In the days following the massacre at Virginia Tech, where a student killed 31 students and faculty members before turning the gun on himself, most people were on edge about the possibility of a similar event occurring to them. College students were among the most affected by the shootings, since they believed their colleges and universities to be a place where people can learn freely, without the problems of bullying and class distinctions that typically plague high school students. Apparently, this is not the case, since one of the reasons that the Virginia Tech gunman cited for his bloodshed was that he was sick and disgusted with all of the rich students on the Virginia Tech campus.
Everyone was talking about this incident because it seemed so unexpected. A junior at the University of Colorado, Max Carson, found that talking about his opinion of the events was not as welcome as everyone else’s. Karson was arrested by Boulder County police officers after making statements during a class discussion where he “made comments about understanding how someone could kill 32 people,” said police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley. According to witnesses, Karson made statements expressing how the florescent light bulbs and unpainted walls made him angry enough to kill people, and that many students were afraid to return to class with this individual.
Following this class, police arrested Karson on suspicion of interfering with staff, faculty, or students of an education institution.
Max’s father believes that this is a clear violation of his son’s First Amendment rights, which allows him the right to free speech, and I agree. I believe that Max was merely expressing the opinions that many of us feel, but do not express because of how they will sound to other people. Were his comments a bit inappropriate and untactful? Yes. Should he be put in jail for them? NO. Is this an instance of censorship that resulted in the revoking of his First Amendment rights? YES.
There is no caveat on the First Amendment that states that all people have to agree with the consensus when a tragedy occurs. There is no evidence that Karson really supported the shooter and that he felt no remorse for the murders of over 30 innocent people. We are looking at one comment in a conversation, which was most likely, a hyperbole of what he actually believes. We cannot look down on this young man for stating his opinion just because it is controversial. The First Amendment is there to protect the speech you don’t agree with, not the speech that is in accordance with everyone else's opinions.
America seems to think that whenever a tragedy occurs, whether it is a school shooting like Virginia Tech or Columbine, or a national tragedy like 9/11, that we are no longer allowed to look at the other side. We are not allowed to put ourselves in the shoes of the criminal, trying to figure out why committed these atrocities. It is fine if we want to think about it on our own, but should we voice these opinions, we are ostracized for being insensitive and setting off alarms of those who become overly paranoid.
This level of paranoia was also seen at a University in Oregon where a student was barred from a vigil for the Virginia Tech students because he wore what appeared to be an ammunition belt. The belt, made from spent bullet casings confiscated from the student, is a popular fashion accessory, and not something that can be considered a weapon. Granted, this probably was not the best choice of attire when going to a vigil for a group of people who died in a school shooting, but he was probably wearing it all day and didn’t think twice about it. Again, this is an instance where we become too afraid of what may happen, that we take people’s rights of expression away from them.
It is a terrible thing what happened at Virginia Tech, but we cannot be afraid of talking about it however we please. If the student’s comments were that out of line, then the teacher should have spoken to him in private, asking him to explain to the class what he meant. There was no need to get the police involved, giving this young person a police record, for a comment that was probably taken out of context.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Russell Simmons and the Fight against Hip-Hop
Hip Hop mogul Russell Simmons recently made a bold statement on the Oprah Winfrey show which called for the cleaning up of lyrics in rap and hip hop music. Specifically citing the dreaded ‘n-word,’ Simmons believes that there is a war of racial tension in this country, especially when it comes to language and who can use racially charged language. Simmons believes that African Americans use the ‘black right’ of using these derogatory terms too much, and are lessening its historical implications.
Simmons stated on a radio talk show that “I think it’s ok to take the n-word, bitches and ho’s off the radio and rap records, but what I’m asking for is another level of corporate responsibility from the radio and record companies, not from the artists themselves.”
Simmons is largely regarded as one of the founders of the hip hop movement through his work as the CEO of Def Jam Records, one of the preeminent rap labels, which he founded with producer Rick Rubin in 1984. Since then, Simmons has become the moral voice in hip-hop; the one that everyone turns to when anything goes wrong in the hip-hop community. Simmons has been looking to clean up the state of rap music for a long time, and this latest urge comes in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Simmons believes that this scandal would not have even happened had the music been cleaned up.
