What he expresses in these screenshots from a PBS Newshour clip of the manuscript suggests why he might have wanted these thoughts to stay silent for a century. And they’re strangely resonant in our own day.

Exhibit One: Twain as the Fifth Horseman

This reads like something straight out of Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, or Hitchens:

Transcribed:

There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing and predatory as it is — in our country, particularly, and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree — it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime — the invention of Hell.  Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilt.

Exhibit Two: Twain Against the Neocons

This snippet, if you look at the top, picks up after quoting Pres. Theodore Roosevelt’s apparent statement concerning a US Army massacre of Philippinos during or after the Spanish-American War.

Transcribed:

[TR's] whole utterance is merely a convention. Not a word of what he said came out of his heart. He knew perfectly well that to pen six hundred helpless and weaponless savages in a hole like rats in a trap and massacre them in detail during a stretch of a day and a half, from a safe position on the heights above, was no brilliant feat of arms — and would not have been a brilliant feat of arms even if Christian America, represented by its salaried soldiers, had shot them down with Bibles and the Golden Rule instead of bullets….

Who wants to place bets that teaching Twain in American high schools is going to become an even dicier idea once this book filters out into the mainstream?

And who else notes that Twain’s objections both to American religion and American politics are based on simple morality — that standard so important to so many free-thinking heretics?

5 Comments

• At July 11, 2010, Laura Gibbs wrote:

  Twain's weird story The Mysterious Stranger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Stranger) gave many clues as to these thoughts... I was surprised and amazed when I stumbled across Mysterious Stranger some years ago completely by accident, and it definitely made me appreciate Twain even more. Excerpt:

  Satan laughed his unkind laugh to a finish; then he said: "It is a remarkable progress. In five or six thousand years five or six high civilizations have risen, flourished, commanded the wonder of the world, then faded out and disappeared; and not one of them except the latest ever invented any sweeping and adequate way to kill people. They all did their best - to kill being the chiefest ambition of the human race and the earliest incident in its history - but only the Christian civilization has scored a triumph to be proud of. Two or three centuries from now it will be recognized that all the competent killers are Christians; then the pagan world will go to school to the Christian - not to acquire his religion, but his guns. The Turk and the Chinaman will buy those to kill missionaries and converts with."

• At July 12, 2010, Clay Burell wrote:

  Wow, Laura, nice find.

  Interesting that he wrote this from 1890 to 1910. That perfectly bookends the Boxer Rebellion in China, during which Chinese locals got fed up with missionaries and their Chinese converts ("rice Christians") and went on, as your Twain quote pegs it, "to kill missionaries and converts."

  Unfortunately for them, they didn't have the cash to buy the Western guns, and believed their own superstitious magic would protect them from the Western armies (always ready to back up beleaguered missionaries via the infamous "Gunboat Diplomacy"). It didn't. Instead, the West used it as a pretext to invade Beijing, storm and loot the Forbidden City and Imperial Library of much of their treasure, and finally to force more concessions to Western imperialist nations than they'd already forced after the Opium Wars of the 1840s and '60s.

  It amazes me that Westerners know so little of their crimes against China a short century ago. China certainly hasn't forgotten it.

• At July 13, 2010, Laura Gibbs wrote:

  So true about Chinese history! One of the things that really struck me about the Robert McNamara documentary Fog of War was the his admission that during the Vietnam War he knew nothing at all of Vietnamese history and only later, as he learned about it, did he gain some insight into the dynamics that he was oblivious to during the war itself!

  About Mysterious Stranger: I was listening to a bunch of public domain audiobook stuff five or six years ago and stumbled across this book. It had me completely mesmerized. I could definitely see myself teaching a course on folklore and literature about the devil - what a device he is for intense thought experiments! This book would definitely be on the reading list for such a class...

• At July 14, 2010, Clay Burell wrote:

  @Laura, Fog of War is a great film, and so are so many other documentaries by that filmmaker (whose name senescence hides from me at the moment).

  McNamara's a great example of an expert who knew next to nothing about Asia. If he'd looked into Vietnamese or Chinese history, he'd have quickly found that China tried to conquer Vietnam -- as a neighboring state with far larger forces -- for 2,000 years, and never could. The Vietnamese never say "quit."

  The Twain story is on my reading list.

• At July 16, 2010, Harold Jarche » From Mark Twain to the Future wrote:

  [...] Mark Twain’s Posthumous Bombshells by @cburell Why is Mark Twain’s autobiography only coming out now, 100 years after his death? Because he stipulated so before dying. [...]

Related posts:

1. When Corrupting the Youth is Good
2. Fear-Based Curriculum: A Language Arts Tragedy (More on Teaching Lolita)
3. How Modern People Read
4. Meme: High School Daze to Praise (For Mature Audiences Only)

Interesting. James Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong, shares his experience of being invited to write a preface to the Chinese translation of his book due for publication in the People’s Republic of China. Loewen writes,

[O]n behalf of . . . one of the largest publishers in China, Ma Wanli assured me that my preface would not be censored. I finished the preface in late fall, and the Chinese translation reached me in December of 2008. My U.S. publisher had it translated back into English and assured me that my meaning had not been changed. All seemed well.

In late spring 2009, however, the translator emailed to request that I use “more Aesopian language,” particularly in making points about the individual’s relationship to the society.

Loewen revised, and wrote the translator saying, “I have made those changes of my own free will and am still happy with the resulting essay. I hope you are too.”  He continues:

Ma Wanli called my revisions “magnanimous.” Nevertheless, at the end of the process, my book came out in China in November, 2009, without the preface, but with an afterword in which Ma Wanli spoke of his “sympathy” for the book and looked forward to its “translation spurring much self-criticism among Chinese academic and education circles.”I offer the forbidden preface to you, below. You are the first to see what could not be published in China.

You can read the full preface on China Beat.

For what it’s worth, I find myself far more sympathetic to the Chinese government than most liberals I know, and this is because I’ve not only spent the last year teaching a semester-long survey of Chinese history for two semesters in a row (after teaching it for a couple of years while living in Shanghai in the early ’00s), but also because I spent that time reading, researching, and reflecting on China fairly obsessively on the clock and off.

But more on that in Part 2, tomorrow when I get around to re-writing the Part 2 that I just deleted

Image from flickr.

2 Comments

• At June 12, 2010, Joyeuse wrote:

  Hey, Clay. Yet another interesting post.

  I was just curious, what is it in your studies and reflections that makes you more sympathetic to the Chinese government? Is it simply the fact that you've spent so much time analyzing the government that you are more prone to forgiving it, or do you feel there's something in Chinese history that makes its somewhat dubious human rights decisions more forgivable?

• At June 12, 2010, Clay Burell wrote:

  Hi J,

  I'm hoping to articulate many, many stabs at answering your questions in the next two months. I'm into China so deep these days, and only going deeper, so the hard part is coming up for air and putting everything I'm experiencing in coherent shape.

  I'll surely catch hell from many Westerners for much of it, and maybe that'll be good for me; but maybe the many "somethings in Chinese history" of which most Westerners are woefully unaware will complicate the issues for them, too.

  Short version: stay tuned. Sorry I can't offer more than that yet.

Related posts:

1. A Starter Kit of China Studies RSS Feeds
2. A New Diigo Vision and Call for Advice: On Students Teaching China to the West
3. What China Can Teach Writing Teachers
4. A Belated Farewell to China

And goodness knows we can’t have our children learn about anything that doesn’t cause global financial meltdowns, global warming, three wars in ten years, and apocalyptic goo in the Gulf of Mexico. That would be unAmerican.

Related posts:

1. Daily Diigo: Community Service 2.0, Vietnam Today
2. Daily Diigo: Plugging the Global Cooling project on del.icio.us
3. Students Respond: “Should Lolita Be Banned from High School AP Classes?”
4. Add Your Classes and Favorite Tools to the Wiki (update)

Gallop uses the 5-minute talk to promote the new website she’s launched to educate our young on the difference between p0rn and love. According to Alternet, she

"Let's not talk about it."

blames the “puritanical, double standards culture, where people believe that a teen abstinence campaign will actually work, where parents are too embarrassed to have conversations about sex with their children, and where educational institutions are terrified of being politically incorrect if they pick up those conversations. So it’s not surprising that hardcore p0rn has become de facto sex education.”

If there’s anything to laugh at here, it’s in the sardonic vein, thanks to TED’s irony-blind explanation of its decision not to feature the Talk on its main page, but to instead safely stash it under the mattress of its blog:

Her talk’s graphic content means we can’t include it in the main run of full TEDTalks, which go by default to subscribers, including children.

It’s creepy stuff, and it’s made creepier by the fact that our culture tries to deal with it by blaming the web instead of blaming its own juvenile inability to talk about nature naturally.

Again, Alternet:

There are no more male p0rn virgins. A Canadian study released this week sought to compare the views of 20-something men who watch p0rn with those who don’t. They couldn’t find a single one who hadn’t seen any. “Guys who do not watch p0rnography do not exist,” concluded the lead researcher, Professor Simon Louis Lajeunesse of the University of Montreal’s School of Social Work.

Guys who watch a lot of p0rnography, however, are easy to find. Of the 20-something heterosexual men they interviewed, most had sought out p0rnography for the first time at age 10. The single men among them, on average, watch p0rn three times a week for 40 minutes, and those in relationships, 1.7 times a week for around 20 minutes. In no small part that’s because p0rn is so easy to find: 90 percent of consumption is on the Internet, while only 10 percent is from the video store.

