Clay Burell’s challenged me (or tagged me, or whatever) to engage a meme that he’s passing along. I might. I’m bad about memes. I don’t mean to be. (And I am thinking about a good passion quilt image and will post one. Eventually. Thanks to all who tagged me.) But I did want to encourage you to read his post. Mostly because of this idea about teaching Lolita:
I think I can say they all love it. I also think I can say they can handle it - and if they can’t, they should learn to, now more than ever.
As a high school language arts teacher, I encouraged my students to pick many of their own books in consultation with me and other trusted adults. I would encourage you to do the same. But that’s another post.
But when you do decide to read a book together, I’d ask that you never insult the intelligence of your students, emotionally or intellectually, by hiding the world from them through picking “safe” books. Safe choices are pretty much always about you (or your administrator, or your school board) and not about your students. They live in the worlds being represented in literature. Many educators live in these worlds, too. Let’s not pretend otherwise. Instead, let’s challenge students to engage ideas and concepts that are weighty, essential and enthralling.
Let’s ask them to dream and to dare and to risk by talking about difficult ideas in safe places. Let’s ask them not to agree with the stance of a particular author or book or teacher or administrator or board policy, but instead to struggle through finding their own way. With help, of course.
Most good teaching is all about finding balance. Safe and scary. Old and new. Today and tomorrow. Child and adult. Easy and hard. Choice and “have to.” Too often in schools, we lean way hard on one side of the teeter totter and completely avoid the other side.
What fun is that? And what good is it for anyone?
19 responses so far ↓
Joe // Apr 11th 2008 at 4:11 pm
Bud, while I agree with you in theory, I disagree with you in reality. As a building leader, it is my job to balance the enthusiasm of a tacher with what is right or wrong. Rightly or wrongly parents must have a say in their student’s lives. They are the parents! Do some parents hide their children from the world, with often tragic consequnces? Yes! But, I think you also made it clear that everyone needs to be on the same page!
valsuisse // Apr 11th 2008 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree with reading almost anything! Our students live varied, real lives. Much of what they experience, we can only imagine. Reading a variety of literature allows them to find their voice.
Bud Hunt // Apr 11th 2008 at 8:32 pm
Joe,
I guess I wasn’t clear - I’d never force a student into anything that their parent wasn’t supportive of and wanted their students removed from. I do think parents should have the final say in their children’s lives. I’d never condone a teacher who worked around a parent’s explicit wishes. But what I think we do all too often is avoid situations out of fear. We don’t balance our responsibilities. We dodge. We take the easy way and not the right way. And I don’t condone that, either.
Thank you for helping me to make myself clearer.
Clay Burell // Apr 12th 2008 at 5:12 am
Maybe I don’t understand Joe when he says
— but isn’t that contradictory?
If parents object to their child learning about the effectiveness of modern medicine because they’re Jehovah’s Witnesses, should a school fear them?
Or if they don’t want their child learning about Darwin, genetics, mutation, evolution, geology, because they’re Young Earth Creationists, should a school bow to their wishes?
If they believe in Abstinence-Only Sex Education, should we not teach safe sex?
If they believe in only G-Rated literature, should we only teach Disney and Mother Goose?
It takes no education to reproduce, and children are not the property solely of their parents. I’d argue we have a duty to teach them more of the world than any narrow-minded parent might wish - especially when what we’re teaching them is to know and form their own judgments about the world.
As I say in my post - and a conservative web-pal of mine agrees with me - Lolita should be taught because it can teach our young many valuable things about the dangers of the world, of their own behaviors, and it’s a great work of literature to boot. I shouldn’t have to ask a parent’s permission to teach it any more than I do to have students read James Joyce, Huck Finn, or D.H. Lawrence.
Terry Smith // Apr 12th 2008 at 7:44 am
While my students are too young (9-10 years) for Lolita, I support it being taught and the reasoning for doing so. Parents of my students have not complained about book choice (few even know what I’m teaching), but some of my past peers took it upon themselves to censor - literally - using white out on “objectionable” words and phrases in novels. Incredible? Yeah…
Clay refers to Huck Finn - good one. I am in Samuel Clemens land (Hannibal, MO) so I have lots of opportunities with my youngsters to examine Clemens’ dialogs and view points. I’m getting off topic here - enjoyed the discussion you guys are having.
Nancy White // Apr 12th 2008 at 9:07 am
Well thank goodness for libraries! Students can access good reading material, learn and think critically about issues from the safety of an arm chair. I am currently involved in the aftermath of a parent challenge to a book that was on a list for a reading enrichment activity - not quite curriculum, and apparently library policies did not apply. So…in response to one parent’s complaint, we now have 20 educators meeting weekly for the next month to draft procedures and book selection criteria for reading enrichment activities. I remain optomistic that something positive will come out of this - the discussions have been fantastic and the group remains focused on the ultimate goal of not letting policy and procedure get in the way of helping students to build a love of reading and become lifelong learners. Good policies - as have been a part of libraries for decades - will actually protect a student’s right to read, prevent censorship and provide a buffer for teachers who want to go out on that limb to select relevant, engaging reads for classroom discussion.
Bud Hunt // Apr 12th 2008 at 11:52 am
Clay - I think there’s a big difference between defying a parent’s wishes and avoiding areas of conflict out of perceived or potential fear.
Nancy - Go libraries! I hope that you’ll talk more about your work to build this new policy.
Bud Hunt // Apr 12th 2008 at 11:52 am
@Terry: White out? That makes me sad. For so many reasons.
Joe // Apr 12th 2008 at 2:06 pm
Clay - we are public servants. We work for an elected school board, under the twin rubrics of the state and federal governments. You said: “I shouldn’t have to ask a parent’s permission to teach it any more than I do to have students read James Joyce, Huck Finn, or D.H. Lawrence.” I disagree with that line of thought for the potential pitfalls it could cause. We have an adopted curriculum for a reason. A process exists. Obviously you have a set of values that are important to you. I have a set of values that are important to me. I can almost garuntee that you would not want some of my personal views taught in the classroom. Public education should not be a free for all!
JackieB // Apr 12th 2008 at 3:59 pm
We faced a possible book banning in our district a few years ago. A few of the titles in question were The Awakening, Slaughterhouse-Five, and Beloved (among others).
In the end, the books were not banned. We did end up with a more detailed parental “opt-out” process for “controversial” materials. It seems to have satisfied everyone (and from what I know, few choose the option).
Clay Burell // Apr 12th 2008 at 5:07 pm
Joe, again I’m unclear on your argument. “That line of thought” you disagree with - is it that I shouldn’t have to ask permission to teach Lolita, or that I shouldn’t teach Lawrence or Twain as well, because they are “controversial,” and thus don’t belong in the classroom?
I think your penultimate sentence is pregnant: “I can almost garuntee that you would not want some of my personal views taught in the classroom. Public education should not be a free for all!” — First, it suggests we have radically different views of what teaching is. I don’t see “teaching” as indoctrinating (”Teacher’s view is right”).
But to bow to the amorphous thing - a fiction, really - called “public values” by _not_ introducing controversial topics and varying viewpoints on them? _That’s_ indoctrination, whether motivated by fear, “respect” for parental close-mindedness, or whatever.
I don’t fear pitfalls (but I’m lucky: I don’t fear unemployment either). I don’t serve processes. And I don’t serve boards or states (literally - I work at a private school in Asia).
I’ll end with this example of what I think teaching is: atheism became an issue in a history class I taught a couple years ago, because some Christian students wrote some Moodle forums about how “atheists are immoral without religion,” and the atheist students in my classes expressed offense and anger.
I invited a missionary I know and a parent atheist I knew to join our Moodle forums and represent the opposing viewpoints. The students got to consider the points of view - the _arguments_ (critical thinking, anyone?) - of these adults, and learn in the process.
Was I “teaching” one viewpoint? No. Did some students and parents get upset to see this real thinking going on in my classroom? Yes. Would I do it again? Yes.
Public education - education, period - _should_ not be “a” free-for-all, but inquiry itself? It should be free, public or private, to ask any question worth asking.
And we shouldn’t fear the reactionary who wants to shackle questions to suit their tastes.
Now why isn’t my original post getting split like this? Drat
Clay Burell // Apr 12th 2008 at 5:09 pm
Correction: last sentence: “Why _is_ my original post getting split like this?”
Miguel Guhlin // Apr 13th 2008 at 8:37 pm
Wow, great conversation…shouldn’t we have these conversations in classrooms? I think we should but sometimes we run into one of the following situations:
1) Teachers who lack the skills to facilitate a balanced, consider all the perspectives conversation, and even less, to do so online via a discussion board.
2) Students who misinterpret and misrepresent–unintentionally or intentionally–the discussion in class to their parents and other adults who are not part of the conversation.
3) Administrators who are focused on ensuring that academic learning is taking place without the heat and noise that is a by-product of learning…and often, is necessary for learning to take place.
It’s the last I wish to speak to. Being in school is often about indoctrinating children and pushing an acceptable point of view–Society’s and/or the dominant culture. I still recall Jana’s fear–she was a published online author of sensual poems and 8th grade teacher–that feared her children would go online and find her writing there, take it home and share it with their Bible-thumping parents.
Would Jana have been dismissed? Yes, if it became an issue that became center-stage rather than what kids should be learning. Rather than seize a teachable moment, schools expect teachers to focus on academics and accepted school curriculum. If the teacher becomes the teachable moment, that teacher is out of a job.
The benefit of writing in journals or notebooks–rather than the web–is that children can explore their ideas, decide what to share in the insular, closed community. That’s just not possible or desirable in the Read/Write world.
Any discussion of books deemed controversial–and any book can be found to be so depending on the culture depending on how it is handled–must always be prefaced with a clear understanding of what the instructional goals are. Those have to be communicated clearly to students, parents, administrators alike and the ramifications explored in advance.
That’s why sticking with the approved curriculum is safer than dragging any old book in and discussing it. But if you must drag one in, it is better before one word is spoken, or essay written, that students be aware that controversy and consequences resulting from idiocy, fear, prejudice, and/or intellectual snobbery lurk in its pages.
The victim of those dark creatures will not be the student awakened to other worlds, the parents who bemoan the loss of innocence, or the administrator who must explain why that nice teacher–who, yes, happens to be an atheist, even though that’s immaterial yet reflects negatively, from a Christian perspective, on the man’s morals–introduced the text. Instead, it is the teacher who unleashed the beasts that slept, chained behind the closed doors protected by a paper-thin facade.
Clay Burell // Apr 13th 2008 at 8:42 pm
Doggone it Miguel, I follow your thoughts until that last paragraph, then you lose me. Can you clarify that last point?
Clay Burell // Apr 13th 2008 at 8:43 pm
And does that make all Buddhists immoral? (Buddhism is not theistic.)
Joe // Apr 13th 2008 at 8:47 pm
Clay & Miguel -
Yes an excellent conversation. But, we are adults (I assume). It really has made my weekend. BTW - Bud I’m commenting at long last. Here is my issue. We love the 1st Amendment. Do you love the 2nd equally? My point is this: How about a banned hand-gun week? My views may be as strongly in favor of each parts of our Bill of Rights. Which one has greater value? Which one do you want me advocating in a public school? This is why we have oversight. Whether in a public or private setting.
Miguel Guhlin // Apr 13th 2008 at 9:02 pm
Clay, I’m sorry…I was having fun and listened to the fantasy horror writer in me. I even included Cerberus in the post I dropped on EduWrite.blogspot.com (sigh).
In short, the last paragraph might be revised in this way:
The teacher, more than any other, suffers when s/he sets out to take the road less travelled by…for where the teacher goes, so must the students.
Or, another way:
Far better the teacher who, like the local Fireman’s Halloween Haunt House, enjoys the trust of the community that nothing found in that House will be judged objectionable by anyone….
Clay Burell // Apr 13th 2008 at 9:22 pm
Thanks for the clearing, Miguel. The “nothing … will be found objectionable by anyone” standard is pretty ambitious, isn’t it?
Here’s the pedagogical justification for the novel as the perfect truly modern novel, in the framework of “the Big Four”: Darwin (shift from theology to biology), Marx (shift from Free Will and essentialism to historico-materialistic determinism), Freud (shift from rationalism to irrationalism), and Nietzsche (shift from absolute to “revaluation of all values”): Lolita encapsulates all of those things. I’m teaching the class as a chronological survey of literature from the Renaissance to the post-modern, which these students are just ready to synthesize after studying Freud in AP Psych and studying the birth of the modern in the Norton Anthology.
I just deleted the attempt to restate my post’s point about what I would call an educational responsibility to alert the young to the realities of the Humberts and Lolitas of the world (and I wonder how many of us have read the novel?) - but I’ve already done that on my post, and it’s time for lunch.
I liked the style of your response, Miguel. While I’m still not real clear on where you stand on the issue of safety (as in CYA), I think I get the thrust of the rest, and agree.
Funny afterthought: I’m in Asia. Not being a Christian is normal here, so parents don’t view non-theists (or non-astrologists, or non-anythingists) “negatively” - they view them as “normal.” It’s a cultural thing.
Miguel Guhlin // Apr 13th 2008 at 9:35 pm
Clay, you’re way over my head on the lit analysis, and that’s alright…I’ve never read Crime and Punishment (i tried but fell asleep, much the same response with great artwork in Europe) or Lolita.
However, as an administrator, not to mention a person who went to Catholic high school where the religion teacher NEVER tells you what she thinks but encourages you to develop your own thinking (unlike those fundamentalists in college who tell you WHAT to think, and if you’re a fundamentalist and don’t do that, you just defined yourself out of my fundamentalist stereotype), you shouldn’t ever be able to figure out what I think from I write.
That said, Lolita is only safe if everyone understands the nuances of meaning, embraces controversy as a way of achieving deeper understanding of who we are in relation to the world around us, and …
to be quick since lunch is upon you, just as bedtime crouches (see? it comes from reading too much Stephen King alongside Revelations and Yeats), knocking at my chamber door (sigh), if *I* were teaching writing and reading with young adults/adults, I’d go for the jugular.
But, hey, that’s why I’m an administrator now. . .removed from harming children with high-powered ideas, reduced to making the world “safe” for the fearful, not free for the brave.
argh, good night. Thanks for letting me ramble on, Bud and fellow readers.
Miguel
http://eduwrite.blogspot.com
http://mguhlin.net
Leave a Comment