Imus calling the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, “nappy headed ho’s” was completely out of line, but these words are frequently used in popular songs all the time. If rap music complied by a set of regulations, would this event ever have happened?
I believe that Russell Simmons is not trying to censor rap artist’s expressions, because he knows where they are coming from and understands the language spoken on the streets. What he is trying to do is eliminate the linguistic dichotomy that exists in America, where it is ok for one group to use a certain set of words, but when someone else uses those same words, in the same context, it become a big deal. Hip hop and rap music are a humongous part of our current popular culture and is no longer seen as an art form that only African Americans can appreciate.
The regulations that Russell Simmons and the Reverend Al Sharpton are proposing will ultimately help American society. When these contested words are taken out of the discussion, the overall quality of rap music will go up, and there will be fewer cultural debates about the social implications of this genre.
This is an instance where censorship is necessary. We need to do something about the demeaning language and derogatory phrases used in almost every popular rap song. These regulations will not only decrease the racial divide in America, but will also challenge rap artists to express themselves in a more intelligent way. It seems that the only thing an artist has to do these days to make a hit record is to insult women over a catchy hook. This is not what the creators of rap had in mind for this art form and it should not remain this way. When hip-hop began, it was about telling the story about life on the streets and about the hard times they were facing; it had a message. Simmons is not aiming to censor young talents, but he wants to challenge them to bring these messages back to hip hop music, and not perpetuate these stereotypes that continue to damage the reputation of the hip hop community.
In order to get equal respect from the mainstream media, the hip hop community needs to embrace these regulations, and not look at them as a form of censorship, but as an opportunity to grow as artists and to bring people together.
Simmons stated on a radio talk show that “I think it’s ok to take the n-word, bitches and ho’s off the radio and rap records, but what I’m asking for is another level of corporate responsibility from the radio and record companies, not from the artists themselves.”
Simmons is largely regarded as one of the founders of the hip hop movement through his work as the CEO of Def Jam Records, one of the preeminent rap labels, which he founded with producer Rick Rubin in 1984. Since then, Simmons has become the moral voice in hip-hop; the one that everyone turns to when anything goes wrong in the hip-hop community. Simmons has been looking to clean up the state of rap music for a long time, and this latest urge comes in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Simmons believes that this scandal would not have even happened had the music been cleaned up.
Imus calling the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, “nappy headed ho’s” was completely out of line, but these words are frequently used in popular songs all the time. If rap music complied by a set of regulations, would this event ever have happened?
I believe that Russell Simmons is not trying to censor rap artist’s expressions, because he knows where they are coming from and understands the language spoken on the streets. What he is trying to do is eliminate the linguistic dichotomy that exists in America, where it is ok for one group to use a certain set of words, but when someone else uses those same words, in the same context, it become a big deal. Hip hop and rap music are a humongous part of our current popular culture and is no longer seen as an art form that only African Americans can appreciate.
The regulations that Russell Simmons and the Reverend Al Sharpton are proposing will ultimately help American society. When these contested words are taken out of the discussion, the overall quality of rap music will go up, and there will be fewer cultural debates about the social implications of this genre.
This is an instance where censorship is necessary. We need to do something about the demeaning language and derogatory phrases used in almost every popular rap song. These regulations will not only decrease the racial divide in America, but will also challenge rap artists to express themselves in a more intelligent way. It seems that the only thing an artist has to do these days to make a hit record is to insult women over a catchy hook. This is not what the creators of rap had in mind for this art form and it should not remain this way. When hip-hop began, it was about telling the story about life on the streets and about the hard times they were facing; it had a message. Simmons is not aiming to censor young talents, but he wants to challenge them to bring these messages back to hip hop music, and not perpetuate these stereotypes that continue to damage the reputation of the hip hop community.
In order to get equal respect from the mainstream media, the hip hop community needs to embrace these regulations, and not look at them as a form of censorship, but as an opportunity to grow as artists and to bring people together.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Blogs and Censorship
Many countries, including America, are now considering putting censorship regulations on blogs and punishing bloggers who violate these terms. Those who support the censorship of blogs are spinning this practice by saying they want to impose a ‘code of conduct’ on bloggers. This comes about since many of these online journals have become increasingly nasty in recent months. In essence, blogs have become a virtual edition of your high school’s slam book.
