It's funny. I watched this play last year (translated to Portuguese, though). Barring the V... word's extensive use, I didn't perceive anything offensive in it. To tell you the truth, nor the "v" word's use was offensive, since it's pivotal to the play's motiff.
The School Principal says it wasn't the 'word' that got them suspended, but the fact they didn't respect orders. Well... read and draw your own conclusions, people.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: The school "recognizes and respects student freedom of expression," Leprine said. "That right, however, is not unfettered."
"When a student is told by faculty members not to present specified material because of the composition of the audience and they agree to do so, it is expected that the commitment will be honored and the directive will be followed," he said. "When a student chooses not to follow the directive, consequences follow."
I really don't have a problem with that position on the part of the school administration.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
The question is: Was the word offensive to 'the composition of the audience'? It's a body part's name, mentioned in a well-known and respected (and very, very good) play.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
The school was in a no-win position. Let it go, and they'd probably get written up in some local equivalent of the Rhino Times as being enemies of the family and corruptors of youth.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Perfect example of why democracy sucks. If you can't make everyone happy, then no one gets to be happy.
Bring back royalty, I say.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Then only the peasants are unhappy...
...wait.....
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Yeah, I agree with Icarus. I think the school did the best it could in a bad spot.
I don't find the word offensive. I don't think it should be offensive. It is going to provoke a reaction, though, and is meant to do that, I think. Because of that, the school really had no choice but to say, "Sorry, you can't do that here."
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo_Sauron: It's a body part's name, mentioned in a well-known and respected (and very, very good) play.
It's a very controversial play with very mature themes. Personally, I don't think it belongs in high schools. And it's not just any body part. It's precisely because of the power of the word and the body part it represents that it doesn't need to be treated lightly. And just because it's used in the context of a serious work doesn't mean that the majority of high school students will receive it that way.
But aside from my own opinion of the content, I also think that schools need to have the ability to draw the line somewhere. I think there are places where some censorship is appropriate, and a public school is one of them. Let the girls perform The Vagina Monologues in an independent setting if they want to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I agree that if the girls broke what they agreed to, they should be punished. I don't think I agree with what they were kinda forced to agree to and this may be a place for legitimate criticism of the school.
From what I read, it wasn't the play itself that they wre told they couldn't read from. The school was okay with the play, just not the word "vagina". I think, based on the limited account I have, that they were clearly in the wrong in trying to censor the the girls saying vagina.
I don't know if the girls had/tried other ways of addressing this. If they didn't, while, again, I think they should expect and accept punishment, they did a right thing and the school needs to make things right.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
It was interesting to me that the district superintendent said that if the girls had wanted to perform the whole play, they would probably not have met opposition. It's because this was an evening that included monologues out-of-context, so to speak, that they were not allowed.
quote:"As long as the intended audience knows what to expect, we don't have a problem with it."
This actually makes sense to me ... if you know you're going to The Vagina Monologues, you have enough info to make a decision whether it's appropriate or not. But in the middle of an evening of other things, with no warning, it could be controversial. So I understand why the school made the decision it did in the first place.
Once they made that decision and the students agreed to it, they had to stick to it. The girls decided that "standing up for their rights" was worth going against school officials and breaking their word. If so, then it must be worth accepting the punishment and there's no room to gripe about it. That's what I always tell my kids: sometimes (rarely) you have to break the rules because the rules aren't right. But you have to decide if it's really worth accepting the consequences ... because if you choose to break the rules for some greater good, you have to acknowledge that you're still going to be punished and that accepting that punishment would be better than obeying a bad rule.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It's clear these girls knew the shock value of the word, and intended for their use of it in a classroom setting to be jarring:
quote:The girls took turns reading the excerpt until they came to the word, then said it together.
Their actions were an act of defiance. They effectively created the stir they were hoping for, and now they deserve to be punished for breaking the rules.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
Trying to imagine what my school would do... Yeah. We censored Arsenic and Old Lace to take out the word bastard. Curiously enough, the same word was allowed in Les Mis.
Mind you, I think our drama teacher wanted so badly to avoid trouble that she self-censored way more than my fairly liberal school would have censored. A nationaly prominate evangalist sent his duaghter to my school, and he aparently objected to a line in an earlier play. Curiously, his daughter was also in Les Mis, although she did not play a prostitute.
Ah, school drama. In all senses of those words.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
This reminds me of a thread from earlier this year about a graduation speaker in a very similar situation. She submitted her graduation speech, which was quite evangelical in its proclamation of faith. The school told her it was not appropriate. She agreed. Then at graduation she gave the speech anyway. The administration pulled the plug and disciplined the student (appropriately, IMO).
Personally, I'm not big of, in Ensler's words, "resist[ing] authority when it's not appropriate and wise." I generally think the minimal amount of good it does is more than offset by the dangerous precedent it sets. This is not to say there aren't extreme situations when disobedience is appropriate and moral; I just think those situations are fewer and further (farther?) between than is usually recognized. Certainly the right to celebrate the sentiment that "I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country" before students and parents is not, IMO, sufficient to contravene the negative effect of flaunting administrative authority.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
A&OL is about murder.
Les Miz is about love, forgiveness, and fighting for freedom.
I can see how Les Miz would get cut more slack.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: It's clear these girls knew the shock value of the word, and intended for their use of it in a classroom setting to be jarring:
Tiny nitpick: it was NOT in a classroom; it was at an evening function of the school's literary magazine. Since it wasn't in a classroom situation, I have much less of a problem with it than I otherwise might.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Their actions were an act of defiance. They effectively created the stir they were hoping for, and now they deserve to be punished for breaking the rules.
I think this sentiment often gets lost in discussions of civil disobedience. Accepting the punishment, even while denouncing the law/policy's unfairness, is a critical part of the moral justification for civil disobedience to my mind. Otherwise, I don't see how its morally different than just doing whatever you want.
<edit>However, upon rereading the article I don't see any indication that the girls are trying to get out of being punished. They're simply using the noteriety of the event to denounce the policy. I was writing in reaction to similar situations I've seen where students have broken rules and then argued they shouldn't be punished because the rule was unjust.</edit>
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:A&OL is about murder.
Les Miz is about love, forgiveness, and fighting for freedom.
Arsenic is a campy, old-fashioned comedy, a classic play made into a classic Cary Grant movie.
Les Miz is a dramatic musical, based on an acclaimed novel, that ran for years on broadway.
I'm not really seeing why one should get slack where the other shouldn't.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ultimately, people shouldn't be punished for breaking unjust laws. If someone, for example, gets sent to jail because they borke an unjust law, when this law is repudiated, I think they should be set free and possibly compensated.
But, to properly employ civil disobedience, I think you ahve to be willing to accept the punishment.
This situation is complicated by the girls getting punished for something not directly related to the thing they were against. I'm not entirely sure what I think the proper resolution should be.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Girls suspended over 'Vagina Monologues'
Oh, my. This is terrible. Someone should get a ladder and get those girls down right away.
(Somehow, my brain keeps transliterating the title to read 'Viagra Motorcycles')
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I think this sentiment often gets lost in discussions of civil disobedience. Accepting the punishment, even while denouncing the law/policy's unfairness, is a critical part of the moral justification for civil disobedience to my mind. Otherwise, I don't see how its morally different than just doing whatever you want.
I agree.
quote:However, upon rereading the article I don't see any indication that the girls are trying to get out of being punished. They're simply using the noteriety of the event to denounce the policy. I was writing in reaction to similar situations I've seen where students have broken rules and then argued they shouldn't be punished because the rule was unjust.</edit>
My comment was directed at the morons quoted in the article, who are objecting to their being punished at all.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
They should have done the Virginia Monologues instead. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think the rule barring them from presenting at this particular presentation (or a single in-school suspension for violating that rule) was unjust. I haven't formed an opinion as to whether this was a good rule in these circumstances, but it doesn't appear as if the school exceeded its authority or violated these girls' rights.
