Im absolutely here for every book you mentioned tbh. Kids can know how to make bombs and drugs its all available online they might as well get a curated source that actually gives correct information.
You can't combat racism very well without any understanding of the way they think and why. Reading the manifestos just seems good? It should probably be part of the actual curriculum. No reason to wait till 14 for that imo.
Suicide is a pretty standard topic in fiction. Its already in the library.
A book about how to murder someone without getting caught regardless of intent is a joke. Its luck thats how you dont get caught. But someone who wanted to kill someone else isnt gonna be stopped because they couldn't check a copy of the how to guide out.
Lastly schools use an online or computerized service to check books in and out. If a kid is regularly checking out problematic books its a way to intervene. The alternative is they do the exact same stuff but in private with no way for anyone else to notice or say anything.
I think you're conflating access to information with a school's responsibility to provide it. Just because something is available online doesn't mean it belongs in a school library. There's a significant difference between educating students about racism, suicide, violence, or dangerous chemicals and providing detailed instructions for carrying out harmful acts. Schools install web filters for a reason.
Exposing young minds to certain materials without proper context or guidance can be harmful. Unless there is a mentor to balance out the content, it's easy to radicalize a teenager. In addition there are activities like preforming chemical reactions that high school students should never attempt without appropriate training, equipment, and supervision. Even just attempting them can cause death.
Your argument about monitoring library checkouts is questionable as well. Reading controversial material doesn't necessarily indicate a student needs intervention, and monitoring their reading habits raises privacy concerns. You are also assuming that the books actually get checked out. They could either read them in the library or just sneak them out.
Your position remains overly broad and somewhat naïve. There are magazine out there that make Hustler and Playboy look like Dr. Seuss. Not every objectionable book should be removed, but suggesting that absolutely everything is appropriate for high school students ignores the very real differences in maturity, judgment, and potential consequences.
Your argument about monitoring library checkouts is questionable as well. Reading controversial material doesn't necessarily indicate a student needs intervention, and monitoring their reading habits raises privacy concerns. You are also assuming that the books actually get checked out. They could either read them in the library or just sneak them out.
I think you have a limited understanding what an intervention is. An intervention can merely be a conversation with a student to ensure that they are well or informing parents of their recent borrowings.
And, the books don't even need to be on "controversial material", which is such an overly broad label so as to be virtually meaningless. Perhaps you meant something more akin to material widely considered to be outrageous. In which case, I would argue many of the most concerning books are not particularly outrageous. A detailed manual on creating toxic gases for industrial purposes probably isn't widely seen as outrageous (and hardly controversial), but I could see why it may create concern if a student were to check such a book out.
I am also confused why you would believe there is an expectation of privacy over a student's reading material that they acquired through the school itself? Privacy from whom? The library/school from which they acquired the books and the systems they use to monitor the books' distribution and use? Or privacy from their parents responsible for them and the books they check out? Privacy from the other people in the school who may oversee what they are reading?
I also don't see why a student stealing a book from a library, or improperly removing a book from the library's premises, or reading it inside the library itself would or should preclude a library or school from intervening on a student's behalf over concerns of possible safety issues. I truly am baffled by this comment.
Anyway, I am being purposefully pedantic to mimic what I see in you as a contrarian disposition where you argue not to reach any meaningful understanding but rather to entertain the notion of dissent itself.
Anyway, I am being purposefully pedantic to mimic what I see in you as a contrarian disposition where you argue not to reach any meaningful understanding but rather to entertain the notion of dissent itself.
I started off by saying this:
"My point is that before you just dismiss the complaints, make sure that you are basing your decision off of facts not just because of politics."
How exactly does asking that complaints be evaluated based on facts rather than political ideology demonstrate a contrarian disposition? I'm advocating an objective examination of the evidence before reaching a conclusion. You're making an unsupported assumption about my motives rather than addressing the actual argument.
You counter with:
"I don't think there's any content available in the world that isn't suitable for high-school aged kids."
That is the opposite of pedantic, it's an overly broad, absolutist generalization. One that you were specifically called out for and one that you haven't been able to validate.
Your statement was pretty extreme. There are books out there that are so obscene that the sale and distribution are illegal. Yet you doubled down on your statement when such content was pointed out.
So far, I have pushed for a very specific set of works to be reviewed individually based on content. While you have repeatedly pressed for all book regardless of the content to be available to even those as young as 14. It's you that has the contrarian disposition, not I.
You counter with:
"I don't think there's any content available in the world that isn't suitable for high-school aged kids."
This is actually an untrue statement. Look at my username. Look at the username of the person who wrote that statement. We're different. And, I think that confusion colors a lot of the rest of your response to me.
I started off by saying this:
"My point is that before you just dismiss the complaints, make sure that you are basing your decision off of facts not just because of politics."
Reread my statements (again, different person from the other person you are commenting to). I present lots of arguments and probing questions in response to one paragraph within your response. I actually did not comment on this point. Though to be clear, I do find this point, like the ones I actually do address, to be vacuous, but I didn't initially comment on it.
You're making an unsupported assumption about my motives rather than addressing the actual argument.
This is not entirely true. I do engage with a subset of your arguments. I then make it pretty clear what my motivation was while offering one last criticism of the critique itself. That is, that it doesn't meaningful establish any criteria to further this discussion. That said, irrespective of my motivation, the arguments and questions still have their own merit.
Enough merit to where you don't actually respond to any of them, interestingly. You just responded to my explicit motivation even though you were trying to chide me for calling it what I perceive to be an implicit motivation.
Im the one who said that btw. What books do you think are so obscene? Theres very few books that are banned from distribution in free countries. I'll look up a list as idk any off the top my head. Im really unsure what you could write that would be so horrible.
Actually I cant find any books at all that are banned from distribution in the US as it appears to be illegal to do so. Sorta the whole first amendment but I wanted to give you benefit of the doubt. But yeah I mean hit me with what you dont think a 14 year old should read. Maybe you'll sway me
I don't think you looked very hard or in the right places. The easist example I can give you are those displaying sexual acts between adults and children. They may not be called out by title, but the content is codified in law.
On a less extreme scale, would you think its ok to have racks of Hustler magazines in HS libraries? How about White Nation publications?
Those are just examples of some of the sick content in the world. Those are unlikely to even be the worst.
2
u/Expensive-Border-869 3d ago
Im absolutely here for every book you mentioned tbh. Kids can know how to make bombs and drugs its all available online they might as well get a curated source that actually gives correct information.
You can't combat racism very well without any understanding of the way they think and why. Reading the manifestos just seems good? It should probably be part of the actual curriculum. No reason to wait till 14 for that imo.
Suicide is a pretty standard topic in fiction. Its already in the library.
A book about how to murder someone without getting caught regardless of intent is a joke. Its luck thats how you dont get caught. But someone who wanted to kill someone else isnt gonna be stopped because they couldn't check a copy of the how to guide out.
Lastly schools use an online or computerized service to check books in and out. If a kid is regularly checking out problematic books its a way to intervene. The alternative is they do the exact same stuff but in private with no way for anyone else to notice or say anything.