student reads (Yippie for Reader Response Theory).  Honestly, I agree with the author that the intentions are good, but all of this review is turning into harsh censorship.  Laquer ends by saying,  

“Our language is being sanitized by the government, but we should not assume that censorship is always the result of a villain that we can fight head on. It is the result of thousands of well-meaning people trying to create a standard and a way to test everyone against it. Perfect standardization is probably impossible, and it may be time to consider that it is also undesirable. A language meant to fit everyone is meant to benefit no one.”

I especially like her last sentence so I ‘m going to let her end my blog with it as well:

“A language meant to fit everyone is meant to benefit no one.”

Cristi Laquer.”Standardizing Sensitivity.” The College Hill Independent.March 16, 2007.  

This post does not have to do with whether censorship is a good or bad thing.  It also does not talk about a specific book being censored as my other posts do.  I needed a short break from all of the same ‘ol stuff.

This weekend I found an article that talked about awards that were handed out to people who went against censorship.  Some of them wrote stories, others made films, and others simply spoke out about what they believed.

The journalism award went to Abdel Kareem Soliman who wrote using the name Kareem Amer.  This post will be about him. You may be wondering why I would blog about a journalist instead of talking about the man who got the literature award.  I understand that my topic is censorship in literature, but I chose Soliman because he was censored because of his blogging.  If you want to see his site I have a link at the bottom of the page.  You won’t be able to read it, but it is pretty cool anyways. 

Even more that just being banned from the web, Soliman  

“was recently sentenced to four years in prison after using his web log to criticize the country’s top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university, and President Hosni Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.”

It is odd because in our classroom we see blogging as an educational tool, something fun to do on the weekend, a way to connect with others, and a way to put our knowledge out for people to see.  We don’t really think that there may be other people reading our stuff (besides the teacher and fellow classmates.)   It really hit me in class on Thursday when Professor Rozema showed us the blog conversation that took place between the student and the author of the “This I Believe” essay.  Then, I found the short article on censorship awards and the two of them combined made me really think about the things I write before I post. 

As bloggers we need to be careful about what we say and how we say it.  The internet has such potential for us now and for our future students.  However, we all need to realize that what we post is out there for ALL to see and the things that we say should be closely monitored.  Now, I’m not saying that we can’t take a stand for our beliefs—in fact I think that is what blogging is all about but I am saying that how we say things makes a big difference.

So, yeah I just thought it was neat to think about all the people who are potentially reading our blogs. So be careful what you say!

Abdel Kareem Soliman’s blog.

“Awards for free speech defenders”. BBC News. March 14, 2007

Over the last month or so that I have been looking at censorship within schools I have found many articles against censorship and a couple that are all for it.  Today I ran across an article that was talking about censorship within all aspects of life not just novels. 

The article talks about how censorship occurs within politics, and our laws—the example that the article used is that we do not allow child pornography.  As far as politics go, the beginning of the article talked about various cases where assassination was used as censorship.  If a person does not want another one to be heard, in essence they want to “ban” them, they do so by killing them.  Obviously this form of censorship is wrong. In the case of censorship based on laws it is needed or people would run rampant and child porn could potentially be legal but how far should we let censorship go?  How culturally based is it?  

After talking about political censorship the article moved on to censorship in literature.  It proposed a reading of various previously banned books.  It claims,  

“Reading the great banned books of other times and other climes will hardly sort out the dilemmas and contradictions that recur in the history of public speech. It might, though, help us to understand that the sands of taboo and transgression, of heresy and blasphemy, are forever shifting under our feet. Within a generation (to take just two obvious examples), Joyce’s Ulysses and Lawrence’s The Rainbow moved from being proscribed to being prescribed – from the magistrates’ court to the seminar room. Other novels travel in the contrary direction. In 1900, Harriet Beecher Stowe’s anti-slavery saga Uncle Tom’s Cabin seemed to millions one of the noblest, most influential books since the Bible. By 2000, it had become a byword for patronizing ignorance. Our shibboleths and scapegoats will no doubt look as bizarre to future critics as the passions of the past so often do to us.”

I agree with this part of the article.  Many novels that were banned no longer are or maybe they still are but no longer should be.  People who are thinking about banning a book need to truly look at the reasons for banning it.  Are we banning it because the topic makes us uncomfortable? (Homosexuality, race issues, women’s rights), or are we banning it for valid reasons?  I think that these questions need to truly be addressed before a book is banned.  How much is society playing a role in the banning?

I think that we do need to realize that censorship of literature may not always be right and we should look into how much of our lives are infiltrated by other forms of censorship.  The article ended with a lot of quotes from various authors about censorship and I will leave you with my favorite.

“’Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.’”ALFRED WHITNEY GRISWOLD, ‘THE NEW YORK TIMES’, 1959

James Madision. “Censorship: Still A Burning Issue.” The Independent. Feb. 25, 2007

Minorities are often forgotten within literature or if they are present in a novel, they usually play the stereotypical role.  Hardly ever is there a novel where the main character or characters are of a minority group.  When this does occur the novel is often banned.  I think censorship based on minority issues is wrong.