The article later turns to our “digital natives” who grew up finding the stuff online that my friends and I in our puberty-zapped days had to search for, in its analog and far tamer magazine form, in our parents’ and big brothers’ closets and — yes, if we caught a glimpse of the heavenly bunny ears there — even in trash dumpsters. “The effect on…Generation Y,” Alternet continues,

is even more significant, especially given the dearth of real sex ed. According to an article in Details, “The awkward truth…is that 90 percent of 8- to-16-year-olds have viewed p0rnography online. Considering the standard climax to even the most vanilla hard-c0re scene today, that means there is an entire generation of young people who think sex ends with a money shot to the face.”

They said it.

You have to wonder to what extent this type of “de facto” sex education will affect honeymoons, divorce rates, and a million other social statistics in the coming decades.

In any case, Gallop’s Talk and website — which I just checked out, and should tell you uses quite explicit language — has reportedly met with much approval from both teens and parents. Again according to Alternet, Gallop said

A number of “young people” have said and emailed reactions like, “Oh my God! I love it. That is absolutely what I’ve encountered myself.”

“Parents were particularly struck by it, and a lot of them said to me that they’d forwarded the site to their 16-year-old daughter or 18-year-old son. I think they particularly welcomed the fact that they could forward the link on without needing to have the conversation themselves, which is precisely why I began the site.”

Here’s the Talk. Again, it’s only about five minutes long:

2 Comments

• At June 6, 2010, d52boy wrote:

  It's not always parents who are reluctant to discuss sex with their kids. In my experience, teens have no desire to talk about sex with their parents.

• At June 6, 2010, Jodi wrote:

  Yes, but as with all other aspects of parenting, it is the parents' responsibility to make sure that even if the kid doesn't like it, if it's the right thing to do, you do it. Too many parents abdicate that responsibilty, whether it's talking about sex or about being considerate toward others or forgoing that expensive item of clothing even if everyone else has it or doing your assignments by yourself or facing the consequences of cheating.

  It annoys me when parents say they don't want schools teaching their kids morals (sexual or otherwise, though most uproars end up being about any school system daring to teach actual facts about sex and sexuality in age-appropriate ways, as recently, tragically happened in my home province of Ontario), and then neglect to do so at home -- and then hold the schools accountable for their failures in parenting. /mini-rant

Related posts:

1. Open Thread 1: Your Dreams of Alternative Schools?
2. Podcast: Three Schools Discover the 21st Century!
3. Education Podcasts Meme: Warlick, Fryer-McLeod, a Young Writer, and an Impassioned Secular Humanist
4. Quotable: “U.S. Schools as Islamic Madrassas”

Crisis? What Crisis?

Reading the headlines of Alltop.com’s “top education” sites‘ brings to mind the cover of the old Supertramp album, showing a man sunning himself in a bathing suit on a lounge chair, surrounded by grimy industrial waste. The album’s title? “Crisis? What Crisis?”

Economically, American banking deregulation has dragged the US, and the rest of the world, into a crisis creating comparisons to Depression Year 1937.

Politically, the McCain/Palin campaign is whipping up hatred that makes such sober and respected political commentators as conservative David Gergen openly express fear that civic violence could be the result – and others worry that the unthinkable return to political assassination is now possible.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration continues its assault on the constitution by violating the 200-year-old law of Posse Comitatus, which protects US citizens from being oppressed by their own military, by deploying an Army Brigade to police American streets, and be answerable only to him. Soldiers disobeying, say, an order to arrest members of Congress, or citizens protesting Wall Street, would be court-martialed and serve prison time for serving their democracy instead of their dictator.

And Sarah Palin, the naughty librarian (who can’t name anything she reads, and who may as well gyrate while she winkingly chants “Drill, Baby, Drill”) doesn’t care about the causes of global warming – a position I’m sure would not be shared, could we ask them, by the 25% of mammals now endangered worldwide.

Everything is Political – Except Edubloggers?

So how many education bloggers show the slightest indication, on their blogs, that they find addressing these crises worth “suspending their edublogging campaigns”?

Answer: a whopping 17 – out of the 130 blogs with over 600 posts on Alltop’s education page.

So without further ado,

The “I Didn’t Wordle as Rome Burned” Award

1. The Chancellor’s New Clothes (Our Political Role Models: recommended)
2. Iterating Towards Openness (Scary Sarah: recommended)
3. ODonnell Web (McCain’s hate speech: recommended)
4. History is Elementary (close reading of rescue bailout bill: recommended)
   
5. Borderland (always recommended)
6. Stephen Downes’ OLDaily (economy: recommended)
7. Joanne Jacobs (on Ayers as still-revolutionary)
8. NYC Educator (McCain’s anger issue)
9. Piloted (teaching campaigning)
   
10. My Wonderful World Blog (foreign policy debate)
    
11. Assorted Stuff (on This American Life’s Wall Street podcasts)
    
12. Facing History and Ourselves (educating about campaigning)
    
13. Factchecked (gasoline as political issue)
14. Education Week (Ayers smear)
15. ASCD: In Service (education debate)
16. The Fischbowl (debates 2.0)
17. MindOH Blog (vote)

A Maverick’s Plea for Reform

I’m aware of the many reasons that educators might not openly advocate their political views. I can only hope it’s ye olde self-censoring fear for your jobs that causes this silence, instead of indifference or worse.

All I know is, for this month at least, there are more important things to spend time on than writing about classroom blogging policies, PLNs, global collaborations, Moodles and Nings and Wordles.

A bit of reading on the Weimar Republic‘s failure, and replacement by a famous military dictatorship in the midst of an economic and military crisis – accompanied by extreme racism – might be a good place to start.

I’ve also enabled Diigo to post my daily bookmarks and annotations here. I’m on sabbatical this year, so decided to share what I have time to read. Feel free to check out my Stumbleupon bookmarks too.

I hate feeling like some silly Cassandra.

But I’d hate even more to be one of the Trojans who laughed at her.

~     ~     ~

37 Comments

• At October 11, 2008, Harold Jarche wrote:

  I've been accused of being too nice on my blog (perhaps it's a Canadian thing), but I strongly agree with you, Clay. It's time to get more subversive.

  Harold Jarches last blog post..The second week of Work Literacy

• At October 11, 2008, Dean Shareski wrote:

  Clay,

  While I admire your passion for politics, I certainly don't feel knowledgeable enough to shed any light on the situation. Certainly as a Canadian, I'd be less qualified than most but even as a federal election in my own country is 5 days away, I'm not even sure who I'd vote for and would only be able to write about my confusion and frustration with the lack of clarity.

  I admit it, I'm not a very good citizen. But what concerns me is that just like I would take an non-educator's writing on education with a grain of salt, I have a hard time finding folks who's opinion's on politics I trust. Those inside politics are rarely able to speak objectively.

  In general, the people whom I most trust are politicians and critics who can see both sides of an issue. No one is all bad and no one is all good. US politics is so polarized that I can't find anyone who can provide a balance. That's not to say people don't have a preference but the discussions are rarely more than a hard slam against the opponent. When a Democrat criticizes Obama, I listen. When a Republic credits Obama, I listen. Same is true for McCain or any other politicians. I'm looking for objective voices. They are hard to find.

  I'm not smart or knowledgeable enough to provide a balanced look at politics. Maybe it's lame but that's my excuse.

  Dean Shareskis last blog post..I’m sure I’m doing it wrong

• At October 11, 2008, avoicein wrote:

  Thanks for mentioning us.

  I can tell you one thing - I'm not going down without a fight.

  avoiceins last blog post..“Hey Sarah Palin” Song

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I get your intent and don't mean to nitpick, Harold, but I'm having trouble with the choice of "subversive" to describe the simple act of voicing your positions on social and political issues. In the 19th century, it was a normal part of citizenship, wasn't it?

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  You know I love you, Dean, but I want to agree that for educators who talk about being "lifelong learners," saying "I'm not knowledgeable enough" about politics does seem lame. We're all about critical thinking, reading, learning, communicating.

  That was sort of my point about "suspending the Moodle-talk" to learn about things we should know to be good forces (which simply means informed and critical ones) in bad times. If we're not, then what's the value of our vote?

  As for objectivity, you know that's a myth, right?

  And in the age of YouTube and blogs, we're privy to campaign moments, arguments, evidence, and points of view that the media won't show us, so we really can inform ourselves now better than ever before about political and social issues.

  And for the record, I've criticized Obama on these pages more than once - most strongly for supporting the bailout without being open to other approaches.

  But there is simply nothing in the same universe of egregious shame that Obama is doing to compare with McCain/Palin.

  And so we share our thoughts.

  You're Canadian, though, so it's not as big a problem for you, you lucky dog.

• At October 11, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  @A Voice,

  And that's why you're one of maybe three edublogs in my Reader.

  Great Palin song, by the way.

• At October 11, 2008, Harold Jarche wrote:

  Not sure if people wore their politics on their sleeve in the 19th C. In Europe and the British Empire it was all about King and Country, and politics were for the rich. Around here, many people voted the way their parents did.

  Also, the simple act of voicing my opinions on social and political issues could be very subversive - to my business and my ability to earn an income.

  Harold Jarches last blog post..The second week of Work Literacy

• At October 11, 2008, Jeff Wasserman wrote:

  Because my blog is also a classroom resource, I'm loathe to express my specific political views on it--my school admins are drowning in complaints that teachers are espousing pro-Obama or pro-McCain views in their classrooms, and I'm not getting into it. The simple fact of the matter is that my students are (mostly) too young to vote, and their parents have made their minds up already--my district is full of high-dollar-amount donors, $1000/plate fundraiser host families, etc.

  I did bring my sophomores to a State Rep debate held in the high school, and they had a lot to say about it. These kids are tuned in to the process, and how it's covered in the media. They're savvy. Some support Obama, some support McCain, and they'll argue their positions as long as I'll let them. It's heartening to see.

  No, I'll keep my personal politics off my blog and save them for my Facebook arguments with my irrationally conservative and xenophobic friend. If it were a personal blog, or if I weren't a public school teacher, perhaps I'd think differently. But since my biggest audience is teenagers, I'm just not gonna do it.

  Jeff Wassermans last blog post..Welcome to the desert of the real

• At October 11, 2008, KarenR wrote:

  My professional blog is about education and like Jeff and some others, I just don't feel comfortable including my personal political views there. Instead, I maintain a personal blog where I put those kinds of things (http://simplykaren.org/wordpress/). There is a link to that site on my professional blog so if people are interested in learning more about me and my views beyond education and technology, they are free to explore but I am not forcing it upon them. I am trying to maintain some separation between a personal and professional life, I suppose.

  I have found myself crossing that line with Twitter, however, and felt a little uncomfortable with doing that but it seems less permanent, I suppose.

  KarenRs last blog post..A Little Freedom and Personal Space, Is That So Bad?

• At October 11, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Rome's been burning for awhile, now. I'm guessing my last comment suggesting that you keep sharing thoughts on Gilgamesh for me (and Nero) to enjoy did not fly.

  Anyone who pays any attention to history, to politics, to our society can see what's been going on--and it has been going on for several decades now.

  My daughter was beaten by a police officer back in October, 2001. She was jailed. Officers had badge numbers covered up. She was in a peaceable assembly protesting the Bush administration's plan to bomb people who had nothing to do with 9/11.

  Thursday at lunch, one teacher said that voting for a Democrat is akin to inviting terrorists to bomb the US.

  I read Naomi Wolf's words years ago, and they rang true. I kid about my tinfoil hat, but these are troubled times.

  In the classroom, I (attempt to) teach children how to think critically. My own views do not (or should not) matter.

  I have faith that if I teach children how to think, they will reach reasonable, humane, and (dare I say it?) loving answers to the ills around us.

  I hold a position that wields tremendous power over other clans' children (loco parentis is a big deal to me)--if I espouse my positions publicly, it betrays my faith in the rational approach, and undermines what I am trying to do.

  I am not saying we should not be screaming from the rooftops, though it is a shame that we are such a nation of sheep, blind sheep at that, that only the loudest get heard.

  I am saying, though, that once I start screaming from the rooftops in an edublog forum, I am betraying my trust in the ability of a republic to educate its children.

  (Not that I am not almost there already--but if I give up my faith that humans can think and love, and that we can teach humans how to think and love better, then I am not only giving up on my livelihood, I am giving up on life.)

  I do scream and shout, just not in the ed world. If you ever visit my classroom, you'll hear some very interesting things from children once they are allowed to think on their own. You will hear views contrary to my own, but that are on their way to being reasonable.

  I had a very engaging months/years long on-line discussion with a brilliant young man studying at Oxford, a man who held some views obviously pushed on him. We disagreed on just about everything political, but I told him that given his mind, he and I would be much closer to agreeing on things as he got older than he knew.

  And, years later, the transition has been startling to some, but not to me.

  Faith.

• At October 12, 2008, Jose wrote:

  Just FYI, Clay, make that 18. My politics have been more NYC-central, but I feel important nonetheless, and if we know anything NYC, it's that that's really Rome, with the US being Italy.

  With that said, that's a fine list there. I need to add some of these people to my Google Reader. Good read.

  Joses last blog post..The Holiest Redeemers

• At October 12, 2008, Dean Shareski wrote:

  Clay,

  I do hang my head in shame somewhat as to my ignorance and apathy. I'm just not convinced everyone has to use their professional space for this. It's taken me a long time to sort out who's opinions are valid in the world of education.

  I'll also admit to a possible naivety about my beliefs in politics, at least from a Canadian perspective. I'm inclined to believe that the differences between parties are much smaller than anyone would like us to believe. As I said earlier no one is all bad or good but in general, I think most if not all politicians do want what's best. And while their approaches might be slightly different, the ultimate results of their implementations of policies would be negligible when juxtaposed against the entire policy and given many uncontrolled variables, particularly when it comes to economics.

  Naive. Maybe but the emphasis of the media and blogs are designed to polarize,smear and persuade. Not convinced that's the best way to learn.

  Dean Shareskis last blog post..I’m sure I’m doing it wrong

• At October 12, 2008, avoiceinthewilderness wrote:

  Ok, so my conscience is compelling me to say that my co-author and I do blog under pseudonyms.

  Writing this way affords us a lot more freedom to condemn the system in which we work.

  Less credibility, maybe, but definitely more freedom.

  I don't know if I would be as honest if I were using the blog as a professional outlet and using my name.

  avoiceinthewildernesss last blog post..Will Canada Take Us?

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I hear you, Jeff, and you point to a question that deserves asking: Who is the main audience of each edublog? I suspect that in the great majority of cases, unlike yours, it's other edublogging adults - voters all (at least if they're American)- and not students.

  But maybe I should check out Facebook, which while I have an account, I don't use. But the readership there is less broad.

  Anyway, thanks for weighing in.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Karen, I've thought about doing the same thing. But I find myself chafing against this cubby-holing that says I'm an "edublogger" - I've always been political, since day one, on these pages, though not to the degree of late, which didn't seem justified until, er, lately.

  It's something to think about. But it's interesting to me that educators shy away from sharing their own critical thinking about the most important issues of the day. It sort of goes in great irony against the grain of what Web 2.0 is all about.

  But I'm aware that I'm ignoring the question of "what 'edublogs' should be allowed to say" - and now we're back to the old debate about whether there are any "rules" at all about our use of this world, and whether there should be.

  Shirky's "publish, then filter" principle seems to apply here. I'll publish, and let the reader decide whether to filter it out, or let it in.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Subversion rarely works well, and pseudonyms should be condemned in an open, democratic society.

  On the other hand, not sure any open, democratic societies exist.

  I don’t know if I would be as honest if I were using the blog as a professional outlet and using my name.

  This is the crux--real change requires removing the masks. Real change requires risks.

  And few of us are willing to take off our masks.

  And few folks pay much heed to people behind masks.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Dear Clay,

  I am dragging this over to my site: What is our responsibility as teachers as Rome burns.

  It's sort of a blog hijack, but a somewhat different issue than the one you pose.

  (I got a belly full of fresh clams, and saw a rare midday rainbow colered halo bordering the sun--hardly a rational response to the fires around us, but mircles nonetheless.)

  And you got me thinking. I may alter my behavior a tad.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I wnat to teach in biology....

• At October 12, 2008, Louise Maine wrote:

  I have been frustrated since I have been in elementary school (even wrote to Pres. Carter) and no one seemed to care and thought I was highly emotional. I may not put it in my blog, but I am highly polarizing at get-togethers, family dinners, and the lunch room, let alone the classroom. Lack of resources and energy, etc. are all coming true. My husband did not understand cheap oil and what I told him in 1990 is now here. Hate to tell them, I told you so, but I am.

  Do you think people listen? Not really. I am focusing on teaching at this point. Watch the blog through the year. I am not so concerned about edublogging and writing what has already been written by others. I am focusing on the journey I am leading my students that infuses issues throughout the year. Currently in my 3 different courses it is global warming (this is the slowest of all my classes), biodiversity (starting with white-tailed deer here and moving outward across the globe), and plants in Academic Biology (humans use 1/3 of all the plant productivity to our use).

  A species with that large an ego will not be here for long. A just god would surely would not have envisioned a planet this way. I do say this to students. Wait until we get to the real problem: human population. There is a firestorm.

  I also do not have hope for the next administration, too much is wrong and no right answers. Am I cynical? - you bet. Many adults do not have the information to really understand the issues. How do you get them to be critical thinkers and search for truth? I am impressed that this year even my lowest students are showing interest in discussion and questioning about such topics.

  I have another blog that I have made one post about oil and what it really represents. I rarely write there and it is a hodgepodge of stuff. Maybe I should split it between the other blogs I have. Your post is giving me pause and rethink this again. I still think chronicling what we do and what we learn may be a much better way to get a message out and get some one to think.

  Louise Maines last blog post..Knee deep in projects

• At October 12, 2008, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience « Living on the Lip of Insanity wrote:

  [...] October 11, 2008 by Kate Tabor Clay Burrell writes a blog that is engaging and literate and that on occasion terrifies me. His recent series of posts raises real questions about the Bush administration and the current election, but also about what we, as teachers, are doing in the face of Rome burning. [...]

• At October 12, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  So, like Michael, I'm posting my response on my blog. Because I teach American Literature I have the luxury and the pleasure of teaching On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. So, I direct your attention to our American historical radical left - another fine New England transcendentalist.

  Kate Tabors last blog post..On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Kate, I hope everybody takes the time to see something from English class actually made - gasp - relevant to citizenship today. Great post. Thanks for brightening my day.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  I've got a reply to your post/comment brewing, Michael. Hope to write it when my wife goes to church.

• At October 12, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  I realized after posting that what happens on a blog is very different from what happens in the classroom.

  Now my brain is spinning around with a different sort of response to your post. Where does the classroom end? I do, after all, buy beer at the local liquor store, figuring students my as well see that I am an adult who drinks beer.

  I have to be very careful about my motives--it may be that I am avoiding the unfolding catastrophe around us.

  This week, we're talking about the influence of humans on our environment. It's a tough subject to present, not because it's controversial, but because it's so unnerving that some kids may lose hope. The key is to kick their naivete without bruising their hope.

  FWIW, the schiool already got a phone call about the way I handled the Large Hadron Collider. (I didn't say the world was going to end--I asked the class who gets to choose what technologies we pursue when the endgame is unknown. A kid, understandably, only heard half what I was saying and got scared.)

  So I am thinking. Again. A lot. WHich is why, of course, I come here.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Louise, interesting comments.

  I've changed my approach of late to play political echo chamber of stuff I'm finding elsewhere, in hopes that the viral nature of the web can increase exposure of things like that Palin Debate Flowchart I found elsewhere - and that around 1,000 people have visited from email sharing from earlier readers. The guy who made the flowchart has benefited from so many of us sharing his work. I think he made Digg's hotlist.

  I don't know if it will make a difference, but it's within my sphere of influence to try to create the conditions for that difference. But again, especially in light of recent research I've read on the nature of political belief - that it's emotion-based instead of rational - I have my doubts. But I figure maybe the same people that are the decisive swing voters may be less emotional and more rational.

  There's another aspect of all of this that intrigues me, and that's the role bloggers can play in amping up the news that the mainstream media underplays or ignores. Palin's witch-hunting Pastor Muthee is the best example, or maybe her cozying up with Alaskan secessionists (the opposite of "country first-ers"), both of which the mainstream media ignore, while at the same time heavily covering the Obama/Ayers and Obama/Wright allegations. We in the blogosphere can do our collective part to redress that media imbalance by shining our lights on its blind spots.

  Again, that may be fruitless, but also may not be.

  I have to think there is hope for the next administration - though I'm not convinced Obama is sufficiently free of corporate and lobbying influence to to fulfill that hope - and that there are right answers - energy independence a la Obama's declared ambition to create a Kennedy-esque "man on the moon in ten years" program to fund alternative energy to free us of our bondage to the Middle East, which would also reduce our military adventurism in that region, and open up new diplomatic possibilities to solve problems in that region (or at least stop causing them).

  I've rambled enough. Thanks for your comment.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Michael, you're getting closer to my point with that distinction between what happens on our blogs and what happens in our classrooms.

  Other adults, who vote, read our blogs - more than students do, I would wager. And those adults are the ones whose votes might benefit from our own reflections on the issues, and our sharing of what we're seeing and discovering and thinking.

  On a shakier note, I'm still scratching my head over the in loco parentis argument. While I get it on the gut level of "nobody should influence my kid's values but me," I get it less when I reflect that a) by definition, your average parent was your average C student as a child, and thus hardly the bastion of wisdom and independent, deep thought we'd like him or her to be - so maybe their kids need to hear the arguments, identified as precisely that, arguments which permit counter-arguments, of other adults who happen to be their teachers; and b) so many less disinterested parties play the role of in loco parentis - the media, preachers, and unthinking ideologues of all sorts - that it's disturbingly ironic that the only authority figure without the prospect of profiting from converts or consumers (and I mean teachers) have to muzzle themselves and cede the field to Bill O'Reilly OR John Stewart OR Rick Warren.

  The rub, of course: those types above are idea-peddlers for profit, totally free to hawk their thoughts, while teachers are employees of the State, and thus in jeopardy if they expose the young to ideas beyond the right answers to the safe and irrelevant test.

  It's mind-boggling, really.

  I'll stop there for now.

  Thanks for the input. Always a pleasure.

• At October 12, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Jose, I stand corrected. I just read the pop-up first paragraphs of the latest posts on Alltop, so if I missed something, my bad :)

• At October 13, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  Hi Clay,

  In today's NY Times Harold Bloom has an op-ed piece that suggests our next president turn to Emerson.

  Out of Panic: Self Reliance

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/opinion/12bloom.html?ei=5070&emc=eta-1

  -KJT

  Kate Tabors last blog post..On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

• At October 13, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Just to be clear on the loco parentis--I never said I did not influence a child's values. If I'm not influencing a child's values, I'm in the wrong field.

  I'm not terribly worried about losing my job--my background allows me to make ridiculous amounts of money for less hours than I spend teaching.

  It is not my business to preach. It doesn't work, anyway. I'm not terribly good at muzzling myself for job security (if I were, I wouldn't be dropping the F-bomb as frequently as I do). I am decent, I think, at promoting thinking. If my kids were college students, I'd have no problem with espousing my views in the classroom. They're not. They're still embryos. I need them to trust critical thinking, and to trust their results when they think.

  So, yeah, I want to influence values--but not in the typical my-teacher-beat-up-your-mommy sense. I want my kids to think.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 13, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  It's less a question of trying to influence values, in my book, than trying to influence the reasoning through which we all arrive at values.

  A teacher who says "My values are right because I'm the teacher" is not a teacher, but a preacher - appealing to his/her own authority.

  A teacher who says, "Let's examine positions A, B, and C," and their foundations in evidence, facts, and reasoning, is not beating anybody up, but instead helping learners question everything - hopefully as a scaffold to them having "justified true beliefs," in IBO language, for their worldview.

  A teacher who does neither is just a test-prep professional who probably hasn't him/herself wrestled with questions of citizenship and intellectual/social responsibility. (And that's not aimed at you, Doyle, which by now I hope you know.)

  The best teachers know that they can set up units of enquiry that create the conditions for students to examine the foundations of conventional beliefs across the spectrum, and help students discover they have no good reasons to back up what they think.

• At October 13, 2008, John Larkin wrote:

  Well, If I was a US resident I would be voting for Barack Obama. That's my position. In fact I would encourage people to get off their fat arses and vote. For anyone. As long as they utilise their right to vote. I wonder if there are US citizens that have never voted? I believe voting is not compulsory in the USA. It is compulsory here in Australia.

  I have not blogged about the US Presidential election. In the past I have blogged about our previous Prime Minister John Howard and the detrimental effect his party and its policies were having on our society. he was such a complete anal retentive ignoramus. He sullied the reputation of my country. I had blogged about Bush on my older blog.

• At October 13, 2008, Michael Doyle wrote:

  Alas, the teachers who feel the need to endorse ideas without truly going through the reasoning far outnumber those who take time to examine premises and reasoning.

  I frequently remind the class that while most of them won't remember a lick of content (and even if they do, it will be outdated in a few decades), they will keep their ability to think critically. (It does not help that as a culture we pretend to believe that learning "science" in high school is our ticket to economic success against the big, bad Asians. It helps even less that for many of those in charge, they're not pretending.)

  Now this may sound silly here, and I hope it didn't sound to silly in class (I had an administrator in the room at the time), but I asked a child who had no idea how to change a tire to imagine what she would do if her phone broke and she got a flat tire miles from help.

  She looked startled, but we broke down the problem together, and without getting into details, developed a way to solve it. If my administrator questions it, I'll tell her it falls under NJ Standard 9.3: promote critical thinking skills.

  By the time one is finished with public education, you should know how to approach common, simple problems. It's clear we are failing that.

  A thinking citizenry could not have possibly allowed the 2000 election to be as close as it was, nor would it have allowed it to be swiped as it was.

  Michael Doyles last blog post..What I want to teach in biology....

• At October 14, 2008, diane wrote:

  I wrestled with this "challenge" and finally posted the result: I feel I have a professional obligation to use my influence responsibly, to refrain from promoting a specific candidate.

  That said, my horror at the McCain/Palin ticket, and all that it represents, is probably evident to my more astute students.

  I don't feel there is any real choice in this election. It's possibilities or disaster.

  dianes last blog post..Politics in the Classroom

• At October 14, 2008, Sometimes I Cringe | Metanoia wrote:

  [...] http://beyond-school.org/2008/10/11/wordling-as-rome-burns/ [...]

• At October 18, 2008, Adrienne wrote:

  Hi Clay,

  I've hummed and hawed about this for a couple weeks now and I guess I need to come clean.

  You know that like Dean Shareski, I'm Canadian. I therefore feel my opinions on the subject of the upcoming American presidential election are mostly irrelevant and unimportant.

  While I think voicing an opinion is important – I have never been one to be silenced – I see little point getting riled up over an election that I have no control over or impact on. And though I do have things at stake (as simply a citizen of the world, which America influences), on a daily basis I have much more pressing concerns.

  Another reason I withold somewhat: privacy and courtesy. I am by far the most liberal of my large extended family, many of whom are card-holding Conservatives in Canada, and I need to respect that. My public outcries have the potential to harm some of them who are running for office at the provincial level. I feel strongly about my beliefs and values, but I also care about my family and do not want to polarize what is already a delicate circumstance. (Part of it is self-preservation – I’m already polarized enough, being the “crazy” one who moved overseas!)

  I have to admit that in the last several weeks I have been suffering from American election fatigue and I have had to avoid the bloggers – edubloggers and otherwise – who are so ultimately focused on politics at the moment. This is part of the reason you’ve not see me around Beyond School lately; I’m a bit sad but I just don’t have much to contribute to this conversation and so I have been devoting more time to others in my reader. I’ve also had to literally turn Twitter off during the debates because the commentary from all my active, American, political Tweetpals is so distracting from my other areas of focus.

  I tend to visit fewer American edubloggers in general because I sometimes find the focus to be overly about American education that it doesn’t apply to my current situation or experience. I was initially drawn to Beyond School because, though you are American, you were working overseas. I’m looking forward to when it all is over and you return to blogging the other “usual” stuff. I feel I’ll have much more to say then. In the meantime, I do commend your forthrightness and the way in which you challenge your readers to think – about all things, politics included. Just know that in that, I’m not really your target audience.

  Adriennes last blog post..Absence = Affirmations + Aspirations

• At January 2, 2009, Happy Birthday, Beyond School - and Rest in Peace? | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] too many seemed seduced. Another snake ascended the ball, a political one, fangs thirsting to sink venom into that catastrophic hockey-mom’s neck - for the sake of [...]

• At January 21, 2009, Education - Change.org: I have a Dream - That Obama will have Vision wrote:

  [...] not the only educator, it seems, on an Inauguration Day for which I worked and wrote tirelessly, and in which I passionately believed, to be strangely apprehensive, now that that day has come. [...]

• At February 27, 2009, Science teacher: While Nero fiddles.... wrote:

  [...] Burrell has taken edubloggers to task for sticking their heads in the sand as the world burns (see "What Crisis? Edublogging as Rome burns"). I am not going to disagree with him on the fact that Rome is clearly burning. My question is what [...]

Related posts:

1. Palin Debate Flowchart: Smiling Down the Decline
2. After Tom Friedman, Sarah Palin is Flat Now Too
3. Does “Education Lead to the Left”? Recent Study Says Yes
4. Beyond “Learning Disabled”: An Autistic Genius Draws Rome at a Glance

“Piper, sit thee down and write
In a book that all may read!”
So he vanished from my sight,
And I plucked a hollow reed,

And I made a rural pen,
And I stained the water clear,
And I wrote my happy song,
Every child may joy to hear.
–William Blake, Songs of Innocence

“And I stained the water clear”: look at that line a few times, and see the beauties of that exquisitely ambiguous modifier, “clear.”  It’s a line to cherish. And it has to do with the thoughts below – after which, in the next post, we’ll get to an also exquisite sacred sex scene (and I’d like to call it a love scene to avoid the appearance of sensationalism, but it’s not a love scene) from Gilgamesh, along with laughs, I hope, about trying to teach it to today’s teens, in today’s classrooms. But first, an interlude:

When “Corrupting the Youth” is Good

“Good people” can be dangerous.

Socrates and Jesus, for example, in the eyes of the “good people” of their times,  were both criminals.  They were criminals because they challenged those good people’s conventional views of religion, of the sacred, of moral right and wrong.

How do you know?

They both attacked the gods of their day. Socrates questioned both the truth and the righteousness of the Olympians; and Jesus (though less consistently) similarly questioned the teachings and the righteousness of the Hebrew priests and the “good” church mosque temple-going Christians Muslims Jews around him.  Both were reviled by the good people back then, and both paid with their lives for the same “sin”: critical thinking. The good Athenians killed Socrates with poison, the good Hebrews – the Romans, actually – killed Jesus on the cross.

Today, we do well to revere Socrates and Jesus for pushing human thought forward.  We would also do well, though, to see their examples as reminders of something else we tend to forget: namely, that good people of any age often appear, in historical hindsight, to be the opposite of good. Again, good people – pious people – killed these two men.

Socrates today is held up to students as the model of that practice called “critical thinking.”  But in his own day, that very act, critical thinking, led to criminal charges against him for this :  “Corrupting the young by teaching new gods.”

Look at that. Socrates was killed why?  Because the adults in his society didn’t like the questions he was entertaining with their kids – about religion.  He was killed for asking, around young people, what we all see as a common sense question today – “Why do we believe in Zeus?”

As a teacher who loves common sense, finds it less common than we think, and loves the idea of giving more of it than of grammar to the young in my classrooms, that story has always made me nervous.

I love critical thinking for many reasons, but the biggest one is this: it requires, always, an honest awareness in the thinker that he or she may be wrong.  Socrates, while less a hero of mine due to recent readings I’ve done about his politics, still wins my respect with this classic one-liner:

I only know that I know nothing.

Scientists understand the wisdom of that statement, and so do philosophers.  Priests and their “good people” followers, though, show no understanding of this wisdom. They assert truth-claims without evidence, and worse, they attack modern-day versions of Socrates and Jesus for thinking critically about their beliefs.

Schools are very bad places for a teacher to promote critical thinking about anything important.  The cliché “critical thinking” in schools is only allowed for safe subjects – an oxymoron I’ve mentioned many times in these pages.  Touch a subject that will offend a single parent or student, and your job is at stake.  That’s why so many classes are so boring.  They refuse to acknowledge the many elephants in the room, or to state that the emperor is wearing no clothes – especially when it comes to whichever god and flag are flying above your country.

And that’s why so many types of hugely influential beliefs that make no sense persist today.  Kids go through twelve years of school without those beliefs ever being touched by a serious question, they graduate, and bam: the beliefs live on for yet another generation: Bush really is communicating with God, while in the same universe, Bin Laden, in another country’s school system, really is obeying the Word and will of Allah.  McCain and Obama consent to be interviewed on national TV with Rick Warren, and thus legitimize a man whose ministry supported a “Left Behind” video game in which post-Rapture Christians kill non-Christians on the streets of New York – and they’re the good guys.  To question these things is not important?

I say it is. We see the Crusades of the 11th Century  being re-played now in the 21st.  Maybe questioning will reduce their chances of continuing into the fourth millennium, if we make it that far.

*    *    *

Critical Thinking as a Litmus Test

Reading the comments on my last post (the first Gilgamesh essay), and of the people who also commented on it on StumbleUpon, it occurs to me that critical thinkers serve as litmus tests for the people who disagree with them.  They fall into two categories:  those who challenge the thinking, and thus pass the test and prove themselves fellow critical thinkers; and those who attack the thinker instead of the ideas, and thus fail the test and show themselves to be non-critical thinkers, like the poisoners and crucifiers of old. Thank goodness free speech is now protected by law.

If the first Gilgamesh “lecture” had happened in a classroom instead of here, those non-critical thinkers would have been demanding my resignation – because they don’t want their children to think beyond what they, the parents, believe.  It’s funny how parents don’t care if their kid goes more deeply into, say, math than them; that’s fine. But have my kid go more deeply – and more critically – into religion than I ever did?  Into politics and my country’s history?  That’s a different beast altogether.  As a rule, parents aren’t okay with that at all.

So that’s the challenge to critical thinking in so many of our classrooms today, and a reason for its boredom-inducing absence. If only teachers felt secure in speaking their minds, there could be incredible discussions in classrooms.

And for the record: I share my questions about sacred cows not because I delight in doing “ee-vil.”  We may as well accuse Socrates, Jesus, Buddha, Martin Luther, Copernicus, Voltaire, Darwin, Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and millions of other reformists dead and alive of “loving evil” for imagining – and speaking of – better visions of the Good or more sensible versions of the True.

I share these questions because first, I love asking them; second, it’s my way of supporting others who are asking them; and third, imperfect as all of us are, I believe these questions have vital value for happiness, intelligence, well-being, and, um, education. In my eyes, as much as your preachers or your parents, I am trying to do good. I’m just doing it by my own lights, instead of by the teachings of childhood.  I left those teachings long ago, by reading more than the preachers showed me. (I also discovered, in the cult of the early Christian leader Valentinus, an extinct version of Christianity I actually admire. It’s almost Buddhist. See Princeton religious historian Elaine Pagels’ eye-opening, and very readable, Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas for more.)

How can we think? Magic-based science (Creation Museum, Kentucky, USA)

And then there’s the issue of fairness. Millions of preachers clog the airwaves daily with their claims. Creationists attack science and infest science classrooms and textbooks.  It’s only fair that equal time is given to those of us who want to challenge them with critical thinking.

My last point:  Critical thinking can “corrupt the youth” on one condition: that youth fail to think critically themselves, as they read.  As long as the young think – chew – before swallowing this, or any, adult’s words, they’re not “corrupted” at all. No matter what those adults say.

I don’t know if any of this helped “stain the waters clear.”  I hope it did.

*    *    *

Now on to more fun with Gilgamesh, one of the wisest and – in the “sacred sex” scene that is the next post’s topic, also one of the most beautiful – books I’ve ever read.

Wait a minute. It just hit me.  My god, I’m about to discuss the oldest sex scene in the history of mankind.  Not a bad way to spend an evening.

It should be up in a day or two.

Please keep the comments critical, and thanks for doing that in such a friendly way in the first post.  And sorry for the length.  This was no fun to write, but I had to get it out.

–

Photo credits: Human Questions by AmberflyKezzie ; Creation Museum by rauchdickson

30 Comments

• At August 30, 2008, Unsucky English, Lecture 1: On Gilgamesh | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] "Best of" links in the sidebar are more presentable for first time visitors. Update 2: The first follow-up is posted here. It's more of a preface, [...]

• At August 30, 2008, Catana wrote:

  Misplaced modifier? By today's standards only, not when it was written.

  Catanas last blog post..Skimming the Surface: eye contact

• At August 30, 2008, Steve Ransom wrote:

  Clay, good points here. I agree that to think critically, one must examine ideas and thinking rather than simply attack those presenting the ideas and doing the thinking. Although, there is something to be said for one's credibility in such a line of thought.

  What I find the most perplexing is the notion that if science has not quantitatively proven it, it does not exist and must be put in the category of "superstition". There is so much yet to be "proven" that people know exist yet await scientific evidence. There are also many new discoveries yet to be made. And there has been so much that has been "proven" that was not/could not be proven at the time. Even you bring up the credulous notion that perhaps Jesus did not exist at all and site as support your argument a video clip and one of your own blog posts which fly in the face of staggering amounts of historically valid documentation. Can I "prove" it? No. And perhaps even if I could, my "proof" may never be good enough for someone who simply just does not want to accept that truth. We all tend to be ensnared somewhat by our own biases and predispositions. But, this is one of your main points that I agree with.

  No doubt the Christian church and Christians as a people have failed on so many fronts... all stemming from their failure to live up to the teachings of Jesus and the wiles of human nature. I don't discount that for a second. And science is critical in our society and in our thinking. However, one simply cannot discount faith because it cannot be scientifically, empirically proven (using proven carefully, as science does not claim to be able to prove anything with 100% certainty). Unless something can actually be scientifically unproven, then it still has room at the table for the critical thinkers and those with faith.

  But thanks for the reminder to continue to think critically and to participate in discourse (and to encourage our students to do likewise) that is logical rather than simply passionate and to analyze ideas rather than blindly attack them and those who espouse them. It is a good lesson for us all to remember.

• At August 30, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  Hi Clay -

  Critical thinking is, as you point out, often subject to the whims of the current sensibility. As you suggest - yes, think critically about math; no, stay away from religion - is a trap that we fall into.

  Learning about the hard stuff is hard, and dangerous. It's work and it means that we each have our own ideas and the ideas of others can not be controled or predicted.

  Emerson spoke about this in his address to the Phi Beta Kappa society of Harvard. I'm going to write about the thinker using the male pronoun, but I don't want to suggest that Human Thinking is a gender specific task. Emerson suggests that"...the scholar is the delegated intellect. In the right state, he is, Man Thinking. In the degenerate state, when the victim of society, he tends to become a mere thinker, or, still worse, the parrot of other men's thinking."

  He goes on to describe a man thinking, in active contemplation of the world around him, learning for himself. "The ambitious soul sits down before each refractory fact; one after another, reduces all strange constitutions, all new powers, to their class and their law, and goes on for ever to animate the last fibre of organization, the outskirts of nature, by insight." He thinks critically, organizes the world to satisfy himself.

  So - the Soul and nature become one to that thinking man. And he begins to ponder creation. "And what is that Root? Is not that the soul of his soul? — A thought too bold, — a dream too wild. He shall see, that nature is the opposite of the soul, answering to it part for part. One is seal, and one is print. Its beauty is the beauty of his own mind. Its laws are the laws of his own mind. Nature then becomes to him the measure of his attainments."

  Now, if you are Emerson - what do you do with books? They aren't YOUR experience of the world - they are someone else's. That makes them SUSPECT and DANGEROUS to us as native thinkers:

  "The theory of books is noble. The scholar of the first age received into him the world around; brooded thereon; gave it the new arrangement of his own mind, and uttered it again. It came into him, life; it went out from him, truth. It came to him, short-lived actions; it went out from him, immortal thoughts. It came to him, business; it went from him, poetry. It was dead fact; now, it is quick thought. It can stand, and it can go. It now endures, it now flies, it now inspires. Precisely in proportion to the depth of mind from which it issued, so high does it soar, so long does it sing."

  Here is the greatest danger- according to Emerson - that we mistake the writer for his work. If we agree with the book, the writer is a hero - if not, a bum.

  He calls it "grave mischief...the act of thought, — is transferred to the record. The poet chanting, was felt to be a divine man: henceforth the chant is divine also. The writer was a just and wise spirit: henceforward it is settled, the book is perfect; as love of the hero corrupts into worship of his statue. Instantly, the book becomes noxious: the guide is a tyrant. The sluggish and perverted mind of the multitude, slow to open to the incursions of Reason, having once so opened, having once received this book, stands upon it, and makes an outcry, if it is disparaged."

  And then we forget the origins of the books: "Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books.

  Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm."

  This happens with holy books, both "sacred" and "secular."

  The greatest danger to us as "critical thinkers" is that we turn our thinking over to others and to the books that they write. We let the work (and the writer) think for us. He says that a good book will pull us out of our own orbit - make us a sattelite and not a SUN!

  "Books are the best of things, well used; abused, among the worst. What is the right use? What is the one end, which all means go to effect? They are for nothing but to inspire. I had better never see a book, than to be warped by its attraction clean out of my own orbit, and made a satellite instead of a system."

  And here he gives us his belief in critical thinking: "The one thing in the world, of value, is the active soul. This every man is entitled to; this every man contains within him, although, in almost all men, obstructed, and as yet unborn. The soul active sees absolute truth; and utters truth, or creates.

  He says - now don't get me wrong. I love books and writers, and to read a good book helps him write his own BUT there is an active engaged way to read. "The discerning will read, in his Plato or Shakspeare, only that least part, — only the authentic utterances of the oracle; — all the rest he rejects, were it never so many times Plato's and Shakspeare's."

  Finally, he gives us his manifesto: "We will walk on our own feet; we will work with our own hands; we will speak our own minds."

  So - what does that say for the mindless recitation of facts and the sycophantic enslavement of the scholar? He demands a new way of thinking for every age.

  Is that empowering or terrifying? I think you would agree that the most patriotic and equally subversive thing that we each can do it to read, experience, and think for ourselves.

  Off my transcendentalist soapbox.

  Kate Tabors last blog post..Mindset to begin the year

• At August 30, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Maybe you're right, I can't say. But can you meet me half-way, and agree that the syntax of "noun adjective" - "water clear" - is non-standard even in this poem, which we see in the standard "adjective noun" order of things like "happy song" (not "song happy")? And that the inversion of "water clear" adds an ambiguity that makes this poem the gem it is?

  I'd hate for grammar debates on a secondary point to detract from the poetic beauty of the primary point.

• At August 30, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Steve, thanks for the input.

  I must have implied something I didn't intend, somewhere in this post, to make you think I argue that, as you say,

  if science has not quantitatively proven it, it does not exist and must be put in the category of “superstition”.

  I don't mean to imply that, and I don't think scientists would agree with it either.

  I think scientists would agree that science knows there are countless things it has not discovered, but that still exist. It's just that we can't call them "true" in an ontological and epistemological sense - we're not certain these "maybes" have being, or that they are true. They still could be.

  It's arguments that undemonstrated (or worse, undemonstrable) things are true with certainty that muddy the waters of "truth." Faith is a good word for those sorts of belief, but the faithful all too often use the "know" word instead of the "faith" word.

  And that's why Bin Laden and Bush are both right, I guess, and dinosaurs lived in Eden. I know that sounds sarcastic, but my intent is just to underscore how unfounded any traditional article of faith is today, when so much conflicting argument and evidence surrounds it.

  I have all sorts of faiths, based on my experience: I have faith that the universe is not evil, that nature doesn't contain a hell for people with independent beliefs to burn in forever, that death is probably as much the (peaceful) end for us as it is for that possum hit by the car on the side of the road, that there's no such thing as the devil or Jehovah or Brahman. But I also know that there's no way I can prove those things - yet - so I can't claim they're "true."

  Off to breakfast. Thanks again for the civility.

• At August 30, 2008, Steve Ransom wrote:

  Sorry... I forgot to mention the additional context of our twittering last night. I thought you would make the connection. Sorry. I do think that there is Truth with a capital T (absolute) and truth with a small t. T(t)ruth can be relative on many plains. Apart from scientific certainty about things that are measurable, it is probably next to impossible to "prove" Truth (capital T) as absolute on many fronts. Dealing with this is problematic, to be sure. I just want to make sure that we use the term "Faith" as not being unfounded or credulous all the time.

  Thanks for the response.

• At August 30, 2008, The American Scholar « Living on the Lip of Insanity wrote:

  [...] wisdom and think critically about all things (even the tough stuff like religion - “When Corrupting Youth is Good) something that he wrote triggered that ghost of Emerson: And that’s why so many types of hugely [...]

• At August 30, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Steve, take this in the spirit of search it's offered in: You say you think there is "Truth with a capital T." Can you name one that is not demonstrable and yet clear for everybody to see? Or name one without any of my silly conditions, and give me an idea of what it means to know an "absolute truth"?

  If I'm asking the wrong (or a flawed) question, change it as you will. I used to believe in absolute truth, back when I was in search of it. But it led me to conclude there's no such thing. Back to faith, which is something closer to "absolute opinion" instead of "absolute truth."

  Thanks again for enriching this discussion, Steve. I know you're sincere, and respect that. You may even change my views, if you care. But not yet ;-)

• At August 30, 2008, Your page is now on StumbleUpon! wrote:

  [...] Your page is on StumbleUpon [...]

• At August 30, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  For the record, I changed the word "misplaced" to ambiguous. Call me picky. (I worry, though, that it makes the tone more academic from the start than I want it to be.)

• At August 30, 2008, Steve Ransom wrote:

  Clay, it is my belief that there is often Truth with a capital "T" that is yet scientifically unprovable. Again, we get trapped in this circular logic. No, I can't prove it. But that does not mean that it does not exist. I can't see the atom, but I accept it as Truth. I have to admit, as a non-scientist, there is a little bit of faith there in scientific visualization equipment and mathematical equations. Inability to empirically "prove" is not necessarily an argument for superstition, folklore, or fantasy. That's all I really want to stress. Yes, faith becomes part of the equation here. But faith does not always have to be ill-informed or without merit, as you yourself recognize. You simply cannot deny the benefits of faith in things beyond which we can prove empirically (yes, there have also been a healthy number of negative examples one could dangle as well).

  Faith, hope, love... these are things I know to be True. It's not my intention to change your views, but simply to engage in rich, reasonable discussion. It is up to each of us to find what we consider Truth or truth. As your original post inferred, the danger comes when we cease to seek. Thanks for engaging with me in this discussion.

  Oh yes, here is a fun link I found: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article782065.ece

• At August 31, 2008, Calvin wrote:

  Hey Prof. Burell (I'm a student)

  I love your blog, and I've already emailed it to a few of my more open minded teachers for them to check out.

  I do have a few questions though - A lot of your fears about parental retaliation on touchy subjects such as "Lolita" and evolution and religion don't apply to my school here in Canada. It may be because I am in an International Baccalaureate class, but most of my teachers don't shy away from discussing controversial topics and challenging the ingrained thinking of the students.

  What do you think is it that makes the teaching of more controversial topics more accepted in schools? Is my school just a freak exception or is it because of Canada's more secular government? And does this make for a better education (or as you would say, not teachers teaching but students learning) system?

  Keep up the awesome blog posts!

• At August 31, 2008, diane wrote:

  "Stained the water clear" Clear can denote pure and unclouded...or untroubled, certain. With questioning comes doubt but also enlightenment.

  Adam & Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They gained understanding and were therefore capable of making choices.

  Innocence will not protect our students; knowledge is their shield and armor.

  dianes last blog post..Have a Fair Day!

• At September 1, 2008, The Day I Thought Gilgamesh Would Cost Me My Job | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] Unsucky English series so far: Preface ~ Gilgamesh [...]

• At September 1, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Kate, I'm sorry to be late on this. I had to save it until I could focus.

  I'm glad I didn't forget to come back to it. You've moved Emerson up my reading list (and Tabor ;-) ).

  Every book came from a more or less fallible, more or less disinterested, more or less tolerant and intelligent, human. That's the simple and resisted point.

• At September 1, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Hi Calvin,

  I'm hearing from more and more Canadians that the symptoms of medievalism I'm describing don't apply there.

  I read last year about a Minnesota (USA) school district that canceled IB because parents found it "anti-American and anti-Christian." So telling.

  Consider yourself lucky in your school in Canada.

  (By the way, it's "Mr.," - or "Clay" - not "Professor" ;-) .

  Thanks for dropping in. Keep the comments coming too :)

• At September 1, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Diane, I like the implication that the "unstained" water is not clear at all - until the poet "stains" it with vision.

  I hate trying to explicate paradoxes. :(

  Thanks!

• At September 1, 2008, John Larkin wrote:

  "Wait a minute. It just hit me. My god, I’m about to discuss the oldest sex scene in the history of mankind. Not a bad way to spend an evening.

  It should be up in a day or two."

  Well, I see it did get up. Was it as good for you as it was for me?

• At September 1, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Tee hee. I'm swatting punny impulses left and right as I write my way through these posts :)

  And it was good for me.

• At September 1, 2008, Kate Tabor wrote:

  And that every person is entitled to an "active soul." We are all entitled to think for ourself no matter what or who has come before us.

  Powerful stuff when you are 17, 50, or 100 years old.

  Kate Tabors last blog post..The American Scholar

• At September 3, 2008, SchoolFinder Blog: Teaching as a Subversive Activity wrote:

  [...] started with Clay Burrell and Beyond School, who has retired from teaching and is now diligently, perhaps feverously, [...]

• At September 4, 2008, Daz_H's Network on Delicious wrote:

  [...] When Corrupting the Youth is Good | Beyond School SAVE A lot of your fears about parental retaliation on touchy subjects such as “Lolita” and evolution and religion don’t apply to my school here in Canada. It may be because I am in an International Baccalaureate class, but most of my teachers don’t shy away from discussing controversial topics and challenging the ingrained thinking of the students. ewan.mcintosh [...]

• At September 4, 2008, Unsucky English, Lecture 3: Adam and Eve in Bizarro-World | Beyond School wrote:

  [...] the “good people” students tell their parents? Were those parents emailing or calling the principal at the [...]

• At September 5, 2008, OLDaily ~ by Stephen Downes wrote:

  [...] the ethic and spirit of critical enquiry. Clay Burell, Beyond School, September 4, 2008 [Link] [Tags: none] [...]

• At September 7, 2008, Polymeme | Polymath's Guide to News wrote:

  [...] 3 linksBEYOND SCHOOL : "Piper, sit thee down and write In a book that all may read!" So he vanished from my sight, And I plucked a hollow reed,. And I made a rural pen, And I stained the water clear, And I wrote my happy song, Every child may joy to hear... READ MORE [...]

• At September 8, 2008, When Corrupting the Youth is Good - Mixx wrote:

  [...] When Corrupting the Youth is Good 1 vote [...]

• At September 10, 2008, When Corrupting the Youth is Good - Mixx wrote:

  [...] Corrupting the Youth is Good view story 1 [...]

• At September 11, 2008, » OLDaily 04/set/09 - Redes de Aprendizaje El Blog Boyacense: El sitio de referencia de tod@s l@s boyacenses wrote:

  [...] y cuando la enseñanza se opone a la ética y al espíritu de los cuestionamientos críticos. [L] [...]

• At September 14, 2008, Charlie A. Roy wrote:

  An interesting post and great comments to boot. Playing off of the freedom question from the previous blog post I wonder how in a secular school environment students are allowed the freedom to ask the questions of: Who is God, who are they, who is Christ, and why the Church? These questions certainly take critical thought from anyone who dons the descriptor "believer".

  I work in a Catholic school and our students are free to debate these questions all day long. Of course we seek to pass on the Gospel and do so. Our chaplain is quick to remind all of our faculty that if what we believe in the end is really the "Truth" then why would we fear dialogue on these issues and engaging questions about these core issues.

  Long live the debate because from it comes learning.

  Charlie A. Roys last blog post..The Debate on Drug Testing

Related posts:

1. (How) Would You Use This Critical Thinking Video?
2. Refining the Message: A Re-Post and Self-Check on Fear and Irrelevance in Education
3. Truly Critical: Thinking about Science, Religion, and Goodness
4. Fugue: Jesus, Plato, Confucius, Goldman Sachs

I blogged about teaching this novel, and my readers were split on whether AP Lit students should be allowed to read it. What do you think? Should it be banned from high school “college level” literature classes? Why or why not?

Below is every response in the forum, in the order they were posted. I didn’t cherry-pick, and I only removed names. All said AP Lit students should be allowed to read it; two suggested making an alternate available for those uncomfortable with the premise; one expressed discomfort (not as bad a thing in a classroom as it could be elsewhere). Several addressed the benefit of exposure to this before they hit it in solitude in college. And many were plain puzzled that people think the book is any worse than nighttime television or movies. (A few made me scratch my head. Follow-up discussion time approaches.)

It just seemed right to put their voices here. Here they are:

Student Responses to Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita:

3.1. I don’t think it should be banned. There is nothing to ban about really. I don’t understand why we have to protected from great literary works just because it has inappropriate concepts like sex. I think AP Lit students should be definitely allowed to read it though I’m not so sure about just the general seniors or other grades that aren’t mature to handle it. It really depends on the maturity level and how the students can handle that inside a classroom. Besides, for AP classes, which are supposed to be “college prerequisite” classes, should be handling students that are ready to take the advanced material for college and should level up to the college level. Out of the shell, I say.

More under the fold . . .

3.2. Practically speaking, we already know this kind of things. Even though we don’t, I think it’s the time to learn to face the reality, to go out of the school’s wall. I can’t even really think of any reason why it should be banned from a reading list, except for the fact that there are many French phrases that are unusually difficult to high school students.

3.3. Frankly, I don’t think it matters whether it should be banned from high school AP classes because it’s not like it has any bold offensive or perverted language. There are parts in which the descriptions and word choices are very descriptive and erotic, but, like [student] mentioned, we’re all at an age where we are not oblivious of these informations. This might sound weird, but in a way, instead of watching porn and fulfilling their sexual desires, it would be more efficient and educational to satisfy their needs while enriching their literary minds.

3.4. I don’t think it should be banned, of course. Honestly before we read this, I thought it would be more provocative than it is because I heard it was a banned novel in many places in the U.S. But it’s not that provocative afterall. More importantly, this is a literary masterpiece. The art far outweighs the maybe provocative aspects of the book. Come on, are we going to ban the painting by Sandro Botticelli, The Birth of Venus, just because it is “provocative?”

3.5. I think Lolita should be taught in a college level English class in high school. If were to teach this to students of my own, (if I had any) I wouldn’t know how to approach a book like how we walked through it. Since college level English shouldn’t screen any sort of writing despite its’ content.

3.6. [student] and [student] ‘s take on this question is similar to mine. We’re old enough to read this. I mean, we watch soft porn in movies that we watch every weekend, we are exposed to other obscenities in the television every night, so why shelter us from what we already know? There’s no sense in that. It’s better to just accept people’s sexual preferences and instead of shunning them, we should try to understand the psychology of it. In doing so, we will better understand the way our society functions and learn how to handle these kinds of situations should it happen to us. People are still people, diseased with a love for younger people or not. Humbert is a nice gentleman to me. He is not a beast. I would be friends with Humbert. I think that he’s intellectual, humorous, and a genuinely great guy. It’s like AIDS. Just because one has it doesn’t mean that he should be banned from eating at a restaurant. Students should be given the opportunity to widen their take on the world and learn how to become more accepting of good people who have little quirks. And it challenges age old beliefs of what it means to be a ‘child’ so, I believe that students should be taught Lolita. They could read it in their sophomore year even.

3.7. As a high school student who read Lolita, I do not understand why this novel should be banned in high school. Although I might understand that some high school students who are immature and cannot simply feel the weight that the book contains are simply unfit to read this novel, in a high school “college level” literature class, I believe that the students have the capability and maturity to handle this novel. To ban such a novel like Lolita would be limiting the student’s view on world of literature. And we wouldn’t want that to happen. Do we?

3.8. It shouldn’t be banned. It is not like it’s encouraging male adults to have sexual relationships with underage girls. And even if that’s what some might think the whole story is about, then that’s that. Not every books can satisfy everyone’s tastes. And the language is just simpley too beautiful and sensitive to be banned…

3.9. I’m split between banning the book and allowing the book in high school. I say ban the book in high schools (especially the U.S., no offense), because students are not up to the level of understanding the literary and meaning of the book. Also, high schools students themselves are still developing their sense of morality, so by letting them read Lolita, they might interpret things differently. But, I also say allow the book–why not challenge students? After all, high school is a safe ground to practice real life situations, college works, etc.

3.10. At first, I thought Lolita should be banned. At first, I thought it was too provocative. But now, I think the book should be opened to seniors of high school. The novel is more than merely about sex. It deals with the psychological complexities of a pedophile, delving into many psychological aspects that are debatable. The novel provides many topics that would be interesting to have a discussion about. Also, sex is prevalent throughout many literary works (although it is less evident in most books). The book may be shocking to students who first read it but I think once they will overcome the shock as they think more in depth about the novel.

3.11. I don’t understand why it’s banned from college level classes. It is a bit provocative, but it’s not like we are never going to learn about sex. I think there still exists a quite strong feeling against the mention of sex. It’s more weird that people consider it as something weird, since it’s just our way of reproducing, the main reason of life from biological view.

3.12. I’m sort of split on the issue myself. I don’t think it should be banned from high school just because it’s a high school, but I also don’t think students should be forced to read it. If the students are mature enough and decide for themselves that they can handle it, it would be a wonderful experience for them. I think it’s definitely a good idea for an AP Lit teacher to introduce the book to the students, but perhaps it would be even better if another book was left as a back-up option if the student really doesn’t feel like he/she is ready for it.

3.13. Nabokov’s novel Lolita seems to be a should-be-banned topic on the surface, as it is a love story between a forty year old man and a twelve year old girl. But if we take a deeper look, it is not a work that we really should freak out about. Comforting news for the people who think it is not appropriate for students to read is that the novel isn’t really provocative. Rather it opens a new perspective on a topic that people simply label and do not attempt to take a second look. This novel teaches the reader to step back and see the whole forest rather than a tree.

3.14.

…namely that “offensive” is frequently but a synonym for “unusual”; and a great work of art is of course original…

Is it not true that colleges and universities desire student with experience, and open-mind ness for different ideas and concepts? How can they ban a concept, a view, an idea in the 21st century? This is like banning a part of history for us not to acknowledge about the world. This novel cannot be banned from “college level” literature classes. Why do we read and learn about literature? Is it not it to open our minds to new ideas and concepts that we did not think about, to widen our view, and to appreciate different cultures that are “unusual” to us? I have been living in different places, and we all have different cultures. Some cultures might think that not looking at a person’s eye, and looking down while a person is talking is more respectful than having an eye contact. In some cultures, people “PSSSS” at you when they want to call you. These are different minds, different level of viewing the world. 21st century is the ‘Globalization’, and ‘internationalization’ we have passed the time to ponder whether people should be allowed to read books about a black person, or a woman, so why not about human nature? I would understand if Lolita was read to freshmen, or maybe sophomores, who are not mature enough to handle the idea of what is really going on around the world, or maybe average high school English classes in a public school where there are tons of crazy and unpredictable parents who don’t want their children to “grow-up” and “open” their eyes yet. But to college-bound students? That must be a joke!

3.15. I don’t think it should be banned from high school at all. The level of sexuality in this book is not that extreme and even if it was I think that students can handle it whether it is AP Lit or just regular English. Also, since Lolita actually has a moral message, I would highly recommend this book for AP Lit students so they can explore and discredit all those that make Lolita sound like a child molester’s sex experiences.

3.16. I also agree with [student] in the idea that Lolita should be taught in high school. As Mr. Burell mentioned in class, I think it is better for us to be aware of these dangers that lie in the real society. I think simply hiding these factors of society is not helping the students but making them more vulnerable in the society.

3.17. High school is not a “pre-school” to college. The high school curriculum itself also teaches students about health and STDs, whats wrong with a book about “convincing love”. Korean public school students start their sex education in 3rd grade, whats wrong with reading about a somewhat sexual book. To tell you the truth I believe that schools are just somewhat binded by the fact to teach Lolita due to the fact that a middle aged teacher is teaching it to teenagers. Although I agree with the fact that it shouldn’t be taught in normal English classes, to an AP Literature class I think its really a nice choice.

3.18. I think that by the age high schoolers are legible for AP lit, they can handle Lolita. Lolita isn’t a pornographic book, but is rather a book that deals with real-life issues such as child molesters.

3.19. I see no problem in assigning Lolita because high school students should be aware of the power of an unreliable narrator, and Lolita is a great example of that. Some can argue that it is pornographic, but it is not like high schoolers don’t know how a baby is made; in fact, they can hardly suppress their hormones and curiosity.

3.20. High school “college level” means a college course, and I think that the syllabus should follow what the college students study. Lolita isn’t that bad to take, as long as the students are mature enough to not make faces or be obnoxious about the sexual content of the story. Really, I think that high school students should be exposed to these kinds of hard material before they hit college, because if we experience this our freshman year in college with nobody to help, it would be a disaster.

3.21. Those who are afraid to teach the novel are those who have doubts about the mentality of their students. At 18-19 years of age, most AP Lit students should be able to read and understand where the content truly lies. Just by the mere beauty of the wording in this book, it should be taught. It would teach a lot more to read throught this book once on how to be a good writer than to read what Barron’s has to say and write mock essays.

3.22. Hmm. I have to be honest; I was disturbed by some of the parts in the novel. Sometimes the scenes weren’t directly described but the way Humbert Humbert described them—it just gave me the chills. But we got to face it—AP Literature is a college course and is designed for college students. I guess we should have the mindset to learn to read and understand the novel in a mature way although—sometimes it was hard for me to… let’s say, focus on the artful perspective. But my final though is that, we are old enough to handle this. It is a provocative novel but has a lot of deeper meanings inside it that is worth taking a look at.

Photo: Beware of the Book by Florian.B. on Flickr

5 Comments

• At April 23, 2008, Adrienne wrote:

  Perhaps you should be sending this to the College Board Powers That Be? :-)

  It does remind me of when I taught The Chocolate War to a group of 9th graders in the UK (at an international school). One of the final assignments was to make a persuasive presentation to a group of peers about the same issue: should this book be required reading, or should it be banned? Like your students, many of mine were puzzled that others viewed the book as so dangerous and immoral. Others suggested perhaps it should be a choice rather than required, but not one of them suggested it should be banned -- not even the sweet, conservative Muslim girl who told me at the start of the unit that she was feeling uncomfortable reading some of the more graphic sections. Even she was able to recognize that there was value in reading such a text -- even though it tore right through all that she felt personally and morally opposed to. If nothing else, it probably strengthened her faith rather than destroyed it.

• At April 24, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Sorry to be late on this one :(

  Just goes to show, doesn't it, that the "danger" is not that students can handle it - both our experiences suggest they can (though the student feedback made me consider offering an alternate for those who don't feel they can handle differing viewpoints or mature content - bye-bye Shakespeare?).

  So it seems we fear not immature students, doesn't it? It's the immature parents we fear. So weird.

  And whether "faith" is strengthened or weakened by encounters with the world? That's the student's personal road - that's education. Both results are growth somehow.

• At October 24, 2008, vel wrote:

  I was taught Lolita in an AP Language class back in high school and it was exceptionally well done. However, I went to a liberal selective enrollment public school that never really had to worry about parents or the board breathing down its neck.

  As someone who comes from that kind of background, I am always a little shocked when confronted with the kind of narrow-minded people who will try to keep books like this out of the curriculum despite the fact that it is, in my opinion, one of the best novels of the 20th century.

  The hypocrisy is ridiculous when teenagers, many of whom are having sex, are prevented from reading/experiencing media that is remotely related to sex in the curriculum. Additionally, parents that cry out against them are still the same ones that let their 14-year-old play hours of GTA:IV and watch highly sexualized commercials, movies, and TV shows.

  These kind of parents lack trust in their children and in their children's teachers. It's a strange situation.

• At October 24, 2008, Clay Burell wrote:

  Vel,

  Well-said.

  And it is strange.

  But my, wasn't that a wonderful read?

  Have you checked out Nabokov's Pnin? A little novella about a weird little emigre Russian professor of Russian language adrift in America. Laugh-out-loud funny, heartwarming, quirky goodness.

• At October 25, 2008, Your page is now on StumbleUpon! wrote:

  [...] Your page is on StumbleUpon [...]

Related posts:

1. Meme: High School Daze to Praise (For Mature Audiences Only)
2. Fear-Based Curriculum: A Language Arts Tragedy (More on Teaching Lolita)
3. Add Your Classes and Favorite Tools to the Wiki (update)
4. Open Thread 2: Your Dream Elective Class for a 1:1 High School?