Submitted by TheMobyDicks t3_11ss7a8 in newhampshire
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfai5m wrote
This bill doesnt do any banning or restricting. All it does is provide a framework for how education institutions are to respond to complaints about the materials taught or shown and what timeframes they have to act by. The schools dont have to agree with the complaints, they just have to have a hearing on it. The schools can absolutely disagree with the complainant and keep the material in the curriculum/ environment.
While this provides some pathway for parents to try and keep their children from being exposed to things like 50 shades of gray at schools or libraries; I fear that material more likely to be complained about are good books with harsh but important messages, like To Kill A Mockingbird or The Color Purple.
Fuck Catcher In the Rye though, that book can get banned.
Darwins_Dog t1_jcfgbc6 wrote
It provides a way for any parent to waste schools' time and resources by filing a bogus complaint and forcing the school to have a hearing. Spare us the pearl clutching about "they could read 50 shades of gray." That's about as real as students using litter boxes at school. Blatant unfounded fear mongering.
This bill is designed to hurt public education under the guise of parental rights.
skigirl180 t1_jcg3ol4 wrote
Are you fucking serious?
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfhzst wrote
You might not have read my entire statement, and thats fine it was quite long. I follow up that 50 shades example (one i figured the world would recognize as something we dont want children to be exposed to) with what i actually fear will happen(good teachings being restricted). If it would make you feel better, imagine instead of 50 shades, I wrote something that you think shouldn't be taught or promoted in educational settings, depending on age group.
Darwins_Dog t1_jcfkvft wrote
Your post sounds like you think this bill is a good idea with some flaws. I hope I misread it, but your example of the possible upside is straight out of the fear mongering playbook. Hyperbole aside, what books are you worried about? Are there examples of schools in NH stocking inappropriate books? I haven't read anything, thus why I call it unfounded fear mongering.
If you find something objectionable in the school library, start with a conversation. We don't need a law to protect us from a made up scenario.
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfvwwq wrote
For the most part, I do think the bill is a good idea. I recognize the potential for abuse and misuse, which should be addressed to add potential penalties for clearly vexatious incidents.
But the bill provides a fairly clear pathway for both complainants and the defendants/institutions. The school, library, or other educational organization just has to address the concern within a timely manner. They can say " this is clearly bull, we're not doing anything about it." And if the complainant is unhappy, it provides them with the instructions on how to handle it further. If theres ever a situation in which an explicitly anti trans curriculum is added to a school, the parents or even the students themselves deserve to have an actual way to get recognition of their issue and some form of decision.
Personally, it doesnt matter to me what the particular item at issue is. If I was in a situation where I felt that a particular subject/topic/etc. should not be taught or disseminated in the manner or age group it was, I'd want there to be a set of rules that i can look to for how to get that issue addressed and know that i am at least guaranteed a response.
Example: if Andy Dufresne wrote 1 letter every day to get funding or books for the prison library, and the government was forced to respond to him, he might've gotten a proper resolution much faster had a bill similar to this been enacted. You shouldnt be forced to overwhelm an institution or organization just to get a response to your concerns.
Darwins_Dog t1_jcg8n0y wrote
You glossed over the part where a county attorney can decide the school has to defend their "this is bull" argument in court. It's an unnecessary burden that doesn't need to be there.
Obvious potential abuses should be fixed before passing a law, not after. They can submit a revised version and I'll reconsider my position, but I'm not going to pin my hopes on politicians doing the right thing after they have what they want.
Andy Dufrense was a fictional character. It's fitting that you would use him as an argument for who this law would help.
TheGrateKhan t1_jcgg1lr wrote
Didnt gloss over that part, its part of the complaint process. If the person who filed the complaint is dissatisfied with the 1st response, they can escalate the issue to the next person in line, that individual can determine whether a hearing in court is necessary. Alternatively, they can support the first response and agree that the complaint is unneeded.
The bill is still only in the House, so there is ample time for both politicians and citizens like you and I to make our concerns heard and have amendments made to ensure that this bill has all the grounds covered. It may get drastically changed in the senate.
I used Andy Dufresne as an example because it's again a situation i figured most people are familiar with because it was an incredibly popular piece of media. The CONCEPT which is the important part to focus on, is that in a world without these types of rules that require an answer be given and be given by a particular timeline from your government or educational systems, they can simply ignore you unless you flood them with complaints or publicity. You shouldnt have to resort to those measures to get something as simple as an answer and/or a direction to go if dissatisfied with the answer. Especially from a branch, portion, or individual in your government.
Ill try a different example:
A public school History teacher decides that for the beginning of the Ancient Civilizations portion, hes going to have the class read/study The Old Testament of The Bible and is teaching them that what happened in The Bible is Historically accurate. Or teaches the history of the Civil War and Reconstruction only from the perspective of the Confederacy and tries to malign principles of the Union? I can guarantee you that there's a group of people who would view these as Obscene and theyd have every right to complain. Youll probably say that the Separation of Church and State solves the first one, but if the school doesnt even need to address your complaint, how do you get the ball rolling? You'd have to file a lawsuit or contact a governmental body thats above than the school. This law looks to make that easier to do. It forces the institution to address that you have a concern, and if they dont do the correct thing, it'll open them up to larger amounts of trouble if they are actually in the wrong.
smartest_kobold t1_jcfpzu5 wrote
Being able to prosecute people for putting Heather Has Two Mommies in a high school library will have a chilling effect. Possibly more insidious than an outright ban.