Today I read a blog entitled: ““Annie on My Mind”…The freedom to explore.”  The blog is about the novel Annie on My Mind where the main characters are two girls discovering their sexual identity. There are no explicit sexual scenes within the novel just a lot of discussion about the emotions the girls face as they learn about and question their sexuality.

This novel gives insight to a minority group that most people do not pay any attention to.  Homosexuality is looked upon with disgust by the majority of Americans.  Most people would not want to read about it or worse yet, let their kids be exposed to it.  However, homosexuality is an issue that most teenagers, especially teenage girls, have to deal with at some point.  This leads teenagers to become confused.  Cecilia writes,

“Frequently among teenagers there is confusion, as with Liza and Annie in the novel, about whether or not they are gay. “I think one reason why we didn’t move away from each other was because if we had, that would have been an acknowledgement that we were touching in the first place” (Annie 77). In a society that is dominantly heterosexual it should come as no surprise that teens who are questioning their sexuality, against the norm, frequently become confused.”

Novels that explore minorities and their interests bring understanding to both the minority and to others.  I believe this novel gives homosexuals and people questioning their identity something to connect to and identify with.  As readers follow the emotions of Liza and Annie in the book they can say “Yeah, I felt/feel that way too!”  It allows them to see that they are not alone, that although they are a minority there are others out there just like them.  It also allows for heterosexuals to understand the hardships and emotions faced by homosexuals.

This novel may also be helpful to homosexual teenagers suffering with depression.  According to statistics found by Cecil,

“Gay and lesbian youth are two to three times more likely to attempt suicide and 30% of the completed suicides are committed by homosexual youths. 28% of School drop-outs are gay and lesbian high school students. 26% of gay and lesbian youths are forced to leave their homes because of conflicts with their families over their sexual identities. 97% of students in high school report regularly hearing homophobic remarks from their peers. 53% of students report hearing those same remarks from school staff. That leads them into depression, where it has been found to strike homosexual youths four to five times more severely then their heterosexual counterparts.”

This novel gives students strong role models when dealing with anxiety and depression over homosexuality.  Students see that Liza and Annie struggled with understanding themselves and made it through.  They realize that while life will be difficult they can make it through as well.

This novel holds so much potential for helping students struggling with homosexuality so why would it be banned?

“Suffice it to say that Annie on my Mind was banned and challenged for its homosexual content, even though there are no explicit sexual scenes in the entire book.”

Although Nancy Garden, the author of the novel, claims,

“many attempts at banning books that are about homosexual characters and issues are also motivated by sincere beliefs that such books are harmful – that they will encourage young people to “become” homosexual, and that homosexuality itself is evil, dangerous, sick, etc.[…]I think it’s important whenever possible to try to inform those people of what homosexuality really is and isn’t, and of the fact that one does not “become” homosexual because of reading a book. After all, gay kids read books about straight people all the time and they don’t “become” straight as a result.”

I feel that banning this book is censorship gone wrong.  This novel has the potential to help many teenagers struggling with the issue of homosexuality.  I agree with Ms. Garden when she says,

“I think it [censorship debate] is important because one of the first steps to dictatorship is thought control, and one of the first steps to thought control is censorship. One of the greatest strengths of this country is our freedom to express our individual ideas and to be exposed to those of others so we can make up our own minds what we think about all issues.”

I think we need to let the minority voices be heard.  Censorship based on minority issues is just plain wrong.

Cecilia. ““Annie on My Mind”…The freedom to explore.” February 17, 2007

An article in the New York Times discussed a children’s book that is being banned from elementary school libraries nation wide.  The book is titled The Higher Power of Lucky and has recently won a Newberry award.

So if it is prestigious enough to win awards then why is it being banned?  The book is about an orphan named Lucky as she discovers the world.  At one point she is listening through a hole in a wall as someone tells their friend that a snake bit their dog on the scrotum.  And there it is—the reason the book is banned: it contains the word “scrotum.” It honestly feels a bit odd just typing the word into my blog.  It is not used often and the sexual connotations that go along with the word make it feel—oh, I don’t know—wrong I guess. But why does it feel wrong to write it?  It is just another part of the body—right?

So, I was torn on this issue. The author, Susan Patron, claims this book is for 9-12 year old kids.  Now, by age twelve I knew what a scrotum was but at nine I think that I would have had to ask about it.  Putting myself in the position of the teacher it is a rather awkward thing to try to explain it to a nine year old girl.  Maybe some children can handle it, but I do not think that all nine year olds are ready to have talks about things that are sexual in nature. Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian, claims

“This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind.”

I understand that the word may be shocking for students to hear and read, but does that justify banning the book? I think that banning a novel because of one word takes the book out of context.  The article in the New York Times did not explain anything else about the book so I do not know what themes or ideas it teaches children but I get the feeling that the book as a whole is not provocative.  To me, it seems a bit silly to ban a book based on the word “scrotum.” Pat Scales comment that

“The people who are reacting to that word are not reading the book as a whole,” she said. “That’s what censors do — they pick out words and don’t look at the total merit of the book.”

made me think about this issue.  I wish that the article would have talked about the entire book so that I would get a better idea about what The Higher Power of Lucky is presenting to children.I also think that the book may present an opportunity to explain things about the human body to children who are curious.  They are exposed daily to commercials showing women’s breasts, so why shouldn’t they know about the scrotum?  Students can handle a lot more than we give them credit for.

I found a blog written by Benjamin Barber that disagreed with the censorship of the book.  He agrees with my point that students are being educated about sexual things through television and video games.  So, why can’t we let them be educated about the human body in literature within a safe environment?  His blog is humorous in a very sarcastic way, so be careful when you read it because he is really straightforward about his views.  So much so that I do not want to post what he writes, but I encourage all of you to check out his blog! 

Today I looked at an article by Jeff Jeffrey about censorship hurting one’s cognitive processes.  He was very adamant in his thoughts and ideas.  His writing was full of emotion.  He would be in complete opposition to the article from Wendy Day about protecting students from evils presented to them in books.

Jeff Jeffrey claims that when people are not allowed to explore novels they never learn new ideas about life.

“I respect parents who choose, after careful consideration, to keep their children from reading something that may cause them to grow up more quickly than they prefer. But I disagree with them. Reading and studying the written word is an inherently beautiful process. It exposes a person to a broad spectrum of ideas that would otherwise remain hidden and allows for the development of analytical reasoning. A child who reads, even when tackling books that may be difficult or contain harsh ideas, will inevitably become a more intelligent and more well-rounded person than one who does not.”

I tend to agree with Jeffrey on this.  I remember when I was younger and would read novels that were advanced for my age.  The crude words and sexual situations went right over my head.  I have often returned to a book that I read when I was younger and I am amazed at the language and situations that I now understand.  When I read Lord of the Flies for the first time I was ten years old and I enjoyed the book as a adventure novel about boys being boys.  When I read it again for my high school 20th Century Literature course I remember being amazed at the pure brutality of the novel and there were so many Christian symbols that I had missed.  However, even when I was ten I caught the message of the book about humanity.

I believe that banning people from books holds them back from opportunities to learn and will make students angry and give up on reading all together.  Their mentality will be, “If I can’t read what I want to read then why read at all?”  Jeffery agrees with me and takes it a step further.

“Censorship in all forms is a dangerous proposition, and one that must be guarded against. When librarians attempt to stifle students’ access to literature, they are essentially unraveling [their] educational outlooks and teaching [them] that it is OK for someone outside of their family to control their thoughts.”

He takes censorship from a mere guarding of students’ minds to a complete control of their thoughts.  Here is where I differ from Jeffrey.  I do think that censorship keeps students from some important truths about life and I think that it discourages reading.  However, saying that because we allow books to be censored we allow others to control our thoughts is a little far-fetched.

I do believe that we need to put books in the hands of students and that if a ten year old girl wants to read Lord of the Flies then let her take up the challenge!  Who cares if it has a few violent moments?  I say “Let our youth learn and discover the world through books!”
 

Jeff Jeffrey. “Book banning destroys thought.” The Daily Reveille. Jan.24, 2007

see complete article

The censorship debate has two very important sides to it.  Obviously those who agree with censorship and those who disagree with it.  This entry in my blog will deal with the arguments given by those that agree with censorship.  People who think censorship is necessary in order to protect students from harmful issues rather than to expose them to unhealthy language and situations.  Wendy Day writes that

“Limiting children’s reading material is good stewardship of our responsibility to the   community to provide safe schools.”

She claims that while parents are able to choose what movies children watch in the home, what music they listen to, and the language they are exposed to; it is the responsibility of the school to choose what it exposes to students while they are in the school.

Many question censorship by claiming that students experience racial or sexual issues within the real world so why should they be kept from experiencing the very same issues within literature?  Wendy Day claims

“Where do we draw the line? There are terrible things that happen in this world. Is it our responsibility to make sure children have detailed information about all of these things? What about incest? What about sado-masochism? These are very real activities in our world, but what is the value in exposing our children to them?”

She is right.  What is the value?  Are there other books that would teach the same ideas without using foul language or sexual scenes?  Can we as teachers find materials that attack serious issues that are “suitable for children?”

This article opened my eyes to why it may be important to keep certain books from our students.  However, it also left me with many questions and doubts.  While I understand her point that students should be protected within schools I ask “WHY?” Aren’t we as teachers trying to prepare our students for the real world?  Shouldn’t they be exposed to the harsh realities of life?  At least then they would be a little more equipped to face the real world and all of its difficulties.

In my English class we are reading Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men.  This book is such a good book to teach because it is short, fun, easy, and it has a lot of themes that are important for students.  However, this book has foul language and also deals with racial issues.  Does that mean that we should not teach it to our students?  You make the call.

Wendy Day, “Our Schools Have A Duty to Consider Content”. Press and Argus. Jan. 21, 2007

view complete article