If the students did agree to do something else and did this instead, then they are liars. Forget suspension: was the civil rights statement made by doing the monologue at THIS event, as opposed to actually doing the whole play at some other point in time, more important than their honor?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have done the play and don't find it offensive, but I do think that the school has a right to decide what is appropriate for a specific event. I would hope that they would allow it to be performed in a venue where people could choose to be exposed to it or not. It sounds like they would.
I don't think the students were right in lying about what they were going to do and I think that they should face some consequences for that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I don't think the rule barring them from presenting at this particular presentation
As I read it, they weren't barred from presenting an excerpt of the play. The thing they were told they weren't allowed to do was say the word "vagina".
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't see a problem with this situation at all. I happen to agree with the girls that the censorship of the word "vagina" was unreasonable. I tend to think we should speak more openly about sex in this country, not less. Then again, that was likely precisely what they were trying to do when they intentionally got themselves suspended for flagrantly disobeying the school authorities. Everything here was staged but the conversation they were after wasn't whether or not they should have been suspended for breaking a rule (because they did), but whether or not the rule was appropriate.
I say it wasn't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As I read it, they weren't barred from presenting an excerpt of the play. The thing they were told they weren't allowed to do was say the word "vagina".
Rereading, I think your interpretation is more likely now. I do wish they had been more explicit - it's not clear to me that the ban on the word meant the excerpt couldn't be read at all or if they could read it using another word, but this time reading it makes it seem more likely the latter.
Which is stupid - it likely violates copyright law to make a derivative work by substituting another word (fair use likely doesn't cover that). Besided, what word are they going to use instead? I haven't seen the play, but it seems as if the word is used pretty often from what I've heard.
I still think it's a question of whether the rule was good or not, not a question of justice. It still sounds like they lied, although that's not explicit either.
What a crappy article.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If you can't use the word, there is absolutely no point in performing the play since it is devoted to simultaneously demystifying and glorifying both the word and the organ in question. Performing it edited would just be pathetic.
However, I think an important bit of the article was this:
"Bob Lichtenfeld, superintendent of the Katonah-Lewisboro school district, which includes John Jay, said that had the teens, who are in their third year of high school, wanted to perform the play, they would probably not have met opposition.
"As long as the intended audience knows what to expect, we don't have a problem with it."
Fair enough. I agree that keeping children from hearing the word "vagina" is ludicrous, but that's the parents' choice to make. (But how cool was it that the playwright called the girls?) The students should have chosen another piece to perform that night and then arranged to perform the entire Vagina Monologues later.
(An aside: I saw the Monologues performed in Orlando years ago, with my wife and our friend Alynia and, as it happened, Bob Scopatz. We watched and enjoyed and laughed and cried, and then there was a segment on how a woman came to love herself because of a man named Bob. Messr. Scopatz graciously accepted the applause on behalf of Bobs everywhere.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Ultimately, people shouldn't be punished for breaking unjust laws. If someone, for example, gets sent to jail because they borke an unjust law, when this law is repudiated, I think they should be set free and possibly compensated.
But, to properly employ civil disobedience, I think you ahve to be willing to accept the punishment.
The point of civil disobedience isn't to flout laws, it is to get unjust laws changed. On several occasions, Ghandi was offered clemency for laws he had violated but he insisted that unless the laws were changed he should be punished. This worked well for Ghandi and MLK because their imprisionment served as a continuing reminder of the injustice of the laws. I don't think it works as well for most current civil disobedience cases.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The students should have chosen another piece to perform that night and then arranged to perform the entire Vagina Monologues later.
I don't think that was ever an option. The article says the girls were told when they auditioned that they could not use the word. That suggest that they had practiced the piece, competed for and won a spot on the program and were then told that they couldn't say "vagina" in the performance. If that is the case, the girls were truly put in an impossible position. They were not given the choice to perform another piece. If they had already worked on this piece and had been accepted to perform this piece but told they had to gut the content, then the school was indeed out of line. At a minimum they were asking the girls to violate copyright laws.
But as Dag says, it is truly a poorly written article and its not possible to tell what really happened.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Pfft!
Yes, pfft! I say.
My daughter was 14 when she performed "My Vagina Was My Village." My wife directed (the entire show). Other (older) High School girls performed other sets from the play. It was totally fine.
Sheesh.
The school censors the girls' speech ("You cannot use this [English language, non-obscene] word") and then when the girls (young wonem, really) fight against the censorship, the school administrators say, "Oh, we weren't censoring them. We're only punishing them because they refused to do what we told them" (which happened to be, in and of itself, CENSORSHIP).
--Steve
Besides, you can't do The Vagina Monologues without using the word "Vagina." And if you've ever read, seen, or performed the piece, you know that "Vagina" is pretty darn tame!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote: The school censors the girls' speech ("You cannot use this [English language, non-obscene] word") and then when the girls (young wonem, really) fight against the censorship, the school administrators say, "Oh, we weren't censoring them. We're only punishing them because they refused to do what we told them" (which happened to be, in and of itself, CENSORSHIP).
I completely agree. The administration, in this case, claims that they didn't want the excerpt performed because of the audience, but I'd argue that anyone going into a performance that features excerpts and monologues from several different plays would be ready for anything. I don't see any reason to believe that a performance of excerpts would necessarily be any tamer than a performance of the Vagina Monologues on it's own.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Were there kids in the audience who hadn't yet received sex education?
Either way though, I'm siding with the students here. The school doesn't seem to have exceeded its authority, but the source of the problem is the school's censorship of a word denoting a body part 50% of the human race has. Like erosomniac I would have more respect for the girls if they took whatever punishment was given (as they seem to be doing, judging by the article); and it will serve as a mild form of martyrdom for their position.
I'm trying to imagine my all-boys Uniting Church school allowing a play called 'The Penis Monologues'. I can't do it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I wish some of you would spend some time in a public school setting and see what we deal with. And then ask yourself whether it's really our job to change the politics of parents--in addition to all the other societal jobs we already do. I've seen situations like this before, and they always blow up in the school's face. Parents do not go in there expecting anything. They expect that their daughters and sons are children. And they don't expect us to legitimize them talking publicly about their vaginas or their penises or about their sexuality. If the school had let the performance go on, you can bet that there would have been an outcry, and it would not have been unlikely for someone's career to end over it.
Just the other day, a local teacher was fired because, on a field trip to an art museum, for which permission slips were signed, students saw nudes. Most were probably okay with this, but some parents were not.
There really is no winning.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The administration, in this case, claims that they didn't want the excerpt performed because of the audience, but I'd argue that anyone going into a performance that features excerpts and monologues from several different plays would be ready for anything. I don't see any reason to believe that a performance of excerpts would necessarily be any tamer than a performance of the Vagina Monologues on it's own.
I think that his concern was far more specific. If hearing the word "vagina" is mortifyingly embarassing for you, you aren't going to show up to a play named "The Vagina Monologues" but you might very well show up for a school literary club reading of anthologies.
Given my experience with schools I'm going to speculate that what happened went something like this. The literary club solicits groups to prepare readings for the event. In the solicitation its specifies that things that are crude, sexually explicit or involve excessive foul language won't be allowed, Audition are required participate and a key reason for requiring auditions is so that the teachers and administrators can screen the acts for stuff that's offensive. At the audition, one of the judges (probably an older administrator) finds the material to be very embarassing and insists the students shouldn't be allowed to perform. Another judge feels very strongly that the students should be allowed to perform. Its even likely that the students had discussed the selection with a teacher before hand and had been told it was acceptable. So now the judges are at an impasse. The principal negotiates a compromise telling the students they can perform the piece as long as they don't use the word "vagina". The principal making the decision was so unfamiliar with the work that he didn't see why that wasn't a reasonable compromise. The girls are therefore placed in a loose loose situation.
In contrast, its a pretty safe one for the school. They've let the girls perform but if anyone was offended they've got themselves covered and punish the girls. When parents complain that the girls were being sensored, the school says they would have allowed this in another venue and the girls are simply being punished for breach of contract not saying "vagina".
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no problems with there being some level of censorship in high school.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Just the other day, a local teacher was fired because, on a field trip to an art museum, for which permission slips were signed, students saw nudes. Most were probably okay with this, but some parents were not.
There really is no winning.
I actually heard about something similar a year or so ago. It just amazed me that such a thing could happen. It's situations like that that make me very concerned going into the teaching field.
As for the situation that this thread is about, my opinion seems to match several others. I'm not for censorship or anything, but if they agreed to not use the word vagina in their part of this group of presentations and then did, well they should be punished. Under a different situation, I might have felt differently about it, but that's just how I feel for this one.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
"Girl suspended over Vagina Monologues" sounds like some weird David-Blaine-style stunt to me ...
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
But one that David Blaine could never do.
Because he ... don't... er... Posted by Adam_S (Member # 9695) on :
would the school have preferred them to say 'my V-word'... "my secret place"... "my unmentionable"... "my peepee" or perhaps P**** maybe, C*** or T***
The girls chose one of the tamest sections of the play, one that only uses the polite and accurate term.
Really what was the alternative, the segment requires the word to work, the girls were right in their civil disobedience of the school and noone is harmed by hearing an anatomical term.
Funny. There is agreement here for the censorship or censoring actions/consequences of saying the anatomical term for female parts, but in the higher power of lucky thread (that included an anatomical term for male parts) the censorship and/or censoring actions/consequences were generally disagreed with. very interesting.
Also, wouldn't the word had to have been in the Program, "excerpt from the Vagina monologues" sort of thing? wouldn't the girls normally have to introduce what they're presenting (and where it's from) in such a setting? this whole mess is ridiculous. Yes the school was justified in applying consequences for breaking the rules, but the school also overreacted to the wrong word--nothing is clearer to me than that. There are very vulgar and disrespectful terms that are as bad as curse words (part of the play is about dulling the cutting edge of most of those words) and in an unprepared setting/reading as described those terms would be inappropriate--but 'vagina' is not an inappropriate word nor is it a vulgar word.
Had it been one of the raunchier sections of the play they would have grounds for being offended, but for crying out loud the word is okay in a very tame PG movie for kindergartners and elementary school kids back in the early nineties (kindergarten cop, which is where I first heard the word as a child).
out of curiosity I wonder if any boys have ever been suspended for playing the penis game, I sincerely doubt it.
This is like someone being fired for saying niggardly.
Or better yet, this is EXACTLY like someone being suspended for performing reading a section from Huck Finn that uses the word 'negro.' (because naturally any reader would avoid performing a section with the word 'niggar' in it).
[ March 09, 2007, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Adam_S ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: "Girl suspended over Vagina Monologues" sounds like some weird David-Blaine-style stunt to me ...
You know I puzzled over this for quite sometime before I looked at the thread title and realized what you were talking about.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:would the school have preferred them to say 'my V-word'... "my secret place"... "my unmentionable"... "my peepee"
A local theatre put on the play, and got some flack for having "that word" up on the billboard ... so they replaced the title with "The Hoo-Ha Monologues."
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:ask yourself whether it's really our job to change the politics of parents--in addition to all the other societal jobs we already do. I've seen situations like this before, and they always blow up in the school's face.
This is a good point. My sister teaches band in a public school and gets threatened with a lawsuit about once a year, usually because a kid receives a "C" instead of an "A." Conventional reasoning hardly works on them, she tries explaining that their child didn't turn in his/her assignments or failed a playing test and they generally take the stance of "well, MY child would never fail at anything." So I see what you mean.
quote: Really what was the alternative, the segment requires the word to work, the girls were right in their civil disobedience of the school and noone is harmed by hearing an anatomical term.
This, I guess, is a little closer to what I feel about the situation. Considering that the students don't seem to be resisting the punishment being given, it seems like a mild form of Civil Disobedience. There maybe more unjust things going on the world than public school censorship, but the girls made a pretty strong point with their actions.
I think some censorship in public schools is a necessary evil, schools after all have to maintain a certain image to the parents, but I say students are more than welcome to challenge that censorship; so long as challenging it doesn't involve breaking the law or harm to others.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't understand why, ideally, the school couldn't just let the girls do the play, but let everyone know what they were doing ahead of time. If anyone didn't want to be exposed to the word 'vagina', then they didn't have to come.
quote: I have no problems with there being some level of censorship in high school.
Certainly, the BoM and praying should be censored.
While my reply initially, and to Porter, is tongue in cheek, it underlines the impossibility of making everyone happy. Everyone is in favor of censorship until it is their holy cow that is getting the shaft. Either everything is censored and fair, or nothing is censored and fair. To draw the line, you must put one group's feelings over another's for almost aways no good reason.
Consider what would happen if the Vagina Monologues were put on and some people saw it and were made uncomfortable. What would happen? I believe nothing bad would happen, beyond those feelings, and if they came to the show, whose fault is it that they were made uncomfortable?
Beyond this, though, I don't believe that uncomfortable feelings are a reason to censor speech, as it makes the standard of need for censorship so low as nothing could ever really be said except that which the power elite of any community let be said.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Some people would feel that more harm was done than that. You or I might not agree, but I wanted to point out that your analysis was predicated on agreeing with your values.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I would say that not agreeing with the value someone assigns something is probably the root of most disagreements on Hatrack.
Having been on Hatrack for about five years now, I'm well aware that many people don't share my values.
So, I'm not clear on why you felt the need to remind me of this fact, as to me it seems pretty self evident. But I assume it was done in the spirit of friendly helpfulness, and so I thank you for the reminder.
Anyone who disagrees with my analysis of this issue is certainly welcome to voice their opinion on where they believe I am wrong. Frankly, I'm having a hard time understanding what someone believes could possibly happen from hearing the word 'vagina' that would necessitate not showing the play, particularly with the caveat that I proposed where people were given a clear understanding that the play was a so-called 'mature' play.
[ March 11, 2007, 12:49 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I don't know much about women, but after watching this play, I realized that every woman I've ever known is incredibly well-adjusted and open about their sexuality.
Watching The Vagina Monologues, well, I had no idea so much sexual repression and blatant sexual ignorance still existed in our society. I know it is meant to be funny, on occasion, but some of the crowd (mostly male voices) were laughing at wildly inappropriate times. I was sitting there, horrified that these women (trusting that the play really is based on interviews) were so ignorant of their own bodies ... while others laughed. I don't know how many here are familiar with the work, but some of it is... well, not something that should be laughed at.
Do I think this play is appropriate for High School? That's tough, I know on the college level, there are people who aren't mature enough to handle it, so obviously there are High School students who wouldn't be mature enough to handle it either.
But I don't see how the piece would damage anyone, aside from some men going into shock over the idea that women are people too.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
We have girls in this country getting knocked up at 12 and the school was worried the subject was too mature for high school students? Really, how many high schoolers aren't having sex or talking to someone who is about it?
If they want to teach high schoolers sex ed, why shouldn't they put on the Vagina Monologes? I'd think the bits with how women feel when they don't understand their bodies would be rather pertinant.
(As an aside, I didn't realize that's what it was about. I'd just heard it described as women talking about their vaginas. I have one. Don't need to hear about it, thanks.)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
While many, or most, kids are sexually active in high school, and some are getting knocked up as early as 12, that doesn't mean that all kids are ready for this type of frank talk.
So the school limits its official responses to help those who are not. I consider that a decision well with in the rights of the school.
Its similar with Religion in school. While many or most of the kids in a certain school may be Christians, setting up a Christian curriculum is not allowed because of the minority that would be uncomfortable with it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
We don't teach religion, but we don't do away with pregnancy prevention in our sex ed because the homosexuals in the class might be uncomfortable with straight sex. Some subjects are important enough that we teach them fully aware that people will be uncomfortable with them.
I would think helping teens to be comfortable with and respect the female body would be important enough to override a little embarressment.
But for full disclosure, I feel public schools are usually envious of boot camps and want that kind of obedience from their students. I think they really were angrier that the girls disobeyed them.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: But for full disclosure, I feel public schools are usually envious of boot camps and want that kind of obedience from their students. I think they really were angrier that the girls disobeyed them.
I have worked in middle and high school schooling for the last twelve years, and I have never seen any sign of the attitude you describe. What I mostly do see on the part of schools as institutions is fear, and fear leading to bad decisions. Fear of bad publicity, fear of lawsuits, fear of failure. The bad decisions this lead to are more often than not erring on the side of excessive permissiveness and an inability to give bad grades. I think yours is a pretty gross mischaracterization, from my point of view.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I would like everyone to be comfortable enough that The Vagina Monologues could be performed for anybody. Since that isn't the case, and likely not to be, ever, I can understand a school not wanting to face parental ire.
But it saddens me.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
quote: Consider what would happen if the Vagina Monologues were put on and some people saw it and were made uncomfortable. What would happen?
This sentence seems to me to assume that any harm that would come would be rooted in people's feelings of discomfort.
-o-
The problem is I'm sure I cannot articulate this well, because this is a feeling I don't actually share, but a lot of people, including a lot of parents and administrators, believe that frank discussion of sexuality and sexual organs is something that should only happen in very private conditions, such as with a doctor. They believe that greater openness about these things leads to increased promiscuity. They don't see sex education and such as things done to address a problem; they see them as part of the cause of the problem. So what they believe could happen that's bad from hearing an explicit exerpt from the Vagina Monologues is that their daughters and sons could talk more about sex, sex organs, and sexuality with each other, leading them to experiment sexually with each other, and quite possibly not be virgins anymore. They believe this kind of activity leads to mnore teenage pregnancy, not less. (Most parents of high schoolers believe that their children are virgins, by the way.) (Don't bother asking me to cite a statistic on that; it is purely my opinion.)
If that point of view sounds ridiculous, it is at least partly because I don't share it and can't articulate it well. However, ridiculous or not, it is out there, and it is not even a particularly small viewpoint. And they will find the line "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country" extremely threatening. They don't see a short skirt as emblematic of any kind of liberation except liberation to be promiscuous.
You should see the grief we get every year over each and every drama production we have, even though we do much less controversial shows.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
I'm heading out the door, but I just wanted to tell you that I apologize if I responded in what seemed like an angry fashion. I know you're just trying to be helpful, and for that I thank you.
Posted by Snail (Member # 9958) on :
quote: Just the other day, a local teacher was fired because, on a field trip to an art museum, for which permission slips were signed, students saw nudes. Most were probably okay with this, but some parents were not.
I realize this is probably not strictly on topic, but how easy is it to get a teacher fired in America? Because had such a situation happened in Finland the parents who complained would not have had any kind of a case. At best they could have gotten the principal to give a man-to-man talk to the teacher, but to be honest I doubt even that would have happened in such a case. Is there a difference between private and public schools or something? (I suppose there would be.)
Of course, seeing nudes wouldn't be such a big thing in the Finnish culture, but now that I'm thinking of it even in cases where some sort of sanctions to the teacher would be in order there's usually very little that happens. For example, when I was in junior high school our biology teacher started speaking in tongues during her assembly speech and talking about how Jesus had resurrected her dead cat... which I'm not sure she should have been allowed to do since we weren't strictly a religious school. But then seeing as the major reaction to her by most students and even by some teachers was laughter I suppose the only minority that was threatened by that were the Christians. But there weren't any repercussions to her, and she still continues to teach at that school. To be honest, the only cases where I've heard of teacher's actions leading to them to be fired has been if they've attacked the students or been drunk to the school or something.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
How easy it is to get fired depends on where in your career you are. I have worked both public and private school. In private school, you have an annual contract, and so it is pretty hard to get rid of you in the middle of it. There are specific reasons for immediate termination listed in the contract. At the end of the year, though, they can certainly refuse to renew your contract. In the public system where I work right now, during your first 90 workdays in the county you can be fired at will and with no explanation whatsoever. After that, you are on an annual contract until you have been with the county for three years. After that, we have "continuing contracts" or "professional services contracts," which are the weak descendent of tenure. We can be fired, but it's a lengthy process of documenting the existence of a problem; it's fairly hard to get rid of someone like me from one year to the next. On the other hand, any of us can be chased out pretty easily by making us want to leave. For instance, I wouldn't want to stick around if I suddenly found myself teaching remedial math five periods a day, travelling to five different classrooms to do it (spaced as far apart as possible), out of three different textbooks, with the biggest hoodlums in the school, and with no resources. There would be no recourse for me, other than leaving, if some administrator did this to me. And again there are reasons spelled out in the contract why I can still be canned pretty quickly. In addition to the obvious over-the-top crimes against students, screwing up on administering the FCAT (our state's NCLB-related standardized achievement test) can do it, and anything related to decency/appropriateness, and insubordination.
ADDED:
All this is complicated by the fact that we are in a massive teacher shortage. So I'd have to be pretty bad indeed for the school to want to get rid of me, because it would be extremely difficult to find someone qualified to do my job.
It isn't really the teachers who have the most to fear, though: it's the administrators. I'm pretty sure you don't have continuing contract if you're a principal, and you're the public face of your school. It's the principal who the parents are likely to run off with pitchforks--and I've seen this happen two or three times. So school administrations tend to be more fearful of community reactions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I would like everyone to be comfortable enough that The Vagina Monologues could be performed for anybody.
I am very comfortable with the fact that I wouldn't be comfortable enough to want to sit through a performance of The Vagina Monologues.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I'm sure you could stand, if the chairs are uncomfortable.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
[aside, not a reference to the current conversation above]
Icarus, I just wanted you to know that I know how hard dealing with hyperbole about your job can be, and I appreciate the level-headed patience.
[/aside]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Storm, I didn't mean to insult you, and I'm sorry that you're offended. I think that people on Hatrack know intellectually that things are based on their assumptions, but I don't think it's always possible to see it in action within yourself, because one is not conscious of assuming the things one assumes.
quote: Consider what would happen if the Vagina Monologues were put on and some people saw it and were made uncomfortable. What would happen?
This sentence seems to me to assume that any harm that would come would be rooted in people's feelings of discomfort.
-o-
The problem is I'm sure I cannot articulate this well, because this is a feeling I don't actually share, but a lot of people, including a lot of parents and administrators, believe that frank discussion of sexuality and sexual organs is something that should only happen in very private conditions, such as with a doctor. They believe that greater openness about these things leads to increased promiscuity. They don't see sex education and such as things done to address a problem; they see them as part of the cause of the problem. So what they believe could happen that's bad from hearing an explicit exerpt from the Vagina Monologues is that their daughters and sons could talk more about sex, sex organs, and sexuality with each other, leading them to experiment sexually with each other, and quite possibly not be virgins anymore. They believe this kind of activity leads to mnore teenage pregnancy, not less. (Most parents of high schoolers believe that their children are virgins, by the way.) (Don't bother asking me to cite a statistic on that; it is purely my opinion.)
If that point of view sounds ridiculous, it is at least partly because I don't share it and can't articulate it well. However, ridiculous or not, it is out there, and it is not even a particularly small viewpoint. And they will find the line "My short skirt is a liberation flag in the women's army. I declare these streets, any streets, my vagina's country" extremely threatening. They don't see a short skirt as emblematic of any kind of liberation except liberation to be promiscuous.
You should see the grief we get every year over each and every drama production we have, even though we do much less controversial shows.
I appreciate your sharing the environment that you work in. I think it supports my previous posting on the subject.
Question, though. To go back to something that I mentioned earlier, what if people were informed about what the play was about before they went in, and/or students had to have permission from their parents? Would those who demanded the play not be shown at all still have a reasonable leg to stand on?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think there would still be complaints, but maybe the administrators would feel safer about it.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Thanks, CT.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I think there would still be complaints, but maybe the administrators would feel safer about it.
As insulting as it is to say, would you be saying the same thing if the play was about, say, growing up under Castro? What it was like to grow up Latino? (This is, by the way, I think, a kind of turn on the point you made to me. I'm not saying this to point out that I'm getting back at you, ha! ha!, how does it feel? Just pointing it out so you don't think I think any less of you and I wonder if you aren't working through your own prejudices?)
I get what you are saying, Joe, but isn't there a time to condemn the administration, or anyone else's response to speech as being wrong? As being censorship? Isn't this one of those times? Again I ask, if notification was given ahead of time, shouldn't the play have gone on?
My feeling is that it would be almost certain that if this play was about another subject, people would unequivocally not be talking about the realities, legal or otherwise, of the situation which make it so that the kids couldn't perform they play, they would be calling for change.
I know you have said that you don't share the feelings of those who think the play would do harm, but you haven't condemned the perspective of those who would keep this play being shown, and I wonder why that is?
In case it's not clear, all the above was said in the spirit of friendship. I hope it's taken that way.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I really am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph--I'm not offended, just confused. The reason I am not condemning the administrators is because I realize that it's their jobs on the line, much more than those of the teachers, and because the real origin of any censorship in schools is parents. Really, why the hell should we care? It's parents who complain after every one of our talent nights that they didn't like the songs because the lyrics were too suggestive (none of them contain actual bad words) and because the dances were too erotic. And I am not quick to condemn parents either because parenting's a tough job too, and maybe parents should have some say in how quickly or slowly their kids are exposed to certain concepts. I don't believe you can insulate your kids from every thought you think is harmful in today's world--short of homeschooling and controlling their access to popular media, but parents are often determined to try. Hell, I was determined to keep my kids away from Barbie and the Bratz; I haven't had that much success either.
Some parents won't be happy even if notification is given ahead of time because their concern is not being personally offended, it's being opposed to the play being held at all. If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all. I personally wouldn't draw the line at the word "vagina." That's probably about as much condemnation as I can muster up, though.
And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime.
[ March 12, 2007, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't have any problems with there being some sort of censorship in high school.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I really am not sure what you mean in your first paragraph--I'm not offended, just confused. The reason I am not condemning the administrators is because I realize that it's their jobs on the line, much more than those of the teachers, and because the real origin of any censorship in schools is parents. Really, why the hell should we care? It's parents who complain after every one of our talent nights that they didn't like the songs because the lyrics were too suggestive (none of them contain actual bad words) and because the dances were too erotic. And I am not quick to condemn parents either because parenting's a tough job too, and maybe parents should have some say in how quickly or slowly their kids are exposed to certain concepts. I don't believe you can insulate your kids from every thought you think is harmful in today's world--short of homeschooling and controlling their access to popular media, but parents are often determined to try. Hell, I was determined to keep my kids away from Barbie and the Bratz; I haven't had that much success either.
It seems I did forget to mention the parents, and put all the blame on the administrators, didn't I? Pardon.
Let me see if I can rephrase what I wrote in terms of analogy. A few months a go, we had the post about the French head scarves. *No one* defended the administration or parents of France. It wasn't even brought up, despite the fact that both, according to polls I've seen, were probably solidly behind it. Almost everyone on this board condemned the situation as being wrong, as the Muslim girls having their civil liberties abridged.
I recognize that the analogy isn't exactly one to one, by the way, but I think it works.
If that doesn't work, what about my initial question to you?
In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
quote: Some parents won't be happy even if notification is given ahead of time because their concern is not being personally offended, it's being opposed to the play being held at all. If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all. I personally wouldn't draw the line at the word "vagine." That's probably about as much condemnation as I can muster up, though.
I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should have been drawn.
I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them into the conversation.
On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being wrong.
I'm having one of those moments where I wish I could express myself more clearly.
quote: And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime. [/qb]
Over the last few days, there's a better possibility that that can happen.
(I don't like the way that last sounds. What I mean is that over the last few days, I've felt like you're enjoyed talking to me, whereas before I didn't.)
[ March 12, 2007, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: If we come up with an extreme enough scenario, could we come up with something we would find intrinsically objectionable enough that we would object to it being performed at all, even if we were given fair warning? I think we could, and therefore I think the debate is only about where to draw the line, rather than being about whether parents, school districts, and administrators should be drawing lines at all.
This is exactly what I meant when I said that I don't have any problems with there being some sort of censorship in high school.
I think I answered your post, too, Porter, in my last post, but didn't want you to feel like I was ignoring you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
I suspect the heart of the disagreement is whether this is a public forum. Legally and, I suspect, in the minds of most people, it's not.
A public forum is one anyone* can use as a place/time to express oneself. A public park is the paradigm public forum. If the park closes at sunset for all people, it's a public forum during the day.
The essence of a public forum from the legal perspective is that almost no content-based restrictions on speech are allowed. Further, most non-content-based restrictions that burden speech are allowed. For example, use of megaphones in a public park may be restricted based on volume. But the volume restriction would have to apply to all content - they couldn't say "Prayers can be any volume, all others below 70db." Nor could they say "political rallies are OK, but not religious rallies." The latter is a pure content-based restriction. Obscenity and speech that creates an imminent danger ("fire!" in a crowded theater) can be banned, almost nothing else can be.
There are numerous forums that aren't public, even though they are open to members of the public. For example, if the city puts on a local band show and has auditions, then the forum is not open. Certain types of decisions based on content will not be legal (although this kind of case would be hard to prove unless the decision-makers say, "Nope, we don't want no Muslim songs on our stage"), certain types will. But the essence of an audition is both content and quality evaluation. Some people will not be allowed to perform strictly because of the content of their speech, and this decision will be subjective. I'd be surprised if many people here would object to such auditions, assuming more people wanted to perform than there was time for.
Here, there were auditions. The girls could have simply been refused participation without reason given. Instead, they were told to alter (in a way that probably violated copyright law) the play if they wanted to perform it.
One of the criteria was the effect of the piece on the audience - exactly the kind of criteria that should be used by a producer auditioning acts for any show. This was further compounded by the fact that the audience in question contains the "customers" of the entity producing the show who have lots of political influence.
In this case, it is absolutely appropriate for the producer to take audience considerations into account, even that producer thinks those considerations are misguided or any other negative adjective he wishes to apply. Legally, certain considerations may not be taken into account - such as the considerations of those who don't want to see black and white kids on the same stage. Certainly there are some decisions based on such considerations that, while legal, are misguided.
But decisions based on comfort level with sexually-oriented dialog does not belong in that category. Someone producing a show needs to take this into account. These girls took it upon themselves to usurp that role, and it wasn't theirs to usurp.
Despite some similarities with this incident, the head scarf situation had nothing equivalent to the idea of a produced show in it. The school was inserting itself into an area of truly personal expression - the school was not "producing" the clothing nor trying to express an overall entity. They simply didn't want the headscarves present. Moreover, they were making this a law - schools couldn't even adapt to their individual constituency.
*I'll limit this so that "anyone" doesn't have to be "anyone in the whole world," but a population that makes sense as belonging in the forum. For example, the "audience remarks" portion of an open meeting of the city council could be a public forum for city residents only. The forum under consideration here - a school's literary night - could be a public forum if it were limited to students only, although, for the reasons above, it's not.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public forum. Is this true?
I don't believe I am taking that position. As Dag noted, I don't believe this is a public forum. More on this after the next quote.
quote:I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should have been drawn.
To answer your previous question, I think there are levels of wrongness (or rightness). There are issues on which I have opinions, but where they are not so strong as to say that nobody should have a different opinion from me. So, as I think I have stated, no, the line wasn't fairly drawn here. A vagina is a body part, nothing more, nothing less. The word is not vulgar.
However, I do not feel so strongly (arrogantly?) about it that I would condemn those parents who would be outraged by this performance. We have to accommodate a broad range of beliefs and philosophies, and it can't all be based on what sounds good to me. There are things which I feel are wrong enough that I will condemn the parents for it. I don't see this as inconsistency, but as evidence of other factors to consider.
One criteria for this is in the area of preventing us from fulfilling our mandate. Firing a teacher for teaching kids the word "niggardly." Preventing the teaching of evolution. In the case of evolution or "niggardly" morality is not an issue, and morality is one specific area where we have to tread lightly. I think we (schools and teachers) get the right of way when it comes to presenting facts, such as they are understood to be by the consensus of experts. That is the case with evolution--those who are experts in science are virtually all in agreement--and so evolution should be presented, with as much sensitivity and tolerance as possible toward other views, as being nevertheless the consensus view of scientists. "Niggardly" is a vocabulary word etymologically unrelated to "nigger"; its definition is not in dispute, and my sympathy is entirely with the teacher and the school if parents find the word objectionable because of what it sounds like. If you as a parent object to us carrying out our mandate, I believe you need to find alternative arrangements for your child's education rather than expecting us to accommodate you. "When to talk about vaginas," though, is not really a matter of fact. (In an anatomy section of a science class, though, the definition of "vagina" certainly would be.) Discussions of what should be considered a vagina's "country" are not in that domain.
I believe we have a mandate to teach facts and skills. I believe teaching morality, empowerment, or political viewpoints (as being right or wrong) lie outside of that mandate. It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there.
The idea of, say, parents objecting to a mixed race production or team is more problematic for me. I suppose I could say that legally in this country we have made integration a matter "of fact" and so that lies within our domain. I'm not sure I buy that, though. In fact, I'm fairly sure I don't. The simple answer is that I think that racism is "more wrong" than retrograde sexual morality is, but I can't justify to you why I think it is in concrete terms. (Maybe I'll come up with something if I think about this more.) However, my inability to justify that belief of mine does not mean that belief is wrong.
-o-
If you want a more specific reaction to this event from me, I cannot begin to understand the rationale behind banning the word "vagina" and not the entire performance. I think it would have been more defensible to ban the performance outright.
quote:I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them into the conversation.
I think it's entirely about the parents, so I'm not sure what you mean. All of my posts in this thread have been to the effect that we should not condemn the schools, because if they had done otherwise they would probably have been in deep water with the parents.
quote:On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being wrong.
See my previous comments in this post. You can be wrong, or you can be Wrong. I don't think every decision ought to be a tug of war. I think there needs to be some leeway where we give parents the benefit of the doubt even when we believe they are wrong. Unfortunately, this generally means specifically giving conservative parents the benefit of the doubt, because conservatives are generally the ones who want to keep the line drawn where it has "always" been drawn, and liberals are the ones who want to move the line. (When I saw "unfortunately," I don't mean that it's unfortunate because they are conservative; I mean that it's unfortunate that it seems one-sided.)
quote:
quote:And we're cool, by the way. I have always enjoyed talking with you and would love to buy you a drink sometime. [/qb]
Over the last few days, there's a better possibility that that can happen.
(I don't like the way that last sounds. What I mean is that over the last few days, I've felt like you're enjoyed talking to me, whereas before I didn't.)
I am, truly, baffled by this. I'm not aware of ever having had any unpleasantness with you, or of any change in my behavior. I don't think I've ever criticized you or gossiped about you. It seems to me that I have always invited you to get together for a beer or for jai-alai or whatever, and I wouldn't do that if I didn't like you. Seriously, I don't go in for torturing myself. All I can think you are responding to is that I don't go in for debate on Hatrack in general; I don't like how hard it seems people have to shout to be heard at all, and I don't like how those debates tend to go on and on at length. I just don't have enough free time to stay involved! But I don't remember feeling like you were rude to me, and I don't believe I have been rude to you. It is true that, when we interact, we are typically on opposite ends of whatever issue we are discussing, but I don't find you to be a mean "opponent" and it doesn't color my personal opinion of you. I have always felt like you enjoyed talking to me, and I'm sorry I failed to convey that I generally feel the same way. Apart from our interactions in debates, other interactions that stick out in my mind are when I quoted you in my .sig on sakeriver (something I would not have done if I disliked you, nor would I have been so quick to respect your wish not to be quoted if I didn't respect you) and when I was going through a rough time and you offered to help me through it. I don't remember if I replied to you; I apologize if I did not. I certainly did note and appreciate it, though.
:-\
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, well. I started to write out a long reply, but I was unhappy with what was coming out. I think I'm going to let it sit for a while. Maybe I'll eventually get around to posting in this thread.
In any case, thanks for your response, Icarus.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I suspect the heart of the disagreement is whether this is a public forum. Legally and, I suspect, in the minds of most people, it's not. . . . Here, there were auditions. The girls could have simply been refused participation without reason given.
Public schools are not strictly speaking a public forum, but they are also not a private forum. It is not acceptable to exclude people from participation in the public school events without just cause. If these girls had been refused participation because they were black, or jewish or democrats, we wouldn't be debating the issue. Our society has agreed that it is unjust to exclude people from participation in public school activities for any of those reasons. Clearly, not every possible reason the school could have used for excluding these girls would be acceptable because while this may not truly be a public forum, it is a public institution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Clearly, not every possible reason the school could have used for excluding these girls would be acceptable because while this may not truly be a public forum, it is a public institution.
Yeah, I know. That's why I said, "Legally, certain considerations may not be taken into account - such as the considerations of those who don't want to see black and white kids on the same stage." It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
I posted a pretty complex explanation that took a lot of factors into account. Nor did I call schools a private forum.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
To build on what Icarus said above, about the school's role to teach facts/ skills, not morals:
I teach English, and books (and other literature, like plays) are often what get people angry, and books are what get censored. (Other stuff gets people angry, too, of course; see above. ) The way my department deals with it is to say we teach SKILLS, not BOOKS. If a student finds a book offensive, he doesn't have to read it. Period. (Obviously he has to read an alternate book...he doesn't just get out of the work.) Kids do a lot of independent reading in my class, which has the potential to create problems, since there's absolutely no way that I can preview every book my students will get credit for reading. So the way I deal with it is to say they won't get credit for it if I find out they're reading it against a parent's wishes. I wish I didn't have to worry so much about it, and I wish I didn't have to do a disclaimer before any book I recommend to a kid. I'm actually a lot more conservative than most parents, apparently, and I do the "CSI-test": I ask the kid if her parents let her watch CSI...virtually any book I recommend is not going to approach that level of graphic violence and adult themes.
All that said, of course I see part of my role as teaching morality and building character. We read because it makes us better people, and we write to share who we are with others. If I didn't think it was that vital, I wouldn't do it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I posted a pretty complex explanation that took a lot of factors into account. Nor did I call schools a private forum.
It was pretty freakin' brilliant, not to mention exhaustive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed. I have found many posts in this thread insightful, but especially Dags' and Ic's.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: In short, it seems like you are taking the position that if enough people are against
the airing of an idea, then it's understandable that that idea not be given time in a public
forum. Is this true?
I don't believe I am taking that position. As Dag noted, I
don't believe this is a public forum. More on this after the next quote.
quote:I don't disagree that there is a line somewhere, and this is what I'm trying to get
you to discuss. Whether, in this particular instance, the line was fairly drawn, should
have been drawn.
To answer your previous question, I think there are levels of
wrongness (or rightness). There are issues on which I have opinions, but where they are not
so strong as to say that nobody should have a different opinion from me. So, as I think I
have stated, no, the line wasn't fairly drawn here. A vagina is a body part, nothing more,
nothing less. The word is not vulgar.
However, I do not feel so strongly (arrogantly?) about it that I would condemn those
parents who would be outraged by this performance. We have to accommodate a broad range of
beliefs and philosophies, and it can't all be based on what sounds good to me. There
are things which I feel are wrong enough that I will condemn the parents for it. I don't see
this as inconsistency, but as evidence of other factors to consider.
One criteria for this is in the area of preventing us from fulfilling our mandate. Firing a
teacher for teaching kids the word "niggardly." Preventing the teaching of evolution. In the
case of evolution or "niggardly" morality is not an issue, and morality is one specific area
where we have to tread lightly. I think we (schools and teachers) get the right of way when
it comes to presenting facts, such as they are understood to be by the consensus of experts.
That is the case with evolution--those who are experts in science are virtually all in
agreement--and so evolution should be presented, with as much sensitivity and tolerance as
possible toward other views, as being nevertheless the consensus view of scientists.
"Niggardly" is a vocabulary word etymologically unrelated to "nigger"; its definition is not
in dispute, and my sympathy is entirely with the teacher and the school if parents find the
word objectionable because of what it sounds like. If you as a parent object to us carrying
out our mandate, I believe you need to find alternative arrangements for your child's
education rather than expecting us to accommodate you. "When to talk about vaginas," though,
is not really a matter of fact. (In an anatomy section of a science class, though, the
definition of "vagina" certainly would be.) Discussions of what should be considered
a vagina's "country" are not in that domain.
I believe we have a mandate to teach facts and skills. I believe teaching morality,
empowerment, or political viewpoints (as being right or wrong) lie outside of that mandate.
It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there.
The idea of, say, parents objecting to a mixed race production or team is more problematic
for me. I suppose I could say that legally in this country we have made integration a matter
"of fact" and so that lies within our domain. I'm not sure I buy that, though. In fact, I'm
fairly sure I don't. The simple answer is that I think that racism is "more wrong" than
retrograde sexual morality is, but I can't justify to you why I think it is in concrete
terms. (Maybe I'll come up with something if I think about this more.) However, my inability
to justify that belief of mine does not mean that belief is wrong.
-o-
If you want a more specific reaction to this event from me, I cannot begin to understand the
rationale behind banning the word "vagina" and not the entire performance. I think it would
have been more defensible to ban the performance outright.
quote:I don't understand why, if it's not about the parents, etc, we need to bring them
into the conversation.
I think it's entirely about the parents, so I'm not
sure what you mean. All of my posts in this thread have been to the effect that we
should not condemn the schools, because if they had done otherwise they would probably have
been in deep water with the parents.
quote:On the other hand, I do acknowledge that parents do have final say in how their
children are raised en loco parentis by the school, but that doesn't mean that the parents
are right in their decisions and that we can't decry their decisions as being
wrong.
See my previous comments in this post. You can be wrong, or you can be Wrong.
I don't think every decision ought to be a tug of war. I think there needs to be some leeway
where we give parents the benefit of the doubt even when we believe they are wrong.
Unfortunately, this generally means specifically giving conservative parents the
benefit of the doubt, because conservatives are generally the ones who want to keep the line
drawn where it has "always" been drawn, and liberals are the ones who want to move the line.
(When I saw "unfortunately," I don't mean that it's unfortunate because they are
conservative; I mean that it's unfortunate that it seems one-sided.) [/quote]
When I was speaking of a public forum, I was speaking strictly in a kind of literal sense--a forum open to the public. I have no idea what the legal definition is. I'm not suggesting that people should be able to wander in and out of the school. It's clear that while a school probably shouldn't be an open public forum, it is a forum owned by the public, or a public forum (space). Is that more clear?
While we could debate what a public forum is in general, out task here has been made easier in that we are talking about specific public space, a school. So, the question is what kind of public space should a school have in order to, as you put it, best fulfill its mandate?
To answer that question, we might also ask, given that it combines minors and adults, what is a school's mission? How much freedom does it need in order to fulfill this mission? How does this mission intersect with the rights of both the teachers and minors in the school?
These, to me, seem to be the principal questions.
I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
If nothing else, because 'I said so' to the parents that want to use the school to promote their values are probably going to not be real happy with that explanation.
To answer the question of what values, it seems to me that this puts us back to answering what the madate of a school is. I think a case can be made that a school's mandate might be to produce good citizens for a country. Of course, having said this, we must acknowledge the rights of parents to raise their own children.
So, what might a good citizen ideal be like? To answer that, I think we should ask, citizen of what?
To be a citizen of America, to me, means living alongside many different peoples and ideas.
We like people to, as much as possible, make their own decisions in America, while at the same time being respectful of the rights of others. So, to be a good citizen in America seems to me means helping citizens to have good decision making skills and, in order to help them respect others, giving them the tools to live in a pluralistic society.
To me, the way that communities should teach kids, the mandate that schools should have, is how to be logical within the context of a pluralistic society like the one that kids will function in outside of school. Just like we have students learn to drive by (usually) starting them off in a parking lot with a teacher before they hit the interstate, I think schools can be used to help kids understand their own personal logic as they interact with other students, this interaction itself both reinforcing the children's rhetorical and interpersonal skills. Further, by interacting with the parents of a child and keeping them informed of what's going on in that child's life, the school can insure that the wishes of parents are respected. This is fair for everyone, since everyone's child who goes to the school has ability to use the school's facilities.
I believe your suggestion is an open door to bias and prejudice where some parents wishes will not be respected, where some parents wishes are put subordinate to the wishes of the school. Worse, if schools are muddled in what they will or won't allow, are simply going to do what they need to do to avoid offending some parents and some students, then the message is that some values in the community are better than others, some people in the community are better than others. And if that is so, why not racism, sexism, religiousism if that's what the community wants? What message does this send to the children?
I am not suggesting that the school be some free for all where anything goes. Students can learn in a chaotic, noisy environment. Teaches can't teach in one, so clearly there needs to be rules.
What I am saying is that I think that, at least in terms of the arts, schools should not pick and choose the content of those arts as doing so makes a value judgement on members of the community, which is not fair.
That said, it might not be fair for students and parents to be exposed to things that they did not wish to be exposed to. So, the compromise position should be either that when a school has mixed events like the one in the article, everyone does their thing at the same event, but they let everyone know ahead of time what's going to happen and give people who don't want to see the performance a chance to leave, or they have segregated events.
Rereading the article, it seems like the school gave the girls a chance to do their play at another time, but the girls did not want to do it at another time. At this point, I guess the criteria that can be used is majority. Since I'm getting from the article that there's was the only controversial bit, I guess they should have been the one to have their bit at a different time. Though, this does not sit well with me to say that.
In any case, I have come to the conclusion that I think the girls were in the wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, CT and rivka.
BTW, the reason I didn't name the type of forum the school literary night was is that I don't have time to figure it out. It might be a "limited public forum" (which is what the funding program our magazine got kicked out of at UVA was), but I'm pretty sure it wasn't. The other categorizations are fairly complex and the subject of a lot of legal wrangling. I gave the general sense of things that didn't depend on the exact categorization.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I thought viewers of this thread might find this article interesting. The SCOTUS is hearing a case involving high school free speech for the first time in 20 years. At issue is a student who hung a banner saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" from the school during a school-sponsored event in an attempt to make it onto television news. The banner was removed and the student was suspended for 10 days.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The girls should have just switched gears and done a presentation of O'Keefe art.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So maybe this is why all those figures in the Supreme Court friezes are wearing togas.
As Ken Starr told the nine justices yesterday why a student's "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner didn't qualify as free speech, the whole bunch of them sounded one toke over the line.
"So if the sign had been 'Bong Stinks for Jesus,' that would be . . . a protected right?" asked Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"Suppose that this particular person had whispered to his next-door neighbor, 'Bong hits for Jesus, heh, heh, heh'?" contributed Stephen Breyer.
"What if the sign said 'Bong Hits Should be Legal'?" queried John Paul Stevens.
Anthony Kennedy got really psychedelic. "Suppose the banner said 'Vote Republican'?"
The whole article is worth reading. The author is having fun, but you do get a sense of the weaknesses in both sides of the case.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Never mind. Have a kitten.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Dahlia Lithwick in Slate gives the oral arguments similar treatment. She, somewhat predictably, comes down on the side of the students. From her review, and the Post article, I couldn't find a single persuasive argument by anyone involved. The closest I came was with Scalia's statement that "Any school can suppress speech that advocates violation of the law."
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Let's go back to the main subject in its simplest terms.
The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
What were they suppose to call it the 'hoo-hoo monolog'; the 'wee-wee monologs'? And excuse me, but isn't 'vagina' the correct medical term for that part of the body? I can think of several other words for that part of the body that certainly would have been considered inappropriate and they would certainly have had a right to ban. But 'vagina' is about as cold and clinical a term as you can possible get.
Also, this was not a general assembly, it was specifically '...an event sponsored by the literary magazine at John Jay High School'. It seems that the context of the event was clearly established.
It seems as if the administration, in my view, was engage in the arbitrary self-contradictory exercise of authority. That happens more often than you might believe in high school.
Rules only have meaning when they are rational and reasonable, when they become irrational and unreasonable, it is our duty to defy them on every front. Once we allow the irrational and unreasonable, especially by those with power, to stand unchallenged, we have given up the very heart of our freedom and liberty.
As to the teacher who was fired for taking kids to an art museum, what would you reasonably expect to see in an art museum? Once again, we have power exercised to the point of irrationality. Let's hope this particular class never travel to Europe where nude art work is displayed in public squares.
As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
I'm pretty sure lots of people see that as irrational (or "stupid"). Many have commented on it here - even some who think the girls deserved to be punished.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
There's a great story by...someone...about a doctor who needs to check a little girl's throat. The girl realizes it will hurt, and, quite rationally, defies the doctor's attempts to pull apart her jaws. Eventually the doctor manages to pry her mouth open, verify the diagnosis, and get her the necessary medication.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: As far as I'm concerned, 'authority' loses it's authority when it exercises that authority in a manner that is irrational and unreasonable.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
But sometimes it does.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The administration APPROVED a performance of the Vagina Monologs, but forbid the use of the word 'Vagina'.
Doesn't anyone see a degree of irrationality in that?
I'm pretty sure lots of people see that as irrational (or "stupid"). Many have commented on it here - even some who think the girls deserved to be punished.
Thank you. Yes, I think most if not all posters see the irrationality here, and have, in fact acknowledged that.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stormy Saxon: I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
I am not unaware of the contradiction in my stance, and I agree with your assessment of it.
I don't know how to delineate a clear solution here, because the source of the problem isn't a lack of coherence or thought-through-ness on one ideal, it's conflicting ideals held by different people.
Parents have a right to teach their kids values. Many will argue that schools don't have such a right. Some parents do not however, teach values to their kids, or they teach values that we as a society reject nearly universally. (Some teach values that the majority rejects, but with nowhere near as much unanimity.) Most people think it's okay for schools to teach values, especially in the case of kids who do not get taught values, but most parents do not believe this description applies to them.
So what we end up doing, and I'm not arguing it's the right approach, is a kind of dance, where we do teach values, but only insofar as we seem to be able to agree on them as a society. Racism is bad. Stealing is bad. Being a "good citizen" is ideal. Prejudice is bad . . . but what's prejudice? Is disapproving of homosexuality prejudice? What about expressing that disapproval? What about believing that women are best suited to raise children and not have careers?
I think another issue is that it may be impossible to truly enact value-free education. I think all kinds of commissions and omissions will give away what our values are as a society or a system or an institution. Trying to be value-neutral is a positive statement on the value of neutrality.
quote:I believe your suggestion . . .
I am not sure which suggestion you're classifying as mine. My major point was one of sympathy for the school, that was likely to fall under fire regardless of its actions. I don't believe I have elaborated a coherent policy for avoiding this, because I don't think I can think of one.
Mostly I've just rambled. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: There's a great story by...someone...about a doctor who needs to check a little girl's throat. The girl realizes it will hurt, and, quite rationally, defies the doctor's attempts to pull apart her jaws. Eventually the doctor manages to pry her mouth open, verify the diagnosis, and get her the necessary medication.
Not that this applies particularly to the "Vagina Monologues" discussion, but perceiving actions as irrational or unreasonable does not necessarily mean they are.
This is likely The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams. It ends up being more about how reason is used as a cover for force based on more hindbrain drives than any paean to rationality:
quote:But the worst of it was that I too had got beyond reason. I could have torn the child apart in my own fury and enjoyed it. It was a pleasure to attack her. My face was burning with it.
The damned little brat must be protected against her own idiocy, one says to one's self at such times. Others must be protected against her. It is a social necessity. And all these things are true. But a blind fury, a feeling of adult shame, bred of a longing for muscular release are the operatives. One goes on to the end.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus:
quote:Originally posted by Stormy Saxon: I was reading your post on the function of schools and getting behind what you were saying regarding teaching only facts. It is clear that many sciences need the kind of advanced, comprehensive knowledge in those sciences that few parents can provide. So, if a community needs people to be able to do certain jobs that require these kinds of specialized facts, it is logical for a community to fund a school to teach these facts, and then leave the values stuff to the parents, which they are probably best qualified to teach.
To me, a school that just teaches facts and stays away from allowing anyone to present
their values using the school's facilities is a kind of fair that respects all parties concerned. It seems to me that, to be fair, this basically means no arts and no religion, but then we leave that up to the parents.
The problem that I see with your analysis is that you then turn around and say "It's okay to go outside of that mandate, but we ought to tread very lightly there. " And then you kind of leave undefined what that means, or even why it's needed. So, the door is open to hosting or teaching values on campus. You acknowledge this.
I think that, even though there's certainly nothing 'wrong' with having an opinion, I think it's clear that if we strive to base our opinions on reason and not just blind prejudice, it is important to have some kind of rationale as to why we allow some values but not others.
I am not unaware of the contradiction in my stance, and I agree with your assessment of it.
I don't know how to delineate a clear solution here, because the source of the problem isn't a lack of coherence or thought-through-ness on one ideal, it's conflicting ideals held by different people.
Parents have a right to teach their kids values. Many will argue that schools don't have such a right. Some parents do not however, teach values to their kids, or they teach values that we as a society reject nearly universally. (Some teach values that the majority rejects, but with nowhere near as much unanimity.) Most people think it's okay for schools to teach values, especially in the case of kids who do not get taught values, but most parents do not believe this description applies to them.
So what we end up doing, and I'm not arguing it's the right approach, is a kind of dance, where we do teach values, but only insofar as we seem to be able to agree on them as a society. Racism is bad. Stealing is bad. Being a "good citizen" is ideal. Prejudice is bad . . . but what's prejudice? Is disapproving of homosexuality prejudice? What about expressing that disapproval? What about believing that women are best suited to raise children and not have careers?
I think another issue is that it may be impossible to truly enact value-free education. I think all kinds of commissions and omissions will give away what our values are as a society or a system or an institution. Trying to be value-neutral is a positive statement on the value of neutrality.
quote:I believe your suggestion . . .
I am not sure which suggestion you're classifying as mine. My major point was one of sympathy for the school, that was likely to fall under fire regardless of its actions. I don't believe I have elaborated a coherent policy for avoiding this, because I don't think I can think of one.
Mostly I've just rambled.
I understand. That bit you quoted does come off as unnecessarily harsh. I was more trying to elaborate on why I needed to elaborate than why I thought your lack of elaboration was 'wrong', if that makes any sense.
Real quick, the 'solution' that I made in this case is just one of several. It's probably not even the one I favor. I think I lean towards either A) some kind of system wherein people with similiar values are provided the opportunity to send their kids to the same school or B)some kind of community that is 'advanced' enough that the naked hippy kids can mix with the religiously conservative kids in a school and each can learn from the other. Take that as you will.
Thanks for your response, Mr. Icarus. Think we've about beat this particular horse to death?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: This is likely The Use of Force by William Carlos Williams. It ends up being more about how reason is used as a cover for force based on more hindbrain drives than any paean to rationality:
Thanks, CT. That's absolutely right. I thought about mentioning the actual moral, but felt it obscured the point I was trying to make. After reading the snippet you posted, it seems like the example of the story was even less valid (toward establishing my point) than I remembered.
I just bristle at the idea that the only laws worth following are the ones for which we understand the reason. Often there are consequences to actions that are evident to those engaged in making rules, but not evident to all those asked to follow the rules.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Why do I keep thinking about the conference scene in High Anxiety when I read through this thread?
How times have changed, it seems... Twenty years ago we studied Catcher in the Rye in a Jesuit high school, and even discussed the profanity in it during class (although, I must admit, the teacher did an amazing job of preventing herself from repeating the profanity out loud). These days, that teacher would be burned at the stake for doing that.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah, I think I've mentioned before that the culture is becoming, uh, not very fun.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)