Title : WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible.
link : WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible.
WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible.
I'm trying to read "An author was set to read his unicorn book to students. The school forbade it" by Jaclyn Peiser.
How does it happen that an author gets into the position of being "set to read" his book to a captive audience of children? There are thousands of authors who might want access to children. They can't all be sitting there in a little chair reading their book to a bunch of kids who've been forced to sit quietly at their feet and receive the ideas they've put into a book. You can love books and hate censorship and still want to carefully control what books are read to the children in your care!
The article begins "Jason Tharp wants to write books for weird kids...." He's written a book and, we're told:
On April 6, as Tharp prepared to read “It’s Okay to Be a Unicorn!” to students the next day at an elementary school in the Buckeye Valley Local School District, north of Columbus...
But wait! Why was he there? By what process had he acquired this gig? We're suddenly in the middle of things. He had a scheduled appearance before the little schoolkids, but who invited him and why? He was singled out and brought in. How does that happen?
We're only told about the withdrawal of the invitation.
[H]e got a call from the principal saying higher-ups didn’t want him reading the book. “I just straight up asked him, ‘Does somebody think I made a gay book?’ ” Tharp said.
I wonder if he asked the same question when he received the invitation. Or did he assume they wanted him in the first place because they thought it was a gay pride book that would suit very young children?
“And [the principal] said, ‘Yes. … The concern is that you’re coming with an agenda to recruit kids to become gay.’ ”
If that quote is accurate, the principal sounds sarcastic, gesturing vaguely at parents who are afraid the school wants to indoctrinate their children on the subject of sexuality. Those words mock the parents' desire to control the education of their children by making them sound ignorant, worrying that an adult can cause a child to "become gay." (By the way, I wonder if some parents might find the book transphobic: If the unicorn's problem is not looking like the horses, why isn't the solution to have the horn removed?)
I've read this article to the end, and I never learned how or why Tharp received the invitation to read to the children. I do see that the school ordered over 500 copies of the book for the event! This isn't about censorship. This is about lots of money and privilege going to one author as opposed to other authors. It's hard to believe this book was chosen because of its value as literature as opposed to its value as propaganda. There are so many children's books on the general theme of feeling like an outsider and then finding a way to be happy.
Now, I do see the problem: A scheduled event was was cancelled. But we can't understand the full story unless we know why this book was chosen. This article should give us the full narrative and should have at least some regard for the parents who want to guide their children's understanding of sexuality and who fear that the schools are crowding them out and exploiting the access they have to children. Can the schools own up to their plan to help children feel happy about diversity — including diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity — and explain how a book like this is therefore excellent and thoroughly wholesome? That's the kind of speech that is demanded, that the parents have a right to receive, and that seems to be withheld, perhaps on the theory that too many parents are stupid or hateful. Don't censor that speech. Come out in the open and say clearly what you are doing and why. It's okay. Isn't it?
Thus articles WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible.
You now read the article WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible. with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2022/04/wapo-begins-its-story-about-censorship.html
Related Posts :
"Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat...."- "She was only 13 years old, but she was 6-foot-2 and 250 pounds, far larger than any of the teachers or school administrators...."
- "The more senior you are, the more visible must be your presence.. That is why I spent so much time in the factory — so that those on the line could see me..."
"Whereas the old Christian conservatism was about defending an old order, the new social conservatism is about overthrowing a new one...."- "A New York appeals court on Thursday upheld Harvey Weinstein’s 2020 conviction on felony sex crimes..."
0 Response to "WaPo begins its story about censorship in medias res, and I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible."
Post a Comment