While many bloggers take shots at the people they write about, and even sling the insults back and forth to each other, do they really need to be censored in this manner? Blogs are essentially online versions of a diary, where people have the opportunity to say whatever is on their minds about any subject that they want. The problem is that people are starting to use blogs as news sources, and while many talk about the day’s news, they should not be used as news sources because they are opinion pieces. Blogs are a great way to understand how people feel about something that is going on in the news, but they can’t be taken as facts.
There are many types of blogs, and because of this, they cannot all be held to the same standards. How could you impose a code of conduct on a high schooler’s livejournal? These online journals were created so that young people, and others early adapters to the Internet, could have a forum where they could express their emotions to the world, or just to their friends if they choose. This place where they can talk about anything is bothering them, or what is going on in their lives. We should be encouraging teenagers to air out their feelings in a healthy manner before they blow up unexpectedly. Blogs are a great place to do that because people can read it and can try to understand what is going on in their lives.
Another type of blog is one that is tied to an organization or company. I believe that there should be some kind of regulation for these types of websites, because they do represent the company. These regulations should be internal, coming from the corporate side of the company to the blogger. The company has every right to want to keep their reputation in place, and have the right to tell the blogger things they should and should not talk about, just like they do for every other employee.
There are also bloggers who are making their entire careers by giving the public their opinion on the Internet. Many of these bloggers focus on celebrity news, but there are many who make careers out of blogging about politics, or just everyday occurrences. There are also regional blogs, such as wonkette, gawker and defamer, which discuss the goings on in Washington, DC, New York and LA, respectively. These blogs should also not have to come under a blanket code of conduct because they are all talking about different things, and they were created so that we could read about this person’s opinions about a given subject.
This subject is going to spawn a great deal of debate over the parameters of the First Amendment. How can you regulate people’s opinions? Everyone is entitled to say what is on his or her mind, and it should not become an issue unless it personally offends someone, but the government does not need to get involved. If someone has a problem with a post on a blog, then they should take it up with them, and deal with it like adults. Over time you can develop a sense for a blogger’s style and how they approach their topics, and if this is something that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you shouldn’t be reading that blog, not making it so there have to be laws against what people can say on the internet. There are billions of websites out there, I’m sure everyone can find at least one that fits their tastes just right.
While many bloggers take shots at the people they write about, and even sling the insults back and forth to each other, do they really need to be censored in this manner? Blogs are essentially online versions of a diary, where people have the opportunity to say whatever is on their minds about any subject that they want. The problem is that people are starting to use blogs as news sources, and while many talk about the day’s news, they should not be used as news sources because they are opinion pieces. Blogs are a great way to understand how people feel about something that is going on in the news, but they can’t be taken as facts.
There are many types of blogs, and because of this, they cannot all be held to the same standards. How could you impose a code of conduct on a high schooler’s livejournal? These online journals were created so that young people, and others early adapters to the Internet, could have a forum where they could express their emotions to the world, or just to their friends if they choose. This place where they can talk about anything is bothering them, or what is going on in their lives. We should be encouraging teenagers to air out their feelings in a healthy manner before they blow up unexpectedly. Blogs are a great place to do that because people can read it and can try to understand what is going on in their lives.
Another type of blog is one that is tied to an organization or company. I believe that there should be some kind of regulation for these types of websites, because they do represent the company. These regulations should be internal, coming from the corporate side of the company to the blogger. The company has every right to want to keep their reputation in place, and have the right to tell the blogger things they should and should not talk about, just like they do for every other employee.
There are also bloggers who are making their entire careers by giving the public their opinion on the Internet. Many of these bloggers focus on celebrity news, but there are many who make careers out of blogging about politics, or just everyday occurrences. There are also regional blogs, such as wonkette, gawker and defamer, which discuss the goings on in Washington, DC, New York and LA, respectively. These blogs should also not have to come under a blanket code of conduct because they are all talking about different things, and they were created so that we could read about this person’s opinions about a given subject.
This subject is going to spawn a great deal of debate over the parameters of the First Amendment. How can you regulate people’s opinions? Everyone is entitled to say what is on his or her mind, and it should not become an issue unless it personally offends someone, but the government does not need to get involved. If someone has a problem with a post on a blog, then they should take it up with them, and deal with it like adults. Over time you can develop a sense for a blogger’s style and how they approach their topics, and if this is something that makes you uncomfortable, then maybe you shouldn’t be reading that blog, not making it so there have to be laws against what people can say on the internet. There are billions of websites out there, I’m sure everyone can find at least one that fits their tastes just right.
Censoring Movies Protects our Children
There are a rash of new movies, which, if seen by children, will prove detrimental to their development. Movie like Grindhouse and Disturbia, both of which shot in a very stylistic manner, make violent acts seem ‘cool’ to kids who sneak into these movies. Even films that are not rated ‘R’ are still widely inappropriate for children, with scenes of drugs use and casual sex, often performed by characters who are roughly the same age as them, so they see nothing wrong if they take those actions and do them in their own lives.
Children must understand the difference between reality and fiction. The problem with the movie industry is that they make everything seem so realistic these days; it is increasingly harder to distinguish that line. Parents, along with the MPAA should be more involved in the movie watching practices of teenagers. This includes making certain that parents are aware of what their children are watching and monitoring their behavior.
Parents cannot be everywhere; the MPAA has a social responsibility to make sure that they are providing a good product that is safe for our children. This responsibility is forgotten when they decide to release Grindhouse, the goriest picture to come out in years, on Easter weekend, a time when families should be together. If they were as interested in the protecting the family dynamic as they claim, they would have thought twice in releasing this abomination of a film on such a holy weekend. The filmmakers are paying the price for this heinous act, as the film is doing terribly at the box office, showing that violence does not pay and we as parents and moviegoers will not allow our children to see such filth. Why would any parent allow their child to see a movie that came so close to receiving an NC-17 rating? It is obvious that the film is cut down to point where it just sneaked in with an R rating, just so it could have a better chance to make money.
When will these studio heads realize that the product they put on screen greatly affects the actions of our children? Let’s face it; kids are impressionable. We tend to think it’s cute when little kids see a super hero movie and then want to be just like them, pretending they can fly like Superman or swing from building to building like Spiderman. Another assumption made about this is that it goes away when they grow up, but it doesn’t, the only difference is that instead of wanting to emulate super heroes or other noble characters, they want to be more like serial killers or vigilantes. This epidemic is more prevalent in men than in women, and we need to stop it before something goes horribly wrong again.
We all saw what happened at Columbine High School where there was a severe lack of positive role models and parental intervention; we need to band together to not let this happen again. Studios should be held responsible for providing children with positive role models, or at the very least, characters with some redeeming morals. If we keep allowing studios to make films that glorify violence, we will only be breeding a generation of violent individuals who do not understand how to deal with real life. Violent movies in themselves are not a problem, but we need to make a commitment to creating characters that have a moral vision. There needs to be a shift in the way violent movies are produced in that they need to take more effort to make real characters while also making the violence seem less real. With all of the advances in technology, movies look real, and this is warping children’s’ ideas of reality. The line between fantasy and reality needs to be redrawn if we have any hope in saving our children.
Please join me in petitioning the heads of all the major film studios to put more pressure on filmmakers to stop making films that will negatively influence our children.
Children must understand the difference between reality and fiction. The problem with the movie industry is that they make everything seem so realistic these days; it is increasingly harder to distinguish that line. Parents, along with the MPAA should be more involved in the movie watching practices of teenagers. This includes making certain that parents are aware of what their children are watching and monitoring their behavior.
Parents cannot be everywhere; the MPAA has a social responsibility to make sure that they are providing a good product that is safe for our children. This responsibility is forgotten when they decide to release Grindhouse, the goriest picture to come out in years, on Easter weekend, a time when families should be together. If they were as interested in the protecting the family dynamic as they claim, they would have thought twice in releasing this abomination of a film on such a holy weekend. The filmmakers are paying the price for this heinous act, as the film is doing terribly at the box office, showing that violence does not pay and we as parents and moviegoers will not allow our children to see such filth. Why would any parent allow their child to see a movie that came so close to receiving an NC-17 rating? It is obvious that the film is cut down to point where it just sneaked in with an R rating, just so it could have a better chance to make money.
When will these studio heads realize that the product they put on screen greatly affects the actions of our children? Let’s face it; kids are impressionable. We tend to think it’s cute when little kids see a super hero movie and then want to be just like them, pretending they can fly like Superman or swing from building to building like Spiderman. Another assumption made about this is that it goes away when they grow up, but it doesn’t, the only difference is that instead of wanting to emulate super heroes or other noble characters, they want to be more like serial killers or vigilantes. This epidemic is more prevalent in men than in women, and we need to stop it before something goes horribly wrong again.
We all saw what happened at Columbine High School where there was a severe lack of positive role models and parental intervention; we need to band together to not let this happen again. Studios should be held responsible for providing children with positive role models, or at the very least, characters with some redeeming morals. If we keep allowing studios to make films that glorify violence, we will only be breeding a generation of violent individuals who do not understand how to deal with real life. Violent movies in themselves are not a problem, but we need to make a commitment to creating characters that have a moral vision. There needs to be a shift in the way violent movies are produced in that they need to take more effort to make real characters while also making the violence seem less real. With all of the advances in technology, movies look real, and this is warping children’s’ ideas of reality. The line between fantasy and reality needs to be redrawn if we have any hope in saving our children.
Please join me in petitioning the heads of all the major film studios to put more pressure on filmmakers to stop making films that will negatively influence our children.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Imus debacle: Cause for Censoring our Airwaves
Last week, radio personality Don Imus made some racist remarks about the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team, which have caused uproar in all aspects of the national media. CBS radio immediately decided to suspend Imus for two weeks, and yesterday, April 12, decided that Imus would indeed be fired from the station.
Many are making the case that this is censorship and that Imus’ remarks are protected by the First Amendment, but this amendment does not protect against hateful and inflammatory remarks towards others. Imus’ remarks were not only racist and insulting, but they were wrong. Many members of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team is not black, so Imus had no bearing for addressing the team members as “nappy headed hos.” There are so many things wrong with this statement it is not even funny. The obvious implication is that this is a racist comment, but it is also a derogatory statement against women.
Thankfully, this misogynist racist has been taken off the air, so we will no longer be subjected to his insensitive remarks. It is because of people like Don Imus that we need to regulate our airwaves. Right now, when there are complaints made against something said on the radio, the station receives a fine and then they pay it and life goes on as normal, until the next time something is said. CBS radio used this practice for years while Howard Stern was on its airwaves. Terrestrial radio is dying because of satellite and the stations will do anything to keep their moneymakers in house. Since Stern left in early 2006, Imus was the biggest draw for CBS radio. I’m sure money played a large factor in the decision to fire him, and that is why it took about a week to make the final decision; it was not until advertising powerhouse Proctor and Gamble pulled all of their ads from CBS that they realized that they would be losing money either way and would rather save their reputation.
So if radio stations are set against letting go of their popular radio personalities, they why do they allow them to say the things that they say? Surely the DJs know the rules, they know the seven words they can never say on the radio, yet incidents like this keep happening. I think we need to make the punishment for derogatory speech more than just a fine; there should be actual repercussions for the station. Radio is a very rich business and the fines that disc jockeys accrue are not enough to make them go bankrupt, or to even put a dent in their deep pockets. One option is for the FCC to significantly raise the fines that are levied against radio personalities so that the stations will start to feel the brunt of these words. Another option is to keep the fines around the same scale, but force the station to pull the show for a number of days, depending on the severity of the incident. Whatever stations decide to do, it has to be better than the system we have now.
Many will cry that this is censorship and unfair or unconstitutional, but the same people were up in outrage when they learned of Imus’ comments. We can not have it both ways, and I for one would rather see a world where we are free to listen to the radio without the threat of being offended. So what if the DJs have to learn to watch what they say on air, they should be doing that already. We cannot sit by while this hateful speech is disseminated into our homes and jobs everyday, especially when the stations that are supposed to be monitoring it are not doing anything. I am a supporter of free speech but the line is crossed too often; I am merely proposing a recommitment to enforcing the rules that are already in place.
Many are making the case that this is censorship and that Imus’ remarks are protected by the First Amendment, but this amendment does not protect against hateful and inflammatory remarks towards others. Imus’ remarks were not only racist and insulting, but they were wrong. Many members of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team is not black, so Imus had no bearing for addressing the team members as “nappy headed hos.” There are so many things wrong with this statement it is not even funny. The obvious implication is that this is a racist comment, but it is also a derogatory statement against women.
Thankfully, this misogynist racist has been taken off the air, so we will no longer be subjected to his insensitive remarks. It is because of people like Don Imus that we need to regulate our airwaves. Right now, when there are complaints made against something said on the radio, the station receives a fine and then they pay it and life goes on as normal, until the next time something is said. CBS radio used this practice for years while Howard Stern was on its airwaves. Terrestrial radio is dying because of satellite and the stations will do anything to keep their moneymakers in house. Since Stern left in early 2006, Imus was the biggest draw for CBS radio. I’m sure money played a large factor in the decision to fire him, and that is why it took about a week to make the final decision; it was not until advertising powerhouse Proctor and Gamble pulled all of their ads from CBS that they realized that they would be losing money either way and would rather save their reputation.
So if radio stations are set against letting go of their popular radio personalities, they why do they allow them to say the things that they say? Surely the DJs know the rules, they know the seven words they can never say on the radio, yet incidents like this keep happening. I think we need to make the punishment for derogatory speech more than just a fine; there should be actual repercussions for the station. Radio is a very rich business and the fines that disc jockeys accrue are not enough to make them go bankrupt, or to even put a dent in their deep pockets. One option is for the FCC to significantly raise the fines that are levied against radio personalities so that the stations will start to feel the brunt of these words. Another option is to keep the fines around the same scale, but force the station to pull the show for a number of days, depending on the severity of the incident. Whatever stations decide to do, it has to be better than the system we have now.
Many will cry that this is censorship and unfair or unconstitutional, but the same people were up in outrage when they learned of Imus’ comments. We can not have it both ways, and I for one would rather see a world where we are free to listen to the radio without the threat of being offended. So what if the DJs have to learn to watch what they say on air, they should be doing that already. We cannot sit by while this hateful speech is disseminated into our homes and jobs everyday, especially when the stations that are supposed to be monitoring it are not doing anything. I am a supporter of free speech but the line is crossed too often; I am merely proposing a recommitment to enforcing the rules that are already in place.
Does anyone believe in free speech for writers?
One would think that the practice of banning books ended a long time ago, but the practice remains strong until this day. Living in the liberal state of New York, I was not affected by this unjust and archaic practice. We read Catcher in the Rye in tenth grade and I wrote my senior thesis on the short stories of J.D. Salinger. The books that appear on the banned books list are the most interesting books that students will read because whatever it is about them that get them banned makes people think and stimulates certain emotions that are not touched by other writings.
What seems ridiculous to me is the types of books that are banned. I can understand banning books, which discuss mature themes that kids may not be ready for, but I can’t fathom why people would ban children’s books. Adults view children’s books from their own gaze, and they see the deeper meaning in them, but this is a mistake because young children are not reading their picture books with that level of scrutiny. For this reason, I find it incredibly shocking that the most contested book from 1990-2001 is the Scary Stories series by Alan Schwartz. These are completely innocuous ghost stories that children have enjoyed since they were released in the early ‘90s. I can not imagine what my life would have been like had I not had Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark; this was the first series that got my brother interested in reading, and that’s saying something. There were no tales of the occult, Satan did not exist in the pages of these books, there was no discussion of the deeper religious meaning about ghosts, and we just understood that they were fun stories to tell around a campfire or at a sleepover, or even just for fun.
Who gives the order to ban a book? What kind of process does it have to undergo to successfully ban a book? In many cases, the first order comes from the PTA or other religious groups, but this seems like an abuse of the small amount of power that they have. In my experience, these groups do not hold very much power, and merely act as a sponsorship organization, putting their names on flyers and working booths at the school carnivals. The power to ban books has to come from somewhere else, like the school board or state legislation. I understand the idea of not teaching certain books, or not buying certain books to feature in the library, but this does not require a ban, this puts it in the parents’ jurisdiction, which is where this decision should lie. While a group such as the PTA is made up of parents, they do not, and should not think that they represent the opinions of all parents.
What kind of world are we living in where teenagers can’t commiserate with the angst of Holden Caufield or can’t experience a great literary achievement such as To Kill a Mockingbird? By banning books, we rob children and teenagers the right to think for themselves and learn about experiences that they are unfamiliar with. What is the point of reading if you are only going to read about the things that you know? What is the point of education then? There is also a movement now to ban the teaching and reading of books that mention anything that has to do with terrorism. Given the circumstances of the times we are living in, we should be teaching children about terrorism so that if they are ever faced with it, which unfortunately is a likely scenario today, they will know what they are up against. Children need to learn about things outside of their comfort zone or they will never be able to be able to grow.
Most of the books on this list are not filth, and many are records of great work in the literary community and help expand the minds of children and encourage their creativity. If books like Harry Potter did not exist, children would not have such a great interest in reading as they do now. This voracity for reading has been absent in young people since the birth of television and video games, and now children have a character who they are heavily invested in, and now book publishers are putting a lot of their efforts toward making sure that children stay interested in reading after the last Potter book comes out. Parent groups complain all the time how children aren’t reading, but when they find something they like, they want to take it away from them, because it is a fantasy and has elements of witchcraft? It doesn’t make sense to me.
What seems ridiculous to me is the types of books that are banned. I can understand banning books, which discuss mature themes that kids may not be ready for, but I can’t fathom why people would ban children’s books. Adults view children’s books from their own gaze, and they see the deeper meaning in them, but this is a mistake because young children are not reading their picture books with that level of scrutiny. For this reason, I find it incredibly shocking that the most contested book from 1990-2001 is the Scary Stories series by Alan Schwartz. These are completely innocuous ghost stories that children have enjoyed since they were released in the early ‘90s. I can not imagine what my life would have been like had I not had Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark; this was the first series that got my brother interested in reading, and that’s saying something. There were no tales of the occult, Satan did not exist in the pages of these books, there was no discussion of the deeper religious meaning about ghosts, and we just understood that they were fun stories to tell around a campfire or at a sleepover, or even just for fun.
Who gives the order to ban a book? What kind of process does it have to undergo to successfully ban a book? In many cases, the first order comes from the PTA or other religious groups, but this seems like an abuse of the small amount of power that they have. In my experience, these groups do not hold very much power, and merely act as a sponsorship organization, putting their names on flyers and working booths at the school carnivals. The power to ban books has to come from somewhere else, like the school board or state legislation. I understand the idea of not teaching certain books, or not buying certain books to feature in the library, but this does not require a ban, this puts it in the parents’ jurisdiction, which is where this decision should lie. While a group such as the PTA is made up of parents, they do not, and should not think that they represent the opinions of all parents.
What kind of world are we living in where teenagers can’t commiserate with the angst of Holden Caufield or can’t experience a great literary achievement such as To Kill a Mockingbird? By banning books, we rob children and teenagers the right to think for themselves and learn about experiences that they are unfamiliar with. What is the point of reading if you are only going to read about the things that you know? What is the point of education then? There is also a movement now to ban the teaching and reading of books that mention anything that has to do with terrorism. Given the circumstances of the times we are living in, we should be teaching children about terrorism so that if they are ever faced with it, which unfortunately is a likely scenario today, they will know what they are up against. Children need to learn about things outside of their comfort zone or they will never be able to be able to grow.
Most of the books on this list are not filth, and many are records of great work in the literary community and help expand the minds of children and encourage their creativity. If books like Harry Potter did not exist, children would not have such a great interest in reading as they do now. This voracity for reading has been absent in young people since the birth of television and video games, and now children have a character who they are heavily invested in, and now book publishers are putting a lot of their efforts toward making sure that children stay interested in reading after the last Potter book comes out. Parent groups complain all the time how children aren’t reading, but when they find something they like, they want to take it away from them, because it is a fantasy and has elements of witchcraft? It doesn’t make sense to me.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Same Sex Marriage Analysis
Same sex marriage is always a hot button issue in the press; just this week a reporter asked presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton the question, “Is same sex marriage immoral,” which was prompted by another politician’s statement that same sex marriage is immoral. When asked, both Obama and Clinton sidestepped the issue and issued statements later about how they feel same sex marriage is not immoral. This comes down to the issue of how censored political candidates are, and not whether they think this issue is immoral. Democratic candidate John Edwards answered right away that same sex marriage is not immoral, but let’s face it – he’s not going to win anyway, and will probably drop out of the race to take care of his cancer-stricken wife. In order to understand why this debate is so heated, we must look at the rhetoric behind both sides and how they structure their arguments.
In one article from the book Same Sex Marriage (first edition) an anonymous woman wrote an article title, “I left my husband for the woman I love.” The article is about a woman who leaves her husband once developing a strong connection with another woman. The article goes though how she feels about her new relationship and the place it puts her in the world, how her children are reacting, and how she deals with people's comments. While this may seem like a pro same sex marriage argument, it reads from the other side of the story.
Throughout the article, she doesn’t refer to her partner as anything other than her ‘friend’ and never mentions her desire to get married. From a conservative viewpoint, it looks as though she does not want to get married at all, and the right would be able to use her as an example. This example is a gay woman who is happily unmarried to her partner, and who doesn’t feel the need to pervert the institution of marriage by marrying her gay lover.
Conversely, the article by Andrew Sullivan, “Why the ‘M’ Word Matters to me” from the second edition of the same book, tells the story of a gay man who really wants to get married. Sullivan makes the argument that it was bred in him from the time he was young that when you grow up, you get married, and that is just what you do. Not wanting to disappoint his parents, Sullivan wants the chance to get married too. He doesn’t want a church wedding, and he doesn’t want to offend anyone by getting married, he just wants the chance to fulfill the expectations his parents had for him from the time he was young. He is not ashamed of being gay; he is more ashamed that he possibly let everyone down by not growing up into the person he was supposed to be.
This is clearly a pro-same-sex marriage argument, but it organizes it similarly to the other article. They are both personal stories about what being in a gay relationship means to them. The difference lies in the fact that the first article does not make a clear stance on whether same sex marriage is right or wrong.
Both of the frames used to construct the articles can be improved. The anonymous article’s frame is that it is a personal narrative, which is supposed to appeal to people’s emotions. The problem with this frame in this article is that it doesn’t take a stand either way on the issue of gay marriage, so we are not entirely sure whose emotions are supposed to be effected. We can read this article from either angle, and that is not a persuasive enough argument for this controversial issue.
Sullivan’s frame is similar in that it is a personal story about his struggle to get married, but he also adds in a demonizing frame of other gays. He portrays himself as the model gay man who wants to get married because his parents always expected it of him, and that people like him should get the right to marry because they deserve it more. In order to improve this frame, Sullivan should lobby for gays as a whole, and not just focus on those who are like him. His article is effective and it does play to the emotions, but he is leaving out a large population of the gay community by doing so.
For the anonymous article, the cultural hegemony playing into this article and argument is that she is a woman, and women are expected to get (and stay) married and have kids. She was trapped in a loveless marriage, but the cultural hegemony would rather see her stay in this marriage than find herself real love with a woman. I feel this is what she struggles with as she writes this article, she doesn’t know how to deal with her newfound sexuality and she doesn’t know how to express it. I don’t think she is really against same sex marriage, but she is not ready to say that she is for it either, neither is she completely ready to think of herself as a gay woman.
The cultural hegemony that plays into the Andrew Sullivan article is the desire for the traditional suburban life with a family with 2 kids and white picket fence and a minivan in the driveway. Sullivan has never let go of that dream, even though it is something that he is not legally allowed to have right now. If Sullivan were to have this dream with a partner who he really loved, but they were not married, I don’t think he would ever be truly happy. Marriage is such a part of his culture that he can not see his life meaning anything without it.
I hope that looking at how these arguments are framed will help us understand both sides and we can one day come to an agreement on the issue of same sex marriage.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)