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfx014 wrote
The prosecution is only if the defendant(s) is/are found to be in the wrong, and continues to perform actions that were ruled to be obscene after being notified that it is not allowed to continue. After being told that you cant take any more cookies from the jar, if you continue to take cookies from the jar, THEN the select government entities listed can prosecute.
smartest_kobold t1_jcg24iq wrote
Every teacher needs to check the local and state restrictions and bans list before they can bring a book inside a school? That's not a lot better.
GhostDan t1_jcfeaqx wrote
Local attempt started as "Oh no that book may not be appropriate for children" (It was borderline, and I'm big on parents actually parenting their children) then people started jumping in. One person actually said "Once this is done we can look for any race theory books" in a town hall.
devildogmillman t1_jcfisxg wrote
Wait whats wrong with Catcher in the Rye lol
Written by one of our own
Mynewadventures t1_jcfjyf3 wrote
I loved that book and I remember making my 13 year old Daughter read it.
I remember her saying, 'frankly Dad, it was boring. And I hated that kid".
My point was made that teenagers suck and are boring.
devildogmillman t1_jcfsada wrote
Teenagers do suck
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfkgnw wrote
I just cant stand Holden. Hes a whiny baby and one of the most annoying narrators to follow. Every other description of someone is calling them a "phoney" for some usually unjustified reason. Hes obscenely cynical of the world and everyone else in it, to the point where hes not even fun to follow. You are almost rooting for bad things to happen to him because hes one of the few protagonists that ive felt earns his misfortune and unhappiness.
The only takeaway I got out of CITR was to try my hardest not to turn into Holden Caulfield. If that was Salingers goal, then ill backtrack and say its actually a decent book.
Also, in one of the early chapters, he uses his prep school mattress as a fleshlight, and i think thats just kinda gross lol.
devildogmillman t1_jcfsfql wrote
I mean yeah didnt like or finish the book when they assigned it to me in HS. It wasnt particularly offensive it just didnt grab me.
TheGrateKhan t1_jcfxmh1 wrote
Oh i dont think Catcher is offensive or not age appropriate, I just didnt enjoy the book. The part where I said it can get banned was meant as a joke to try and lighten the mood because these topics are often dry and adversarial.
devildogmillman t1_jcg9zpe wrote
No I just meant it doesnt personally offend my literary sensibility. But it is probably not a good book for high schoolers to read.
TheMobyDicks OP t1_jcg3j8c wrote
>he uses his prep school mattress as a fleshlight
That's some funny shit! Gracias.
lellololes t1_jcfjcr6 wrote
The reality is that the elementary school is... Not likely to have 50 shades of gray in the school library.
It is not unreasonable to have a policy about books that are appropriate and a policy about how to handle complaints, but at the same time those policies will be abused. I don't think there is a great way to deal with clashes like this so would tend to veer on the side of being more permissive rather than allowing more restrictions.
The framework would allow some towns to do things like banning cute books about penguins that are entirely age appropriate.
A lot of things working correctly are based on the notion of everyone involved acting in good faith, and when people do not, it wrecks the systems that might be set up. Most parents know that their children are exposed to things in public that they are not exposed to at home. Hiding a few books from them is not going to change the influences on their kids.
As soon as parents go in a direction that is basically "I don't want my kid exposed to this because it is against my religion" it reminds me of why we have separation of church and state. That's nice. Many books feature stories that clash with many religions. Do we go through all the books and make sure that everything would be appropriate for a strict adherent to Jainism too? Now that is truly "woke"...
Except that it isn't.
I can only hope that the people of this fine state can live and let live, but a significant proportion of the population wishes to have a culture war - and ironically those people are the ones that claim the mantle of freedom.
BelichicksBurner t1_jcg0944 wrote
> this provides some pathway for parents to try and keep their children from being exposed to things
Full stop. That's the entire problem: many parents who have been indoctrinated into extreme ideological factions (that number is much bigger than you think, on the left and the right) simply can't be trusted to know what their kids can and can't handle being exposed to. I literally listened to a fellow parent just last month complaining about their kid being exposed to "critical race theory"...because he had to read a 60-page book about Harriet Tubman. To me it was laughable...but I saw more than one parent nodding their head in agreement. Fact is some parents simply want to create an echo chamber for their children similar to the ones they've created for themselves. They can't be allowed more power to do that. Look at the clown who tried to get a teacher fired because the teacher dressed too feminine. You wanna give THAT shitbag more power over what's taught in our schools? No thanks.
TheMobyDicks OP t1_jcg40b3 wrote
Very well said!
[deleted] t1_jcfd4y8 wrote
[deleted]
futureygoodness t1_jcfh8r5 wrote
It’s not a ban or restricting, just imposes bureaucratic processes that waste people’s time
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments