ADVERTISEMENT

MA School bans The Odyssey

JamieDimonsBalls

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
18,508
20,931
113

A sustained effort is under way to deny children access to literature. Under the slogan #DisruptTexts, critical-theory ideologues, schoolteachers and Twitter agitators are purging and propagandizing against classic texts—everything from Homer to F. Scott Fitzgerald to Dr. Seuss.

Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular—especially those “in which racism, sexism, ableism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hate are the norm,” as young-adult novelist Padma Venkatraman writes in School Library Journal. No author is valuable enough to spare, Ms. Venkatraman instructs: “Absolving Shakespeare of responsibility by mentioning that he lived at a time when hate-ridden sentiments prevailed, risks sending a subliminal message that academic excellence outweighs hateful rhetoric.”

The subtle complexities of literature are being reduced to the crude clanking of “intersectional” power struggles. Thus Seattle English teacher Evin Shinn tweeted in 2018 that he’d “rather die” than teach “The Scarlet Letter,” unless Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel is used to “fight against misogyny and slut-shaming.”

Outsiders got a glimpse of the intensity of the #DisruptTexts campaign recently when self-described “antiracist teacher” Lorena Germán complained that many classics were written more than 70 years ago: “Think of US society before then & the values that shaped this nation afterwards. THAT is what is in those books.”


Jessica Cluess, an author of young-adult fiction, shot back: “If you think Hawthorne was on the side of the judgmental Puritans . . . then you are an absolute idiot and should not have the title of educator in your twitter bio.”

An online horde descended, accused Ms. Cluess of racism and “violence,” and demanded that Penguin Random House cancel her contract. The publisher hasn’t complied, perhaps because Ms. Cluess tweeted a ritual self-denunciation: “I take full responsibility for my unprovoked anger toward Lorena Germán. . . . I am committed to learning more about Ms. Germán’s important work with #DisruptTexts. . . . I will strive to do better.” That didn’t stop Ms. Cluess’s literary agent, Brooks Sherman, from denouncing her “racist and unacceptable” opinions and terminating their professional relationship.

The demands for censorship appear to be getting results. “Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take the Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash),” tweeted Shea Martin in June. “Hahaha,” replied Heather Levine, an English teacher at Lawrence (Mass.) High School. “Very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!” When I contacted Ms. Levine to confirm this, she replied that she found the inquiry “invasive.”

“It’s a tragedy that this anti-intellectual movement of canceling the classics is gaining traction among educators and the mainstream publishing industry,” says science-fiction writer Jon Del Arroz, one of the rare industry voices to defend Ms. Cluess. “Erasing the history of great works only limits the ability of children to become literate.”

He’s right. If there is harm in classic literature, it comes from not teaching it. Students excused from reading foundational texts may imagine themselves lucky to get away with YA novels instead—that’s what the #DisruptTexts people want—but compared with their better-educated peers they will suffer a poverty of language and cultural reference. Worse, they won’t even know it.
Mrs. Gurdon writes the Journal’s Children’s Books column.
 
Last edited:
Apparently Conservatives are just as guilty and Ms. Diaz nails it:



This country has turned into a bunch of snowflakes, that is for certain.
Apparently Conservatives are just as guilty and Ms. Diaz nails it:



This country has turned into a bunch of snowflakes, that is for certain.
Yep. Totally devoid of independent thought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57

A sustained effort is under way to deny children access to literature. Under the slogan #DisruptTexts, critical-theory ideologues, schoolteachers and Twitter agitators are purging and propagandizing against classic texts—everything from Homer to F. Scott Fitzgerald to Dr. Seuss.

Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular—especially those “in which racism, sexism, ableism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hate are the norm,” as young-adult novelist Padma Venkatraman writes in School Library Journal. No author is valuable enough to spare, Ms. Venkatraman instructs: “Absolving Shakespeare of responsibility by mentioning that he lived at a time when hate-ridden sentiments prevailed, risks sending a subliminal message that academic excellence outweighs hateful rhetoric.”

The subtle complexities of literature are being reduced to the crude clanking of “intersectional” power struggles. Thus Seattle English teacher Evin Shinn tweeted in 2018 that he’d “rather die” than teach “The Scarlet Letter,” unless Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel is used to “fight against misogyny and slut-shaming.”

Outsiders got a glimpse of the intensity of the #DisruptTexts campaign recently when self-described “antiracist teacher” Lorena Germán complained that many classics were written more than 70 years ago: “Think of US society before then & the values that shaped this nation afterwards. THAT is what is in those books.”


Jessica Cluess, an author of young-adult fiction, shot back: “If you think Hawthorne was on the side of the judgmental Puritans . . . then you are an absolute idiot and should not have the title of educator in your twitter bio.”

An online horde descended, accused Ms. Cluess of racism and “violence,” and demanded that Penguin Random House cancel her contract. The publisher hasn’t complied, perhaps because Ms. Cluess tweeted a ritual self-denunciation: “I take full responsibility for my unprovoked anger toward Lorena Germán. . . . I am committed to learning more about Ms. Germán’s important work with #DisruptTexts. . . . I will strive to do better.” That didn’t stop Ms. Cluess’s literary agent, Brooks Sherman, from denouncing her “racist and unacceptable” opinions and terminating their professional relationship.

The demands for censorship appear to be getting results. “Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take the Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash),” tweeted Shea Martin in June. “Hahaha,” replied Heather Levine, an English teacher at Lawrence (Mass.) High School. “Very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!” When I contacted Ms. Levine to confirm this, she replied that she found the inquiry “invasive.”

“It’s a tragedy that this anti-intellectual movement of canceling the classics is gaining traction among educators and the mainstream publishing industry,” says science-fiction writer Jon Del Arroz, one of the rare industry voices to defend Ms. Cluess. “Erasing the history of great works only limits the ability of children to become literate.”

He’s right. If there is harm in classic literature, it comes from not teaching it. Students excused from reading foundational texts may imagine themselves lucky to get away with YA novels instead—that’s what the #DisruptTexts people want—but compared with their better-educated peers they will suffer a poverty of language and cultural reference. Worse, they won’t even know it.
Mrs. Gurdon writes the Journal’s Children’s Books column.
Man, there's a lot to say about this.

Let me get one thing out of the way, because I probably won't be coming back to anything within the vicinity of this in my response, but I don't want to give the other "side" short shrift. They do have at least one good point (or, rather, it could be a good point in the proper context). When I read "Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular," and go no further than that, I catch a glimpse of an important truth. I think the absolutist nature of the statement is very wrong, but it highlights a truth that, as language has changed, our canon has had to be updated to keep up. Sometimes that means we can use new texts to teach old stories. We've been teaching Beowulf with a translation for some two centuries now, and the true "classics" were all originally written in Greek or Latin. Sometimes it means adding new worthy books that speak to more modern times with more modern language. All those things are good.

But...

The idea of replacing the literary canon altogether is ridiculous. Our shared English heritage is the culmination of centuries of literary work, combined with the absorption of those Greek and Latin classics (along with a few important texts originally in other languages, as well, such as Arabic). The study of culture necessarily requires examining the roots of said culture. It's certainly possible to exist in society never reading anything more refined than Penthouse. We don't need Milton or Shakespeare to survive in life, or even to be successful. But our place in the broader history of our own culture is certainly made richer for them.

Of course, this goes for other cultures, too. Ours is not merely an Anglo nation, and there is a rich history of Latin and African tradition that anyone who wants to truly understand the American melting pot should expose himself to. Similarly, the broader Western literary canon necessarily includes important works in French, German, and other languages.

But no matter what language you're working in, burning or banning books is just wrong. At best, doing so whitewashes history. At worst, it undermines it, and weakens our society. Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned any more than Das Kapital should. Or Grimms' Fairy Tales.

And last, and most important to me, in many cases, these attacks are just wrong-headed. I agree with the author that any English teacher who thinks Hawthorne was defending or upholding Puritanical subjugation of female agency should have their teaching license revoked. If you don't see how the character of Shylock can be read sympathetically, you need to be taking English classes, not leading them.

Edit: For clarity's sake, I'm assuming that the opinion piece linked accurately describes the goals of the people mentioned; I don't know if that's actually true, obviously.
 
Last edited:
Man, there's a lot to say about this.

Let me get one thing out of the way, because I probably won't be coming back to anything within the vicinity of this in my response, but I don't want to give the other "side" short shrift. They do have at least one good point (or, rather, it could be a good point in the proper context). When I read "Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular," and go no further than that, I catch a glimpse of an important truth. I think the absolutist nature of the statement is very wrong, but it highlights a truth that, as language has changed, our canon has had to be updated to keep up. Sometimes that means we can use new texts to teach old stories. We've been teaching Beowulf with a translation for some two centuries now, and the true "classics" were all originally written in Greek or Latin. Sometimes it means adding new worthy books that speak to more modern times with more modern language. All those things are good.

But...

The idea of replacing the literary canon altogether is ridiculous. Our shared English heritage is the culmination of centuries of literary work, combined with the absorption of those Greek and Latin classics (along with a few important texts originally in other languages, as well, such as Arabic). The study of culture necessarily requires examining the roots of said culture. It's certainly possible to exist in society never reading anything more refined than Penthouse. We don't need Milton or Shakespeare to survive in life, or even to be successful. But our place in the broader history of our own culture is certainly made richer for them.

Of course, this goes for other cultures, too. Ours is not merely an Anglo nation, and there is a rich history of Latin and African tradition that anyone who wants to truly understand the American melting pot should expose himself to. Similarly, the broader Western literary canon necessarily includes important works in French, German, and other languages.

But no matter what language you're working in, burning or banning books is just wrong. At best, doing so whitewashes history. At worst, it undermines it, and weakens our society. Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned any more than Das Kapital should. Or Grimms' Fairy Tales.

And last, and most important to me, in many cases, these attacks are just wrong-headed. I agree with the author that any English teacher who thinks Hawthorne was defending or upholding Puritanical subjugation of female agency should have their teaching license revoked. If you don't see how the character of Shylock can be read sympathetically, you need to be taking English classes, not leading them.

Great post. I don't have any arguments with what you wrote there. I do think at least some of this (very misguided) push to remove books from the curriculum is in reaction to the backlash against teachers who try to contextualize the works they're reading in class. Discussing racial inequity along with the very real literary value of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn, or discussing changing gender norms and roles while reading Shakespeare means that students read and learn from those classics but also learn social and historical lessons about the times those books portray and the times in which they were written. When teachers do that, however, they get publicly shamed and attacked for "politicizing" the teaching of these books, so given the choice between having to present them as-is with no study of the context surrounding them or not teaching them I can understand why some would choose the latter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Man, there's a lot to say about this.

Let me get one thing out of the way, because I probably won't be coming back to anything within the vicinity of this in my response, but I don't want to give the other "side" short shrift. They do have at least one good point (or, rather, it could be a good point in the proper context). When I read "Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular," and go no further than that, I catch a glimpse of an important truth. I think the absolutist nature of the statement is very wrong, but it highlights a truth that, as language has changed, our canon has had to be updated to keep up. Sometimes that means we can use new texts to teach old stories. We've been teaching Beowulf with a translation for some two centuries now, and the true "classics" were all originally written in Greek or Latin. Sometimes it means adding new worthy books that speak to more modern times with more modern language. All those things are good.

But...

The idea of replacing the literary canon altogether is ridiculous. Our shared English heritage is the culmination of centuries of literary work, combined with the absorption of those Greek and Latin classics (along with a few important texts originally in other languages, as well, such as Arabic). The study of culture necessarily requires examining the roots of said culture. It's certainly possible to exist in society never reading anything more refined than Penthouse. We don't need Milton or Shakespeare to survive in life, or even to be successful. But our place in the broader history of our own culture is certainly made richer for them.

Of course, this goes for other cultures, too. Ours is not merely an Anglo nation, and there is a rich history of Latin and African tradition that anyone who wants to truly understand the American melting pot should expose himself to. Similarly, the broader Western literary canon necessarily includes important works in French, German, and other languages.

But no matter what language you're working in, burning or banning books is just wrong. At best, doing so whitewashes history. At worst, it undermines it, and weakens our society. Mein Kampf shouldn't be banned any more than Das Kapital should. Or Grimms' Fairy Tales.

And last, and most important to me, in many cases, these attacks are just wrong-headed. I agree with the author that any English teacher who thinks Hawthorne was defending or upholding Puritanical subjugation of female agency should have their teaching license revoked. If you don't see how the character of Shylock can be read sympathetically, you need to be taking English classes, not leading them.
You wrote, "as language has changed, our canon has had to be updated to keep up."

One big problem I see is that today, somewhat more than in the past, "language" is being dictated and preempted by slang, pop culture, music lyrics and social media, IIUYC and IMO, BIANAL.

I couldn't tell you how often I refer to Urban Dictionary to understand posts, acronyms and slang on this board -- this stuff also is "language" that can be very hard to understand if you are not a member of the subgroup it was intended for. Regardless whether all subgroups can understand the old language used in Beowulf, Shakespeare or Chaucer, students are already immersing themselves in other non-inclusive categories of language that can be just as misunderstood as Shakespeare's use of a "methinks" here or there.

Then, of course, when we think about today's music lyrics, it's undeniable that some of today's lyrics are offensively sexist or racist for certain groups (but not others) to say. I don't see how to avoid arbitrary value judgements holding that equality of language rules out Hawthorne or Shakespeare but permits all song lyrics.
 
You wrote, "as language has changed, our canon has had to be updated to keep up."

One big problem I see is that today, somewhat more than in the past, "language" is being dictated and preempted by slang, pop culture, music lyrics and social media, IIUYC and IMO, BIANAL.

I couldn't tell you how often I refer to Urban Dictionary to understand posts, acronyms and slang on this board -- this stuff also is "language" that can be very hard to understand if you are not a member of the subgroup it was intended for. Regardless whether all subgroups can understand the old language used in Beowulf, Shakespeare or Chaucer, students are already immersing themselves in other non-inclusive categories of language that can be just as misunderstood as Shakespeare's use of a "methinks" here or there.

Then, of course, when we think about today's music lyrics, it's undeniable that some of today's lyrics are offensively sexist or racist for certain groups (but not others) to say. I don't see how to avoid arbitrary value judgements holding that equality of language rules out Hawthorne or Shakespeare but permits all song lyrics.

History may look stagnant and dusty now, but it wasn't when it was happening. Shakespeare made up a ton of words and appropriated many more from popular culture of his time. We all reach an age where we are no longer the driving demographic force behind changing language but that doesn't mean that language should suddenly freeze in time to make us more comfortable.
 

A sustained effort is under way to deny children access to literature. Under the slogan #DisruptTexts, critical-theory ideologues, schoolteachers and Twitter agitators are purging and propagandizing against classic texts—everything from Homer to F. Scott Fitzgerald to Dr. Seuss.

Their ethos holds that children shouldn’t have to read stories written in anything other than the present-day vernacular—especially those “in which racism, sexism, ableism, anti-Semitism, and other forms of hate are the norm,” as young-adult novelist Padma Venkatraman writes in School Library Journal. No author is valuable enough to spare, Ms. Venkatraman instructs: “Absolving Shakespeare of responsibility by mentioning that he lived at a time when hate-ridden sentiments prevailed, risks sending a subliminal message that academic excellence outweighs hateful rhetoric.”

The subtle complexities of literature are being reduced to the crude clanking of “intersectional” power struggles. Thus Seattle English teacher Evin Shinn tweeted in 2018 that he’d “rather die” than teach “The Scarlet Letter,” unless Nathaniel Hawthorne’s novel is used to “fight against misogyny and slut-shaming.”

Outsiders got a glimpse of the intensity of the #DisruptTexts campaign recently when self-described “antiracist teacher” Lorena Germán complained that many classics were written more than 70 years ago: “Think of US society before then & the values that shaped this nation afterwards. THAT is what is in those books.”


Jessica Cluess, an author of young-adult fiction, shot back: “If you think Hawthorne was on the side of the judgmental Puritans . . . then you are an absolute idiot and should not have the title of educator in your twitter bio.”

An online horde descended, accused Ms. Cluess of racism and “violence,” and demanded that Penguin Random House cancel her contract. The publisher hasn’t complied, perhaps because Ms. Cluess tweeted a ritual self-denunciation: “I take full responsibility for my unprovoked anger toward Lorena Germán. . . . I am committed to learning more about Ms. Germán’s important work with #DisruptTexts. . . . I will strive to do better.” That didn’t stop Ms. Cluess’s literary agent, Brooks Sherman, from denouncing her “racist and unacceptable” opinions and terminating their professional relationship.

The demands for censorship appear to be getting results. “Be like Odysseus and embrace the long haul to liberation (and then take the Odyssey out of your curriculum because it’s trash),” tweeted Shea Martin in June. “Hahaha,” replied Heather Levine, an English teacher at Lawrence (Mass.) High School. “Very proud to say we got the Odyssey removed from the curriculum this year!” When I contacted Ms. Levine to confirm this, she replied that she found the inquiry “invasive.”

“It’s a tragedy that this anti-intellectual movement of canceling the classics is gaining traction among educators and the mainstream publishing industry,” says science-fiction writer Jon Del Arroz, one of the rare industry voices to defend Ms. Cluess. “Erasing the history of great works only limits the ability of children to become literate.”

He’s right. If there is harm in classic literature, it comes from not teaching it. Students excused from reading foundational texts may imagine themselves lucky to get away with YA novels instead—that’s what the #DisruptTexts people want—but compared with their better-educated peers they will suffer a poverty of language and cultural reference. Worse, they won’t even know it.
Mrs. Gurdon writes the Journal’s Children’s Books column.
I was about to comment that you write well, almost like a journalist. Then I quickly realized you copy and pasted the entire article. Not cool.
 
Are you drunk or just stupid? Either way, you’re cluelessness is obvious.
I got your point, Ace. But who cares? Halfway through the OP I realized he hadn’t written. Big deal. I enjoyed it and was glad mjv had quoted it.

You’re an ass. There’s a reason anal retentive is anal.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT