<p>DKE if your Grandmother was requiring Grapes of Wrath in 1913, I would have been surprised, she was way ahead of her time. Twenty-six years before it was published. Where did I read the difference between a democrat and a republican was Democrats like to sneak off and read dirty books, Republicans like to join censoring organizations so they can read them in groups.</p>
<p>It is going to get harder as we try to define which web sites will be allowable. NPR’s website was restricted by my network server at school last month.</p>
<p>Cangel
<<<<<But there is a difference in what should be available in libraries, even school libraries, and what should be REQUIRED reading in a high school classroom>>>>></p>
<p>How true. I completely agree with your feelings on this issue. It seems such a disservice to the cause of an open education to conflate required-reading with censorship and yet it seems you cannot discuss literary merit without degenerating into a debate over censorship. </p>
<p>Momrath
<<<<<The very violent events leading up to the crucifixion may be skimpy in word count, but they are indisputably central to the story.>>>>></p>
<p>I cracked up when I read this: central? Thats the ultimate witty understatement.</p>
<p>Radar
<<<<<Censorship for teens is an anacronism left over from when kids did not have access to the stream of materials they do today.>>>>></p>
<p>I dont know that this is really the point, high school students have access to a great many things that do not receive the sanction of their guardians. Moreover, I dont think that a teacher of high school English has a moral obligation to discuss the ethical realities of life; I always understood an English class to teach the virtues of good writing through literature not morality through literature, though that would obviously be in play. Perhaps many schools have decided that discussions of oral sex etc are better suited to situations other than English class: home, health-class, church etc. A different question may be, what books should be included in a high school English class. Would any, or all, of those books that have been removed from the required reading list be books that would universally be considered required reading based on their literary value alone?</p>
<p>Look, you have a right to read any book you want with your own money, but the taxpayers don’t have to subsidize deviant reading at school and public libraries.</p>
<p>If a teacher required my child to read a book that I was concerned about, I would discuss my concern with the teacher, but I wouldn’t necessarilly expect them to pull it from their required reading list. I wouldn’t want my child deprived of Huckelberry Finn, or The Diary of Ann Frank, or “Howl” just because someone opposed it. </p>
<p>Mensa160 the question becomes, “What is deviant?” and the answer is difficult if not impossible for everyone to agree upon. Is Shakespeare on your deviant list because you can bet he is on someones.</p>
<p>Shakespeare is pretty bawdy, but I think it goes over the heads of many.
My sister aspired for her daughter to major in the classics, and vetoed her attended the local university because they had a course entitiled “women in antiquity”.
However in her mind, old death white Greek men ( & Roman) were great!
Guess she has never read the Lysistrata :eek: My daughters class read that freshman year and her sisters class even performed the play when she was in middle school!!</p>
<p>Most high school students skip reading the book in favor of Sparknotes or ClassicNotes</p>
<p>My 11th grade cirriculum was very strong on femenist literature and I think a total of 15 main characters died or killed themselves in the course of the year. It didn’t bother our class, although the Awakening will go down in history as the least liked book ever.</p>