The Tennessee case of Maus being removed from the 8th grade curriculum in one district is an example of the tension between "anything goes" and "best sources for topics" and paternalism... and exactly WHEN certain topics and narratives should be introduced to children.
There is a difference, of course, between outright censorship and making considered choices about what is read or not read. No one could possibly read everything that is available but most would agree that adults should have pretty much unlimited choice in their reading, even if many of those choices are abhorrent.
My knee jerk reaction to reports of book banning is to get upset and start quoting the First Amendment. My "head" tells me that censorship rarely works very well in the long term, as we see Maus now at the top of the best-seller list on Amazon, for instance. But my "heart" has a tough time with the censors, assuming that book banning is ill-considered and that the would-be censors have rarely read the books in question.
There are many in America -- and this is quite common among Republicans -- who believe the public school system is not something to be celebrated and fully supported. Many desire more control over what children read and discuss and study.
It is certainly possible that the rise of book challenges is an ominous skirmish in the efforts to "blow up" the public schools and dismember a major part of state and local governments.
But there are times when I think about WHEN to teach certain important texts. The first example that springs to mind is "Romeo and Juliet," often taught in English 9 classes. I have done so myself and the experience rarely goes well unless the teacher is willing to devote extraordinary time and effort to the play.
The thinking may be that ninth graders are quite close to Juliet's age (not quite 14) and can therefore make stronger connections with the play's emotions. That doesn't hold up well, though, as hardly any ninth graders have experienced the kind of all-consuming love that R&J experience. And connecting with Shakespeare's language? Ooo boy. Not a chance.
Ninth graders CAN connect with a film version of the play and the 1996 Baz Luhrmann version featuring Leo and Claire can go over very well. But English teachers want students to appreciate the language and poetry and themes and imagery... leading to many students becoming turned off to Shakespeare just before they might start handling more complex literature.
I have taught R&J dozens of times to all sorts of students, but my personal experience is that it wasn't until I was in college taking a "Complete Works of Shakespeare" course (we read all 36 plays in one semester!) that I began to really appreciate the artistry and the influence of the play.
We had studied the play when I was a freshman in high school and it made no impact at all. The 1968 Zeffirelli film made a lasting impact, helping me better connect with the lovers and the social commentary and even the poetry, and when I found myself teaching British Lit in the early 1980s, I gained a new appreciation for the play and was surprised to find that this play essentially invented the concept of romantic love in the western world.
Bottom line: I'm fine with teaching "Romeo and Juliet" to high school students but favor waiting until they are juniors or seniors. There are numerous options to teach reading and analytical skills to freshmen and most are much more accessible. But I would enjoy a discussion that delved into other options.
It's not censorship to advocate for a particular piece of literature to be taught later in school. It IS censorship to demand that a particular book can never be taught (with burning books that alarm us the next step).
I continue to hope for more reasoned discussions about books and curriculum, but am not holding my breath.
It's more fun to shout and burn.
No comments:
Post a Comment