Woke teachers try to ban ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ in schools

[Lycanthrope]

Doesn't matter if it's progressives or Moms for Freeberty - STOP trying to ban books, you proto-Nazis.

 

[mrjurrs]

i am not surprised.

overwoke wokers always try to ban things

In America, it is not the left that is banning things.

 

[PoS]

Never said it was okay. Great book and movie. Just pointing out you don't seem to care when it's a wingnut con doing it. I remember reading and viewing both in high-school. Robert Duval as Boo Radley.

Quote me where I ever advocated a book ban. I dare you.

I will definitely keep being me.

Yup, keep up the hypocrisy and double standard like you always do.

I do not support such as ban. Those instructors need to be terminated.

OMG, you made a great post for once! I salute you, sir.

It is always a good idea to compare any story from the NY Post or from Fox News to the same story from a real news source.

For instance, a Washington Post story mentions all the students coming to these teachers asking that they not have to read this book. The Post story excludes that. Thus, another juxtaposition from the right-wing who ban books because the parents object to them. In this case, the students have spoken.

I have often wondered how black students respond to thos novel, where the hero is a white savior. I understand it's value back when most students were white and clueless of the depravity of white supremacy. But times have changed and many more students are not white and they would like to read and learn from novels who have characters they can relate to.

To Kill a Mockingbird is a great book, but I sense it has had its day. Time has passed it by.

And btw, it is not banned from the classroom.

So you support its banning. Thanks for showing us the real you.

 

[LouC]

Have you heard of Florida?

 

[LouC]

Amazing.

I read both articles linked in the OP's OP.

Wow, what an education that was all on its own.

The short New York post article pulled bits and pieces of sliced and diced quotations from the lengthy and in depth article on this story in the Washington Post.

NYP you can thank the Washington Post for doing the heavy lifting as it were, since the authors of their article did nothing to add anything new, they did not interview a single person involved in the book removal from the core curriculum issue at that school.

They did not interview any staff from the school or the school board, they did not interview any students from the school, past or present, to get their input, they did nothing of the sort that real reporters would do, as the Washington Post reporter did.

But the original content in the NYP ""article"" is a poorly disguised attempt to, improperly contrast, what a handful of teachers were trying to do at their school, after considered takes from the actual students they were educating, compared to what scores of "outraged" right wing parents and school board members have been attempting to do across the nation, quite successfully do.

The teachers at the Mulkiteo weren't demanding To Kill a Mockingbird be removed from the school, just to have it removed from a mandatory read in the English core curriculum for Freshman students. They were OK with it being available in the school library.

The NYP ""article"" as I said was trying to contrast what 4 teachers, after considered input from their students, at the Mulkiteo school attempted to do to to improve the curriculum compared to what hundreds of outraged parents and school board members have been about across the nation.

The NYP attempted to give give the Right Wing book banners cover as victims just trying to rid schools of "gay porn" while the 4 teachers at Mulkiteo as some evil WOKE left wingers.

It is truly a blessing in disguise that the OP included links to the two different articles, for one can learn so much from reading both, the Washington Post article is well done, thorough, comprehensive, objective reporting. The NYP is an example of lazy, biased, superficial reporting.

 

[eohrnberger]

In America, it is not the left that is banning things.

This would seem to disagree with that assertion.

Woke teachers try to ban ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ in schools

The teachers from Washington’s Mukilteo School District ‘believed they were protecting children’ from ‘harm’

nypost.com

 

[Hari Seldon]

Quote me where I ever advocated a book ban. I dare you.


Yup, keep up the hypocrisy and double standard like you always do.

OMG, you made a great post for once! I salute you, sir.

So you support its banning. Thanks for showing us the real you.

You have a reading comprehension issue. I never said you were for banning books. Just pointing out you are simply highlighting this one because it's not the usual wingnuts doing the banning.

 

[mrjurrs]

This would seem to disagree with that assertion.

Woke teachers try to ban ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ in schools

The teachers from Washington’s Mukilteo School District ‘believed they were protecting children’ from ‘harm’

nypost.com

Is it banned? Or are they trying to ban it?

"As book bans in schools across the country escalate, a handful of right-wing activist organizations and Republican lawmakers are behind them, putting pressure on districts to ban books about and by LGBTQ people and people of color."

Who's Behind the Escalating Push to Ban Books? A New Report Has Answers

Right-wing activist organizations and Republican lawmakers are pushing to get books about LGBTQ people and racism removed, says PEN America.

www.edweek.org

 

[eohrnberger]

Is it banned? Or are they trying to ban it?

"As book bans in schools across the country escalate, a handful of right-wing activist organizations and Republican lawmakers are behind them, putting pressure on districts to ban books about and by LGBTQ people and people of color."

Who's Behind the Escalating Push to Ban Books? A New Report Has Answers

Right-wing activist organizations and Republican lawmakers are pushing to get books about LGBTQ people and racism removed, says PEN America.

www.edweek.org

Your first confusion is conflating 'book banning' with protecting children from explicit materials they've not mature enough to be exposed to, as decided by those children's parents.
A good rule of thumb is 'If it's too explicit for a school board meeting, it's too explicit for an under aged child'.

Your second confusion is that those explicit books are not banned, they are available for purchase just as they they've always been, just not available in those children's school library, so not the same at all.

The liberal's and progressive's continued misrepresentation of these 2 points is clearly grossly mischaracterized to the point of dishonesty, their typical tactic, with the DNC political activists and political propagandists being their accomplices, providing the liberal's and progressive's cover to hide behind and pushing the liberal's and progressive's 'book banning' narrative.

Cast in a larger frame of reference:

The liberal's and progressive's agenda is to destroy the social fabric / culture which presently exists, the one that everyone is familiar with, one which has well served to further the Western world as a whole, and replace it with the social fabric / culture which they want, containing not only the famous rainbows and Unicorns of their utopia (a dystopia in reality), but also containing all the bitterly contested culture war issues that sane people object to and have already rejected. Yet the liberals and progressives are surprised when all the same people object and reject, then resorting smearing them with any number of baseless vile insults. All along their media accomplices only further the same and provide cover.​

​

All as part of the culture war that those same liberals and progressives initiated, and yet the same one they are losing. It is of little wonder why the liberals and progressives are so angry, hate filled, and excessively emotional.​

The irony of it all is that these same liberals and progressives claim to have some sort of moral and intellectual high ground, all that unearned and unjustified. <SMH>

 

[trixare4kids]

Doesn't matter if it's progressives or Moms for Freeberty - STOP trying to ban books, you proto-Nazis.

Oh, it matters who does it and for what reason. Parents have the right to monitor what comes into their very young children's minds. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, some simply wish to whitewash history, spare feelings of racially sensitive material. Though this is a fictional read, it also represents real life, the way it was, less than a century ago.

This book is HS reading, so no, no banning is necessary. Age-appropriate reading. Wake up, wokesters.

 

[trixare4kids]

Your first confusion is conflating 'book banning' with protecting children from explicit materials they've not mature enough to be exposed to, as decided by those children's parents.
A good rule of thumb is 'If it's too explicit for a school board meeting, it's too explicit for an under aged child'.

Your second confusion is that those explicit books are not banned, they are available for purchase just as they they've always been, just not available in those children's school library, so not the same at all.

The liberal's and progressive's continued misrepresentation of these 2 points is clearly grossly mischaracterized to the point of dishonesty, their typical tactic, with the DNC political activists and political propagandists being their accomplices, providing the liberal's and progressive's cover to hide behind and pushing the liberal's and progressive's 'book banning' narrative.

Cast in a larger frame of reference:

The liberal's and progressive's agenda is to destroy the social fabric / culture which presently exists, the one that everyone is familiar with, one which has well served to further the Western world as a whole, and replace it with the social fabric / culture which they want, containing not only the famous rainbows and Unicorns of their utopia (a dystopia in reality), but also containing all the bitterly contested culture war issues that sane people object to and have already rejected. Yet the liberals and progressives are surprised when all the same people object and reject, then resorting smearing them with any number of baseless vile insults. All along their media accomplices only further the same and provide cover.​

​

All as part of the culture war that those same liberals and progressives initiated, and yet the same one they are losing. It is of little wonder why the liberals and progressives are so angry, hate filled, and excessively emotional.​

The irony of it all is that these same liberals and progressives claim to have some sort of moral and intellectual high ground, all that unearned and unjustified. <SMH>

Bravo!

 

[mrjurrs]

Your first confusion is conflating 'book banning' with protecting children from explicit materials they've not mature enough to be exposed to, as decided by those children's parents.
A good rule of thumb is 'If it's too explicit for a school board meeting, it's too explicit for an under aged child'.

Your second confusion is that those explicit books are not banned, they are available for purchase just as they they've always been, just not available in those children's school library, so not the same at all.

The liberal's and progressive's continued misrepresentation of these 2 points is clearly grossly mischaracterized to the point of dishonesty, their typical tactic, with the DNC political activists and political propagandists being their accomplices, providing the liberal's and progressive's cover to hide behind and pushing the liberal's and progressive's 'book banning' narrative.

Cast in a larger frame of reference:

The liberal's and progressive's agenda is to destroy the social fabric / culture which presently exists, the one that everyone is familiar with, one which has well served to further the Western world as a whole, and replace it with the social fabric / culture which they want, containing not only the famous rainbows and Unicorns of their utopia (a dystopia in reality), but also containing all the bitterly contested culture war issues that sane people object to and have already rejected. Yet the liberals and progressives are surprised when all the same people object and reject, then resorting smearing them with any number of baseless vile insults. All along their media accomplices only further the same and provide cover.​

​

All as part of the culture war that those same liberals and progressives initiated, and yet the same one they are losing. It is of little wonder why the liberals and progressives are so angry, hate filled, and excessively emotional.​

The irony of it all is that these same liberals and progressives claim to have some sort of moral and intellectual high ground, all that unearned and unjustified. <SMH>

Your first confusion is that all the books have explicit materials.
Your second confusion is what banned means. Using your definition, you cannot name one thing that has been banned. Using the actual definition...books are being banned.
banned, verb, officially exclude from a place.
At least we have an intellectual high ground, your post is proof of that.

 

[Kushinator]

Oh, it matters who does it and for what reason. Parents have the right to monitor what comes into their very young children's minds. In the case of To Kill a Mockingbird, some simply wish to whitewash history, spare feelings of racially sensitive material. Though this is a fictional read, it also represents real life, the way it was, less than a century ago.

This book is HS reading, so no, no banning is necessary. Age-appropriate reading. Wake up, wokesters.

Age appropriate reading

The idea that anyone is going to restrict what kids want to watch / see / read is downright hilarious! So while the good 'ol crusade to purify childhood might sound like a worthy cause, it's really an exercise in futility. Kids curse, repeat racist shit their parents say, bully, read smut / watch smut, play violent video games, talk shit online, vape, etc.... It was no different than when you were a kid, no different when i was a kid, and certainly no different now days other than better access to communication tech.

There might be some parents who heavily restrict what their children do from birth until high school... and that's where it all falls apart. Those are the parents who have created children who do not know how to adjust on a social level, especially when they encounter their first titty pic or whatever. Then the child becomes unglued as they realize mommy and daddy can't sterilize the rest of the world.

 

[trixare4kids]

Age appropriate reading

The idea that anyone is going to restrict what kids want to watch / see / read is downright hilarious! So while the good 'ol crusade to purify childhood might sound like a worthy cause, it's really an exercise in futility. Kids curse, repeat racist shit their parents say, bully, read smut / watch smut, play violent video games, talk shit online, vape, etc.... It was no different than when you were a kid, no different when i was a kid, and certainly no different now days other than better access to communication tech.

There might be some parents who heavily restrict what their children do from birth until high school... and that's where it all falls apart. Those are the parents who have created children who do not know how to adjust on a social level, especially when they encounter their first titty pic or whatever. Then the child becomes unglued as they realize mommy and daddy can't sterilize the rest of the world.

You're off topic but I do stand by my very brief point that parents have the right to monitor their very young children's exposure to certain topics, including those read in the classroom.

In this particular thread, it's public school teachers who want to ban the book, "To Kill a Mockingbird". Read the O/P.

 

[Kushinator]

Have you heard of Florida?

It depends on what part. South Florida is far more liberal, but there are pockets of crazy everywhere you look. Once you go north of Orlando, it's basically AlaGeorgia.

 

[eohrnberger]

Your first confusion is that all the books have explicit materials.

Refer to the rule of thumb. If the book is too explicit to be read before a school board meeting, it has not business or justification to be made available to the under age, especially not if those children's parents object.
Enough of those books were read before school board meetings and that reading halted. If in doubt, refer to Senator Kennedy's reading of a couple of them.

Your assertion that the books under discussion don't contain explicit materials is laughable, considering the readings above. It really doesn't matter, as it is the children's parents which are raising the objection, and they have the last word on this issues concerning their children anyway.

Your second confusion is what banned means. Using your definition, you cannot name one thing that has been banned. Using the actual definition...books are being banned.
banned, verb, officially exclude from a place.

That is an inaccurate definition of the word ban when used as a verb.

ban verb ˈban ​

banned; banning; bans​

Synonyms of ban​

transitive verb​

1 : to prohibit especially by legal means​

ban discrimination​

Is smoking banned in all public buildings?​

also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of​

ban a book​

ban a pesticide​

2 : bar entry 2 sense 3c​

banned from the U.N.​

Definition of BANNED

to prohibit especially by legal means; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of; bar; curse… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

No mention of 'place' in the definition.

At least we have an intellectual high ground, your post is proof of that.

More baseless self stroking.

 

[Kushinator]

You're off topic but I do stand by my very brief point that parents have the right to monitor their very young children's exposure to certain topics

Sure. But it's not going to last unless you isolate them socially and remove them from a peer environment... completely!

including those read in the classroom.

Children whose parents prohibit them from engaging in classroom material because of whatever will get bullied and face far more severe consequences than learning about slave rape or how to put on a condom.

In this particular thread, it's public school teachers who want to ban the book, "To Kill a Mockingbird". Read the O/P.

It's two weirdo teachers who aren't going to be in that profession for too long.

 

[Kushinator]

If the book is too explicit to be read before a school board meeting, it has not business or justification to be made available to the under age

What does this even mean?

especially not if those children's parents object.

Then when they go home, they play fortnite and call their friends fags when they lose.

Enough of those books were read before school board meetings and that reading halted. If in doubt, refer to Senator Kennedy's reading of a couple of them.

Bunch of scrotums.

don't contain explicit materials

If you clutch your pearls tight enough, do you think they will turn into diamonds?

as it is the children's parents which are raising the objection, and they have the last word on this issues concerning their children anyway.

I will admit that new age parents (of my generation) are kinda soft and weak. They won't even let their children walk to school or take the bus because they are GONNA GET KIDNAPPED!

 

[mrjurrs]

Refer to the rule of thumb. If the book is too explicit to be read before a school board meeting, it has not business or justification to be made available to the under age, especially not if those children's parents object.
Enough of those books were read before school board meetings and that reading halted. If in doubt, refer to Senator Kennedy's reading of a couple of them.

Your assertion that the books under discussion don't contain explicit materials is laughable, considering the readings above. It really doesn't matter, as it is the children's parents which are raising the objection, and they have the last word on this issues concerning their children anyway.


That is an inaccurate definition of the word ban when used as a verb.

ban verb ˈban​

banned; banning; bans​

Synonyms of ban​

transitive verb​

1 : to prohibit especially by legal means​

ban discrimination​

Is smoking banned in all public buildings?​

also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of​

ban a book​

ban a pesticide​

2 : bar entry 2 sense 3c​

banned from the U.N.​

Definition of BANNED

to prohibit especially by legal means; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of; bar; curse… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

No mention of 'place' in the definition.


More baseless self stroking.

Oxford dictionary. You've never heard of someone being banned from a location? See your definition #1 and allow your brain to think.
Sen. Kennedy is a tool. He graduated from an Ivy League university and knows much of the crap he spews is not true.

Maybe MAGAts would be happier if they got more involved in self stroking.

 

[Rumpel]

As long as it those 'bad things' complies with their demanded political narratives.


Especially not themselves. After all, the 'woke people/ view themselves as the only sole and rightful owners of the moral high ground, so much so they've secured the 'privileged' to talk down to and lecture everyone else, regardless of the reality.

that is wokeness in a nut.shell.

wokers are the most repulsive of all self.righteous Pharisees.

 

[Rumpel]

for oberwoke wokers the rest of the world are Nazis …..

 

[j brown's body]

Refer to the rule of thumb. If the book is too explicit to be read before a school board meeting, it has not business or justification to be made available to the under age, especially not if those children's parents object.
Enough of those books were read before school board meetings and that reading halted. If in doubt, refer to Senator Kennedy's reading of a couple of them.

Your assertion that the books under discussion don't contain explicit materials is laughable, considering the readings above. It really doesn't matter, as it is the children's parents which are raising the objection, and they have the last word on this issues concerning their children anyway.


That is an inaccurate definition of the word ban when used as a verb.

ban verb ˈban​

banned; banning; bans​

Synonyms of ban​

transitive verb​

1 : to prohibit especially by legal means​

ban discrimination​

Is smoking banned in all public buildings?​

also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of​

ban a book​

ban a pesticide​

2 : bar entry 2 sense 3c​

banned from the U.N.​

Definition of BANNED

to prohibit especially by legal means; also : to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of; bar; curse… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

No mention of 'place' in the definition.


More baseless self stroking.

Debate politics has plenty of threads about the right's efforts to ban books that are not explicit, which is a ridiculously general term to begin with. There are parts of the Bible you can't read at a school board meeting because they are explicit.

The right-wing is banning books from schools just as the government banned smoking in public places. Both books and cigarettes are still available for purchase.

 

[j brown's body]

As long as it those 'bad things' complies with their demanded political narratives.


Especially not themselves. After all, the 'woke people/ view themselves as the only sole and rightful owners of the moral high ground, so much so they've secured the 'privileged' to talk down to and lecture everyone else, regardless of the reality.

The right has ceded the moral high ground.

 

[eohrnberger]

for oberwoke wokers the rest of the world are Nazis …..

In reality the oberwoke wokers are far more Nazi and totalitarian.

Take the oberwoke wokers and their pushing this 'personal pronoun' idiocy, where misgendering someone is punishable.

California library kicks out ex-college athlete after being accused of misgendering​

by Asher Notheis, Social Media Producer, August 21, 2023​

California library kicks out ex-college athlete after being accused of misgendering - Washington Examiner

A former college athlete was kicked out of a library in California after she was accused of misgendering people while talking about transgender athletes in women's sports. Sophia Lorey, a speaker and former athlete, was delivering a speech on Sunday at a library located in Davis, California...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

A ridiculous infringement on free speech, this coercion of speech.
You'd reasonably think that the judicial branch would know about that, right?

https://www.msn.com › en-us › news › other › michigan-judges-split-on-new-proposal-to-require-personal-pronouns-in-courtrooms › ar-AA1cetSu​

Michigan judges split on new proposal to require 'personal pronouns' in ...​

Jun 7, 2023 Michigan's c ourts could be required to use lawyers' and parties' "personal pronouns" after a hearing on a state supreme court proposal Wednesday. The Michigan Supreme Court proposed a change to ...​

​

https://www.nbcnews.com › nbc-out › out-politics-and-policy › michigan-judges-ordered-honor-pronouns-parties-court-rcna117834​

Michigan judges ordered to honor pronouns of parties in court - NBC News​

Sep 28, 2023 DETROIT — The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered all judges to address people in court by the pronouns they use or by "other respectful means." "We serve the entire public and are...​

That'd be a 'No'.
If a judge sits on a court case and orders personal pronouns required, how is that not forced and mandatory?

 

[Rumpel]

In reality the oberwoke wokers are far more Nazi and totalitarian.

Take the oberwoke wokers and their pushing this 'personal pronoun' idiocy, where misgendering someone is punishable.

California library kicks out ex-college athlete after being accused of misgendering​

by Asher Notheis, Social Media Producer, August 21, 2023​

California library kicks out ex-college athlete after being accused of misgendering - Washington Examiner

A former college athlete was kicked out of a library in California after she was accused of misgendering people while talking about transgender athletes in women's sports. Sophia Lorey, a speaker and former athlete, was delivering a speech on Sunday at a library located in Davis, California...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

A ridiculous infringement on free speech, this coercion of speech.
You'd reasonably think that the judicial branch would know about that, right?

https://www.msn.com › en-us › news › other › michigan-judges-split-on-new-proposal-to-require-personal-pronouns-in-courtrooms › ar-AA1cetSu​

Michigan judges split on new proposal to require 'personal pronouns' in ...​

Jun 7, 2023 Michigan's c ourts could be required to use lawyers' and parties' "personal pronouns" after a hearing on a state supreme court proposal Wednesday. The Michigan Supreme Court proposed a change to ...​

​

https://www.nbcnews.com › nbc-out › out-politics-and-policy › michigan-judges-ordered-honor-pronouns-parties-court-rcna117834​

Michigan judges ordered to honor pronouns of parties in court - NBC News​

Sep 28, 2023 DETROIT — The Michigan Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered all judges to address people in court by the pronouns they use or by "other respectful means." "We serve the entire public and are...​

That'd be a 'No'.
If a judge sits on a court case and orders personal pronouns required, how is that not forced and mandatory?

i agree!