By Speedy Scott, globalmicroscope@gmail.com
WARNING: This post contains adult content not intended for persons under 18 years of age. If you are a minor, please ask a parent or guardian before reading further.
Preparing for battle. In the midst of controversy over "harmful materials" assigned to 7th graders at RSM Intermediate (see articles dated April 21 and 29), parents of Rancho Santa Margarita, CA, are asking if citizens have been caught off guard by sexual or violent subject matter at schools in other districts. They are demanding to know... Has this path been tread before?
The short answer is yes, and parental protests can be divided into two categories: (1) appeals made to local administrators, and (2) court cases involving judicial decisions meant to clarify the role of government. In the latter, the question about which is more important--the protection of free speech or the protection of children--has made it all the way to the US Supreme Court. When these two moral imperatives are pitted against each other, however, the outcome is never easy to predict.
The 1st Amendment vs. the Protection of Minors. The issue of parental vs. administrative control over school curriculum seems to boil down to what, exactly, is "harmful" to minors. This is much more difficult to distinguish than whether or not free speech is being inhibited, which makes it more difficult to adjudicate. It varies from child to child, though experts can often agree on basic guidelines.
Thanks to the difficulty of defining "harmful," child advocates tend to face uphill battles. Even when school assignments are obviously inappropriate, not to mention anti-educational, a successful protest requires a certain amount of voodoo. Here are a few examples of wins and losses across the country, just to illustrate the intensity and breadth of such efforts:
Cases Involving Parents and Public School Administrators
Protest #1, In progress (going badly): Gilford High School, New Hampshire, May 2014. As reported on May 6, an attorney named William Baer became furious when he learned that his 14 year old daughter had been assigned the adult novel, Nineteen Minutes. Parents were given no warning about the content their children would be reading, including the following excerpts:
"She could feel his erection, hot against her stomach."
Angry dad arrested. (Source: marketfaith.org)
"Yeah," he groaned, and he pushed her thighs apart. And then suddenly Matt was inside her, pumping her so hard that she scooted backward on the carpet, burning the backs of her legs."
"...Semen, sticky and hot, pooled on the carpet beneath her."
The consequences of assigning Nineteen Minutes to a class of 14 year olds (without parental warning) would seem predictable: disturbed children and upset parents. Very upset parents. And sure enough, this is exactly what happened. William Baer attended a school board meeting, and requested to speak. He was
allowed only 2 minutes to comment.
When Baer exceeded the limit and proceeded to debate with another parent who supported the book, he was placed under arrest. (Note the irony of enforcing "free speech" in schools by taking away the same right from a father.)
allowed only 2 minutes to comment.
When Baer exceeded the limit and proceeded to debate with another parent who supported the book, he was placed under arrest. (Note the irony of enforcing "free speech" in schools by taking away the same right from a father.)
Baer's plight led to a media investigation, and here's what happened next:
1. A reporter asked the Superintendent his opinion on the matter, and he replied:
"I'm not going to make a decision on pornographic material..." and, "It's a decision of the local community."
2. The school board then released a statement: "The School District policies IGE, IJ, IJA, KEC (available on the school district website) refer to the procedures for the use of novels containing controversial material. The district will take immediate action to revise these policies to include notification that requires parents to accept controversial materials rather than to opt out. Furthermore, the notification will detail more specifically the controversial material."
Clearly, William Baer's protest is not going well--and he's an attorney.
(Source: Todd Sarnes, FoxNews.com.)
(A special thank you to a local reader for the heads up on this article!)
.jpg) |
| Buena High School (Source: Buena80.com) |
"Hugo and Felicia stripped in their room, dissolving easily into one another, and made love against the whitewashed walls. Hugo bit Felicia's breast and left purplish bands of bruises on her upper thighs. He knelt before her in the tub and massaged black Spanish soap between her legs. He entered her repeatedly from behind.
Felicia learned what pleased him. She tied his arms above his head with their underclothing and slapping him sharply when he asked.
'You're my bitch,' Hugo said, groaning.
In the morning he left, promising to return in the summer."
Source: Alice Linahan and Donna Garner on the Women On The Wall radio show. (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/12/Arizona-School-District-Pulls-Sexually-Explicit-Book-Recommended-by-Common-Core-Standards)
_cover_art.jpg) |
| Cover, low resolution. (Source:Wikipedia) |
According to Terry Dean, staff reporter for Oakpark.com, school officials largely rebuffed the parents' objections:
"The parents filed their request on April 16, asking that the book be replaced with something 'more appropriate' for young children. A committee that included teachers and administrators was then established to review Monster, a process that took about three weeks.
The committee ultimately concluded that the book is appropriate for D97 seventh graders. Until now, the district had not received any complaints from families about the novel, according to Chris Jasculca, D97's director of communications. He said the book was chosen by the district's literacy committee, which includes language arts teachers.
'The committee was in search of a drama to include on the novel grid for seventh grade and selected Monster based on a number of factors, including that it is age-appropriate, won a number of awards, is a high-engagement book for students, and provides an opportunity to discuss social and emotional issues in an appropriate setting,' Jasculca said.
Daniels, however, said the parents asked to be notified prior to last Tuesday's school board meeting. The administration's decision was also presented to the board at that meeting but as an FYI — the board does not vote on novels used in classrooms."
According to this article, the literature committee decided to uphold the use of Monster in the classroom. In response to the parental complaints, they also moved to offer 7th graders an alternative book, but still require them to remain in the classroom during discussions of Monster. The committee also issued a statement encouraging teachers to read "pre-approved" books before assigning them to the classroom.
Influential Court Decisions
One of the most vocal opponents of parental influence over school curriculum is the American Library Association (ALA). In the beginning of last month (April 2014), it was easy to access their web-based advice on how to deflect the anger of parents intent on "censorship," (www.ala.org). A lengthy, committee-based appeal process was recommended--a process so obviously personal, subjective and slow that, in the ALA's opinion (remarked online), it should discourage most parents from complaining in the first place.
Shortly after the publication of "Homosexual Torture, Execution, and Prostitution: Defended by Middle School Principal...," the ALA removed the page outlining its advice to discourage parents with a lengthy red-tape process.* In fact, these subject titles still remain, but the links to them have been broken:
What You Can Do to Oppose Censorship
Strategies and Tips for Dealing with Challenges to Library materials*
Reporting a Challenge
Now it appears that the ALA's policy has changed somewhat, and can be found here:
Fortunately, the American Library Association also provides information on court cases that clarify when "free speech" is against the law. Online, they present a chapter entitled, "When is Speech Unprotected? Obscenity and Indecency." The following cases are directly applicable to the raging controversy in Rancho Santa Margarita, CA:
1. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 62, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195 88 S. Ct. 1274 (1968): The Supreme Court upheld a New York State statute preventing retailers from selling sexually explicit publications to minors (17 or under). The court found that the US Constitution cannot interfere with a state's right to restrict children's access to such publications in light of the state's interest in safeguarding children's welfare and supporting parents' claim to aurthority in the rearing of their children.
2. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37, L.Ed.2d. 419 (1973): In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a three-part definition of obscenity. First, the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests; second, that it depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as defined by state law; and third, that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serous literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. The Court ruled that community standards and state statutes that describe sexual depictions to be suppressed could be used to prosecute Miller, who operated one of the largest West Coast mail order businesses dealing in sexually explicit materials.
Note: The definition of "obscenity," above, is repeated almost verbatim in CA state statutes pertaining to materials harmful to minors.
3. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982): In July 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a conviction against a man named Ferber for showing a movie depicting two young boys engaging in explicit autoerotic conduct. The film itself was not judged obscene for adults, but the Court made the distinction between what was obscene if children were the participants compared with if adults were the leading actors.
Right Here in Rancho Santa Margarita, CA
In light of the above cases, several questions must be asked regarding the use of Michael Crichton's Timeline to teach 7th grade history:
1. Does the book qualify as "harmful" to minors? Potentially yes, if the answer is affirmative to the following:
A. If taken as a whole, does it appeal to prurient interests?
B. Does it depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct?
C. Does the work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value?
2. Does the book involve the depiction of minors?
It is the position of this author (and only this author) that the book, Timeline, fails every criteria important to both administrative school officials and courts. As mentioned in previous articles here on Global Microscope, the book depicts the execution of a man by ramming a hot poker up his rectum. It also depicts both children and pregnant women subjected to evisceration. The work as a whole can easily be interpreted as appealing to prurient interests; sex and violence are virtually indistinguishable in the book, and liberally distributed throughout the story.
Does the work lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value? Absolutely. It was written for entertainment, with a target audience of persons over 17 years of age. Scholarly references are included at the end of the book, but no in-text annotations are provided so that a reader can separate fact from fiction.
It might be advisable for concerned parents of Rancho Santa Margarita to prepare for battle. The administration of RSM Intermediate was informed of parental concerns, and of the excruciatingly inappropriate contents of Timeline. As of May 6, the book is still in classroom service, without explanation from school officials.
Thank you for your time.
~Speedy Scott
Please feel free to contact me here: globalmicroscope@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment