**Reader Discretion Strongly Advised**

How many times have conservatives heard “progressives” claim that the controversial, obscene material they want taught to children is “age-appropriate”? Now, how many times have your heard conservatives respond by demanding to know specifically what criteria are used to determine “appropriateness”—age or any other kind? How many times have you heard conservatives demand to know specifically who socially constructed the criteria used to determine appropriateness and specifically which teacher suggested that a controversial, obscene book or play be taught?

Taxpayers are entitled to know the criteria, names of creators of criteria, and names of teachers who choose controversial, obscene material. Concealment facilitates unethical behavior among teachers and breeds distrust among taxpayers. Transparency fosters trust and accountability. Government school teachers who are paid by the public want absolute autonomy and absolute anonymity, and that is why we now have adults introducing obscene material to other people’s children.

As an example, here are several writing prompts for high school students in Hudson, Ohio. These prompts prompt children to use their imaginations to focus on sexual immorality and violence:

• Write a sex scene you wouldn’t show your mom. Rewrite the sex scene into one you would let your mom read.

• You have just been caught in bed by a jealous spouse. How will you talk your way out of this?

• Write a sermon for a beloved preacher who has been caught in a sex scandal.

• You are a serial killer. What tv shows are on your DVR list? Why?

• Describe a time when you wanted to orgasm but couldn’t.

• Write an X-rated Disney scenario.

No worries, rationalize supporters, these are just a few prompts from among the hundreds offered in a book of prompts that taxpayers subsidized. And anyway, such prompts appeal to teens and gets their creative juices flowing—or so rationalize the creepy adults who eye little children with bad intent.

(As an aside, weren’t those Hudson, Ohio teachers able to come up with writing prompts on their own? Isn’t that what they’re paid for?)

Many parents don’t realize that appealing to the sensibilities and appetites of adolescents assumed a dominant place in the selection process of English teachers decades ago. There’s another word for capitulating to the tastes of adolescents: it’s called pandering.

Schools should teach those texts that students will likely not read on their own. Schools should teach those texts that are intellectually challenging and offer insight, wisdom, beauty, and truth. Schools should avoid those that are highly polemical, blasphemous, and vulgar.

These writing prompts embody the perverse obsession with sex that many authors who write Young Adult (YA) novels share, that change-agents teach, and that government schools purchase with limited taxpayer funds.

Here are some quotes from The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which is found in most middle school libraries and recommended and taught in many classrooms:

• I guess I forgot to mention in my last letter that it was Patrick who told me about masturbation. I guess I forgot to tell you how often I do it now, which is a lot. … I started using blankets, but then the blankets hurt, so I started using pillows, but then the pillows hurt, so I went back to [the] normal [way].

• And the boy kept working up the girl’s shirt, and as much as she said no, he kept working it. After a few minutes, she stopped protesting, and he pulled her shirt off, and she had a white bra on with lace. … Pretty soon, he took off her bra and started to kiss her breasts. And then he put his hand down her pants, and she started moaning. … He reached to take off her pants, but she started crying really hard, so he reached for his own. He pulled his pants and underwear down to his knees. After a few minutes, the boy pushed the girl’s head down, and she started to kiss his p****. She was still crying. Finally, she stopped crying because he put his p**** in her mouth, and I don’t think you can cry in that position.

• When most people left, Brad and Patrick went into Patrick’s room. They had sex for the first time that night. I don’t want to go into detail about it, because it’s pretty private stuff, but I will say that Brad assumed the role of the girl in terms of where you put things.

• One night Patrick took me to this park where men go and find each other. Patrick told me that if I didn’t want to be bothered by anyone that I should just not make eye contact. He said that eye contact is how you agree to fool around anonymously. Nobody talks. They just find places to go. After a while, Patrick saw someone he liked.

In the face of criticism, those who rationalize teaching obscene, pro-“LGBTQ+” novels to adolescents roll their condescending eyes and call those who object to such material it prudes who take words out of context. But there is no context that renders graphic sex acceptable in texts purchased with public funds and taught to minor children.

Here are some more out-of-context quotes, these from the novel Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison—another YA book in school libraries–a coming-of-age novel in which the protagonist begins to feel fulfilled only after he embraces a homosexual identity and which includes obscenity like “f**k” and “s**t” on virtually every page:

• “G**damn-f**king-c**t-f**k-s**t-ass-f**ker!” I yelled.

• “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d**k? … “What if I told you I s****ed it?” … “I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goble’s d**k in my mouth.” … “I was in fourth grade. It was no big deal.” … “He s***ed mine, too.” … “And you know what? … “It wasn’t terrible.”

I wonder if a coming-of-age novel in which a young adult who experiences unchosen homoerotic attraction finds fulfillment once he rejects homoerotic relationships could get published, positively reviewed, and purchased for school libraries.

Saturday Oct. 2, 2021 marked the end of another “Banned Books Week” sponsored by the sanctimonious, hypocritical, leftist American Library Association (ALA) that regularly violates its own principles of intellectual freedom and has no principles regarding morality.

The ALA makes this disturbing statement:

Library policies and procedures that effectively deny minors equal and equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users.

Apparently, to members of the ALA, even five-year-olds should be free to access the porn available on library computers, in books, and in magazines.

The ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom claims to oppose the proscription of materials based on “partisan disapproval”:

Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

If that’s the case, then why are there so few YA novels that depict homosexuality as unhealthy or depict cross-sex identification as disordered?

The ALA tries to divert attention from this obvious hypocrisy by appealing to its own “Collection Development Policies.” But they can’t do their dirty censorship deeds alone. It requires the collusion of publishing companies, book review organizations, and libraries.

“Collection Development Policies”—created by leftists—are used to select which books to purchase. These policies establish what will be considered in selecting which books to buy. Books are chosen based on the “Reputation and qualifications of the author, publisher or producer, with preference generally given to titles vetted in the editing and publishing industry.”

And guess what—leftists control the publishing companies and professional review journals on whom librarians depend for determining which books they will purchase. It’s a nice circular set-up that enables leftists to conceal their bias and book-banning.

That may explain why Wheaton North High School in Wheaton, Illinois carries the obscene comic book “graphic novel” Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe but doesn’t carry either When Harry Became Sally by Ryan T. Anderson or Irreparable Damage by Wall Street Journal reporter Abigail Shrier.

And it likely explains why school and community libraries all around the country carry the picture book I Am Jazz and numerous other picture books affirming cross-dressing in children. But how many carry the books I’m Glad God Made Me a Girl by Denise Shick, whose father began masquerading as a woman when Ms. Shick was a child, thereby causing her untold suffering.

What becomes obscured in all these discussions of book-banning or selection criteria is the egregious offense of using public money to subsidize curricula and activities that undermine many taxpayers’ deepest beliefs and morals.

Listen to this article read by Laurie:

https://staging.illinoisfamily.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Taxpayer-Funded-Libraries-Defend-Obscenity-Child-Corruption-and-Censorship.mp3

On June 10, the Hadley Middle School Board of Education in Glen Ellyn reversed its prior decision to exclude the obscene and sexually graphic The Perks of Being a Wallflower from its independent reading program. This second vote was 6-1 in favor of retaining the book, with the lone wise and courageous opposing vote coming from school board president, Sam Black.

The school board voted to strengthen the parental notification letter that goes out to parents at the beginning of the year by adding a euphemistic caution, warning parents that particular books contain “mature” content. Yes, nothing says “maturity” quite like masturbating with a hot dog, homosexual sodomy between teenagers, and the use of obscene language.

For a parental notification letter to be meaningful, it should avoid vague and euphemistic language like “mature content.” Teachers should include clear and explicit descriptions of the “mature  content.” For example, in the case of Perks the notification should state that the book includes obscene language and depictions (in some cases graphic depictions) of masturbation, homosexual sodomy, heterosexual teen intercourse, incest, rape, and bestiality.

One aspect of the controversy that has received too little press are the actions of teachers who exploited their positions and power in the classroom to promote their views with little regard for how their political activity would affect students. It has been reported that the three teachers who spoke at prior school board meetings in favor of Perks and who expressed their views on the community controversy in class, Tina Booth,  Lynn Bruno, and Ali Tannenbaum, also  wore paraphernalia  with messages about  book banning or “FREADOM” during school activities.

There are far too many political activists/ “agents of change” masquerading as “educators” in American classrooms. They rely on their anonymity and autonomy to use their publicly subsidized positions to try to shape the moral and political views of other people’s children. They do it through curricula, through supplementary resources that are never reviewed by department chairs or curriculum review committees, and through their classroom comments and actions of which parents remain largely unaware. Community members should demand that school boards create policy to stop these abuses of power on the parts of teachers—most of whom hold “progressive” views.

One report on the school board meeting states that The Perks of Being a Wallflower  “will again be allowed for independent reading purposes for eighth graders, as will any other legal book that teachers choose to offer as an option for students.” Community members should ask what criteria teachers use in determining what they “choose to offer as an option for students.” 

Ever in thrall to celebrity, some students asked author Judy Blume to make a statement in opposition to “book banning.” Apparently, Blume’s status as celebrated author makes her an expert on educational philosophy, the use of public resources, the First Amendment, psychology, sociology, and ethics—all of which are relevant to this discussion. (What’s curious is that when IFI writes about a school issue, encouraging taxpayers to contact school board members, the press often describes IFI as an “outside” organization in an apparent attempt to delegitimize our efforts. I have yet to see any articles in which Florida-based author Blume is described as an “outsider.”)

These students  also wrote to Hollywood  actor and activist Anne Hathaway who promotes the normalization of homosexuality because her brother is homosexual; Chris Colfer, homosexual actor on dissolute teen television show Glee; and Logan Lerman one of the stars of The Perks of Being a Wallflower film. Perhaps they chose Hathaway and Colfer because these Hadley students understand that one of the goals of Perks is to normalize homosexuality.

The school board believes that as long as parents have the right to decide whether their child reads Perks, it’s legitimate to spend public funds to purchase and include it in the independent reading curriculum. This “solution” to the controversy ignores three critical questions:

• Should public resources be spent on highly controversial books with language so obscene and sexual content so graphic and in some cases perverse that they couldn’t be read over the PA system or printed in newspapers? 

• Is it the position of those teachers who support the acquisition and use of Perks that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when considering the purchase or use of books for school? If they do make the claim that they never take into account the nature and extent of obscene language or sexual content when selecting texts for purchase or use, they’re either lying or our schools have even bigger problems than it appears. If they say they do take into account obscene language and sexual content when making literary decisions, then they should be asked if they, therefore, engage in book-banning. 

• Some defend the purchase and use of Perks in public schools because students are already familiar with the controversial content. This is another way of saying that curricula should reflect culture. If that is the educational philosophy of Hadley, what happens as culture continues to degenerate? Are there any objective standards regarding obscene language and sexual content that should be included in text-selection criteria? 

Conservatives need to be as tenacious in pursuing sound school policy as “progressives” are in undermining it. It should be unthinkable that any public school would have this book in its library or that any teacher would permit students to choose it for a class project. We have allowed the culture to desensitize us to vulgarity and perversion. We have allowed the ridicule of the “cool” people to silence us. And we have allowed the rationalization that minor concessions to an obscene culture and Leftist teachers are unimportant.

When in doubt about the wisdom, reasonableness, or truth of your position on a controversial issue, look to see who is on the other side. You should feel reassured that you’re on the right side when you see that most Hollywood actors and Neuqua Valley High School math teacher Hemant Mehta* (aka “The Friendly Atheist”) are on the other side.

*Click here and here to learn more about Neuqua Valley math teacher Hemant Mehta who has written on the Hadley controversy and oh so much more.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

This is a follow up from a recent IFI E-Alert.

Important Address Correction: The Hadley Middle School Board of Education meeting next Monday, June 10 will be held at the Central Services Office, 793 N Main St. Glen Ellyn, 60137. It begins at 7:30.

Anyone who wishes to speak at the meeting is asked to fill out a green form which is available when you walk in the door. The form is then turned in to the secretary prior to the start of the meeting. The secretary will call the names in the order she receives them. This gives the public an opportunity to be heard prior to the board voting on The Perks of Being a Wallflower. I recommend typing out your thoughts ahead of time, so that you don’t exceed the time limit (usually two minutes) and so that you stay on topic.

Important Plea: Please attend and speak. Parents who have the courage to challenge a book are usually outnumbered by “progressives” at school board meetings and consequently feel intimidated and beleaguered. Please come alongside the brave parents objecting to this objectionable book.

Every community member, whether they have children or not, has a stake in this issue. Children at Hadley are our future culture-makers. What they are being exposed to in public schools on our dime matters.

Whether you have children or not, your taxes are subsidizing the purchase of this book and the salaries of the teachers who are recommending and teaching it.

When schools are permitted to purchase, teach, and recommend a book like Perks, they are emboldened to purchase, teach, and recommend others like it.

The decision by schools not to purchase a book does not constitute censorship. Schools have limited funds and make spending decisions all the time. There is no reason that criteria related to obscene and profane language and sexual content can’t be part of the evaluation process. There is no ethical imperative that only Collection Development Policies may or should be used to assess whether schools should purchase a book or use it in curricula or include it on recommended book lists.

To demonstrate respect for all voices and for the use of taxpayer money, schools should avoid purchasing, teaching, and recommending books whose content is not just a little problematic, but so extreme that it can’t be read over a school PA system or printed in newspapers (I find it ironic that NBA player Roy Hibbert was just fined $75,000 for using the word “homo” once, while Perks is purchased with taxpayer money for public schools even though it uses “f**k” multiple times). In a time when there are far more books available than could possibly be taught, the prudent and respectful thing to do would be to choose books that respect the values and beliefs of all parents.

Conservative parents are often told that if they don’t like what’s being taught in public schools, they should send their kids to private schools. Well, that’s what’s happening. Increasing numbers of parents are justifiably choosing private, charter, or home schools. But, here’s another idea. How about those parents who want their children to read novels like Perks send their children to private schools or have their children read them on their own. That way public schools can maintain a rigorous curriculum while respecting the beliefs and feelings of everyone in their communities.

Conservative parents, ever deferential to the “progressive” “experts” who run academia, have settled for their woefully inadequate sop to conservatives: opting out. We eagerly accept it like starving Dickensian urchins thankful for the bit of gruel offered us by the great and powerful. That should stop.

Opting-out is neither a fair nor compassionate response to the reasonable objections to books like Perks. No child wants to be isolated (as Perks tries unsuccessfully to teach), and, in addition, opting-out offers a diminished academic experience.

Furthermore, opting-out often creates conflict between students and their own parents. Schools are now creating problems for families, problems that are completely unnecessary by making different curricular selections.

Finally, schools are creating a climate rife for bullying as seen by what happened to the daughter of one of the families objecting to Perks.

The easy-peasy solution is to establish criteria for text-selection that include considerations of language and sexual content and to make selections that respect the entire community. Perks may have some literary value, but surely there are other texts that provide at least as valuable a literary contribution without the deeply objectionable content. I wonder what books students are not reading in school because they’re reading Perks instead.

Click HERE for more on objecting to offensive books.

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!

Here’s an email I received from a Christian public school teacher who defends the teaching in public schools of The Perks of Being a Wallflower, followed by my response:  

I am a conservative, a church-attending Christian, a public school elementary teacher, and I read The Perks of Being a Wallflower four times when I was fourteen years old. I think you are incorrectly analyzing the book when you say that it tries to teach that children want to be isolated. It features a cast of outcasts, and the protagonist is an outcast, not by choice but out of fear, anxiety, and depression. Many of the topics that the IFI disapproves of are also generally disapproved of by the story as well. I think the important thing parents need to realize about this book and others like it is that the world we live in is not perfect. Kids in our society go through some pretty terrible things. It’s important that literature reflects life in order for anyone to read it and connect to it. We can censor a book, but that doesn’t change the things kids go through as they pass through adolescence into adulthood. We can’t change the world for the child. We have to prepare the child for the world. If parents feel they have not prepared their child enough to read a book in which things they disapprove of are depicted, what faith do they have in themselves or their children? What is going to happen when their kids go to high school, college, adulthood? Eighth graders are old enough and intelligent enough to know that the story disapproves of Charlie’s childhood best friend’s suicide, and of the non-consensual incestuous molestation of Charlie as a child by his mentally unstable aunt. They are wise enough to understand that these events have hurt Charlie so much that he requires hospitalization at the end of the novel, because Charlie is, like they are, an adolescent, and requires help from adults to get better. It is impossible to read this book and see the drug use, the drinking, the violence, and the sex as things that make Charlie any happier. These are all things he (and his friends) use to escape their real problems. It does not work. For any of them. This brings up so many discussion points that parents and teachers can use to talk to their students. 

Perks made me feel like I wasn’t alone in the way I felt. It taught me that even in the worst circumstances, friendship provides a saving grace. I think those are powerful lessons that are covered in a well-written, honest book. I also think teaching Perks opens up an opportunity for dialogue between students and their parents, and between students and their teachers. When a book is covered in school, the teacher is there to help the students glean meaning from the text. When students read it on their own (as is inevitable when books are censored), it becomes something secretive, something they can’t talk about, and for parents, that is much, much worse.

Hi *****,

By way of introduction, I want to share that until August of 2008, I worked full-time in the writing center at Deerfield High School, where I was a member of the English Department. 

• You misread my sentence. I said that no child wants to be isolated, and that Perks tries unsuccessfully to teach that point. I said that Perks is unsuccessful because students who were defending the book at Hadley were ironically bullying the daughter of some of the parents who are objecting to it.
  
  
• I am troubled by your use of the word “censor.” As I wrote in my first article, when teachers decide that a book is “age-inappropriate” and choose not to teach it, they call it “text-selection.” When conservatives decide that a book is age-inappropriate or school-inappropriate, teachers call it censorship.
  
  
• If you think every book that isn’t taught is “censored,” then I guess Angels in America is “censored” in most schools. And since it’s “censored,” I guess students are going to “read it on their own,” and it’s going to become “something secretive” that “they can’t talk about,” which “is much, much worse.” By your reasoning, there is no book that is inappropriate in public schools.
  
  
• No parent thinks the world is perfect, but it is not the job of English teachers to expose their children to every ugly phenomenon that exists. Neither is it the job of English teachers to try to solve the emotional and social problems of teens. English teachers are not experts in those areas, and the classroom is not the place to do it. I would argue that many English teachers are not even experts in the area which they were hired to teach.
  
  
• When you say that “we have to prepare the child for the world,” are you actually arguing that it’s the role of English teachers to “prepare” kids for the ugliest sexual experiences that children may encounter? That’s a remarkable assertion for a teacher to make. Who said that’s the role of an English teacher? In what specific ways are teachers “preparing” students by teaching Perks? And if you think it’s the role of English teachers to “prepare” kids for the possible experience of being ostracized –which I would still argue is not their job — why not choose a book that portrays social ostracism in a less controversial way since these teachers are being subsidized by taxpayers?
  
  
• Some fourteen year-olds may be aware of bestiality and masturbation with food items, but many kids have never been introduced to such ideas and images, and parents shouldn’t have to worry that their public school teachers are going to expose them to such perversity.
  
  
• Many parents, me included, do not want my children discussing incest, rape, homosexuality, premarital sex, bestiality, or masturbation with their teachers or their classroom peers. Having such discussions in school contexts undermines modesty (not to be confused with prudery), which is a virtue all too rare in our culture. Our public schools do nothing to cultivate a sense of modesty and discretion in our students, and many English teachers contribute to an erosion of modesty by teaching books like Perks.
  
  
• I never argued that Perks promotes as positive any of the social ills you mentioned. I am arguing that the obscene language contributes to the desensitization to obscene language that is becoming commonplace. I would argue further that when schools teach such texts, they legitimize the use of such language.
  
  
• To be effective English teachers does not require the teaching of texts about the most dysfunctional, deviant, and evil of life’s experiences, or texts that use the most obscene language, or  texts that include graphic sexuality.
  
  
• You seem to think that the age and intelligence of students is the primary arbiter of whether a particular book should be taught. Did you ever consider that some kids who have been molested might be upset by reading Perks? Did you ever consider that the majority of students have not been molested, and now you’ve exposed them to a compelling narrative that introduces potentially disturbing images to them?
  
  
• Have you considered that some teens may find the sexual scenes arousing? If so, is that problematic? Should government employees be using taxpayer funds to present books with pornographic imagery to other people’s children?
  
  
• I find it a presumptuous  to suggest that parents who are struggling valiantly to limit their children’s exposure to obscene language and graphic sexuality in order to protect their imaginations and moral compasses while they’re still developing have no “faith” in their kids. The issue of faith in their children is wholly irrelevant. The issue is that words and ideas matter, and adolescents are not adults. They lack both emotional and moral maturity.
  
  
• English teachers more than any others should know that language matters, ideas matter, stories matter. They have the power to shape views and elicit powerful feelings. Perks depicts ugliness and deviance using ugly language.
  
  
• While you defend Perks for its disapproval of incest and molestation, you don’t mention its treatment of premarital sex and homosexuality? How are those two phenomena presented in the book? Does Perks make a case that volitional homosexual acts and fornication are inherently immoral?
  
  
• You pointed out what good you derived from Perks as justification for its curricular inclusion. As I have argued many times, for teachers who see themselves as “agents of change,” the beauty of teaching English is that they can defend teaching virtually any text they want to teach because the criteria used to defend texts are almost infinitely elastic. English teachers can say that kids relate to it, that it reflects their lived reality, that it includes “authentic adolescent language,” that it ties thematically to another text they’re teaching, that the author’s tone or use of metaphorical language are particularly effective, and on and on ad nauseum. No one is arguing that Perks is devoid of any value. Many are arguing, however, that the obscene language and graphic and deviant sexuality make it unsuitable for use in publicly funded schools. Those parents who want their children to read it are free to purchase it for their children at their own expense. Kids can purchase it or check it out from the library. They can do that because, even if schools choose not to purchase or teach it, the book has not been censored.
  
  
• Do you actually believe that teachers today are more effective, better English teachers than were teachers forty or fifty years ago when a book like Perks would never have been taught? Do you think today’s English teachers are better at teaching poetry, grammar, and analytical writing? Do you think that as a group, public school English teachers today are better readers of difficult literature? I would argue that as English teachers have presumptuously expanded their roles to include transforming the emotions, morality, and politics of children, they have become—for the most part—worse at teaching literature and writing.
  
  
• It would behoove English teachers to examine closely their unexamined assumptions about what their proper role is as an English teacher in general, and particularly in publicly funded schools.

I hope you get a chance to read all three of these:

Correction and Request Regarding Hadley Middle School

Glen Ellyn Middle School Embroiled in Book Controversy

Challenge Objectionable Texts

**WARNING: the content of this article is not suitable for children.**

Note: IFI contacted the school and left a message for Principal Dransoff prior to publishing this article. He did not respond.

Last December, students in Tina Booth’s 8^th grade literacy class at Hadley Middle School in Glen Ellyn, Illinois were divided into small groups and assigned to choose a book to read. One group chose the infamous The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which set in motion a controversy that persists today.

When students asked Booth about the book, she gave it a glowing recommendation. After parents expressed opposition to it, Principal Christopher Dransoff proposed the option of teachers in the future sending out permission slips about controversial books prior to allowing students to read them, a compromise parents were willing to accept.

Dransoff soon discovered, however, that the majority of 8^th grade literacy teachers would not accept such a compromise, apparently believing that such prior notification and parental permission constituted censorship and an implicit indictment of their expert judgment.

This intransigence on the part of the teachers resulted in parents pursuing the issue with the school board which voted 4-2 to remove the book from the middle school, which, in turn, intensified the community controversy. With two newly elected members, the school board is scheduled to revisit its decision at its next meeting on Monday, June 10.

The board’s decision raised the ire of presumptuous teachers who oppose anyone disagreeing with their assessment of what constitutes “age-appropriate,” an undefined term that Booth and her ideological allies use in their defense of the oft and justifiably challenged book.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a coming of age novel that includes suicide, abortion, drug use, foul language, heterosexual intercourse, homosexual sodomy, masturbation, bestiality, incestuous molestation, and rape—you know, all the topics “progressives” think form the basis for a solid education. Please read these excerpts from the book that Booth believes is a wonderful and “age-appropriate” book for eighth graders. ( **WARNING: Obscene content.**)

In addition to the arrogant unwillingness of teachers to ask for permission to teach such a controversial book, it is reported that three of the teachers, Lynn Bruno, Ali Tannenbaum, and Booth, initiated classroom discussions on the topic, ginning up support for their position among students. It’s reported that Booth suggested to students in her class that the school board vote was unfair, that it was censorship, and that students have a “voice.” Apparently, Booth believes that the voices of 14 year-olds should have greater influence than the voices of parents and school board members. Such use of class time to engage students in a public controversy and attempt to manipulate student opinion is unprofessional and an abuse of their power and role as public servants.

Coincidentally, these three teachers (along with Kelly Coleman) spoke at a subsequent school board meeting in support of the retention of The Perks of Being a Wallflower.* Were there no teachers who supported the school board’s decision? And if there were teachers who supported it, why didn’t they speak up at the school board meeting?

Not surprisingly, students and their voices made an appearance at school board meetings to support the retention of Perks.

But it gets worse. During the recent 8^th grade graduation ceremony, one of the two board members who voted in favor of retaining the book, Terra Costa Howard, abused her privilege of speaking by quoting from the disputed book. Demonstrating both a lack of judgment and sensitivity, Howard transformed a family celebration into a controversial political event, ruining it for the daughter of one of the families who oppose the book.

It should be noted that this brave girl was bullied relentlessly by classmates for two days following the school board’s vote. She was called “snitch,” “tattletale,” and “goody two-shoes.” Kids passing her in the halls said snottily, “Thanks a lot,” and “good job.” And her locker was festooned with post-it notes with flowers (get it—“wallflowers”). Apparently, the book, which was made into a film, hasn’t taught these kids much about compassion, kindness, diversity, or inclusion.

Booth told parents that it is their responsibility to monitor the books their children are exposed to in school. In other words, don’t trust their teachers. So, now parents must read every book assigned or chosen with a teacher’s recommendation, and they must read these books before their children do. For those families who have multiple children this is a nearly impossible expectation.

Thoughts about English teachers and curricula:

1. On English teachers’ hypocrisy: When they choose not to teach a book because they deem it age-inappropriate, it’s called “text selection.” When conservative parents object to a book because they deem it age-inappropriate—or just inappropriate—teachers call it “censorship.”
   
   
2. The nature and extent of obscene language and controversial sexual content can be so egregious as to render a text unsuitable for the purposes of educating young people no matter what positive contribution the text may otherwise make. In other words, sometimes the language is so foul and the depictions of sexuality so graphic (or deviant) as to make the book inappropriate for use in public schools—which is not censorship.
   
   
3. Far too many English teachers view themselves as experts in not only literature-related matters but psychology and morality, and they reserve the absolute right to decide what is and is not “age-appropriate.”
   
   
4. “Age-appropriate” is a tricksy bit of rhetoric from the Left. It is an ambiguous adjective used by the Left to provide cover for whatever they want to present to children in their relentless quest to initiate children into the wacky world of deviant and early sexuality.
   
   
5. What does “age-appropriate” mean? When a teacher uses this term, they should be compelled to provide a definition and criteria that determine “age-appropriateness.” The vast majority of parents who express opposition to a particular book being taught in school are not arguing that their children will be traumatized by obscene language and graphic sexual content. Rather, parents are arguing that such language and sexual content are not decent, not inspiring, not edifying, not beautiful, not necessary, and not healthy. They are arguing that such language and depictions of sexuality undermine modesty and decency. They are arguing that when public schools recommend texts that include egregiously obscene and profane language, it serves to legitimize and desensitize students to offensive language—language that is prohibited by schools, newspapers, in most professional contexts, and in polite company.
   
   
6. Perhaps a better term would be “public school-appropriateness.” Considerations of “public school-appropriateness” should take into account the nature and extent of obscene language and depictions of sexuality. This, of course, is not an exhaustive list of the criteria for public school-appropriateness. It’s a starting point.
   
   
7. One of the teachers defended the book because it helps make students feel better about themselves, presumably including feeling better about their same-sex attraction. When did it become the task of government employees to help students who are struggling with their sexuality? If that’s the government’s role, what specifically does it entail? Surely, it can’t be the role of government employees to help students feel comfortable with their same-sex attraction because that would necessitate the embrace and promotion of non-factual moral beliefs about homosexuality, which is decidedly not the right of paid government employees. There is a case to be made that it is not the task of English teachers to solve the social and emotional problems of students—a task for which they have no expertise.
   
   
8. The deference schools are giving to the strident voices of students in curricular issues is foolish and inappropriate. Students lack the maturity, knowledge, and wisdom to make curricular decisions. It’s ironic that “progressive” teachers would welcome the voices of teens while resenting the voices of conservative parents. While teachers self-righteously assert their own expertise, they welcome the support of the least knowledgeable: their students. It’s understandable, however, because teens, who see limits as anathema, will resist any attempt to limit what they study.

Teachers who teach controversial books like The Perks of Being a Wallflower don’t really care about the feelings, beliefs, or values of conservative parents. They don’t really care about the diminished academic experience of kids who are opted out of reading controversial texts and have to spend time alone in another room reading a different book. They don’t care if they create conflict between conservative parents and their children who may resent being set apart from other kids. And they don’t care how these students feel when isolated.

The emptiness of these teachers’ rhetoric about caring for all kids and honoring “diverse voices” is exposed by their actions. If they truly cared about the feelings and beliefs of all their students and their parents, they would select texts from the countless choices available that provide a solid academic experience and yet are not egregiously obscene, profane, or sexually graphic. Finding such texts is as easy as finding “progressives” in a public school English Department.

Take Action:  Click HERE to contact the school board to respectfully express your opposition to The Perks of Being a Wallflower and if possible, attend the school board meeting at 7:30 p.m. on June 10, 2013 in the Administrative Center at 793 N Main Street in Glen Ellyn.  (Map)

*From the school board minutes, here is a summary of the teachers’ comments—I kid you not:

The district needs to understand how freedom of speech is taught and the board’s decision to ban the book was a violation of the Bill of Rights; students have the rights and they should not be denied for any reason; [teachers] would like to believe that the school board and community will support students and teachers in the pursuit of knowledge.

Each parent should have the right to decide for his or her child.

What will these teachers do when little Johnny chooses—with his parents’ permission—to read American Psycho for his class book report? Oh wait, does he need his parents’ permission? The teachers (erroneously) believe that the Bill of Rights guarantees little Johnny the absolute, unfettered right to read anything he wants in school—a right that cannot be “denied for any reason,” which presumably would include his parents’ objections. 

Read more:  Challenge Objectionable Texts

Click HERE to support the work and ministry of IFI.
With your support we can continue our vital work!