"The Rhode Island State Council of Churches would like to voice its concern about what appears to be a well-intentioned but ill-advised set of instructions given to school librarians. We support the ACLU’s recent letter to the Glocester School District urging them to cease arbitrary restrictions that would limit students’ access to books. Librarians are well-educated and trained to curate a collection of materials appropriate for students. We support and encourage parents to be engaged in deciding what books/materials their children may access. However, making those decisions for others is an infringement of the rights of families to make such choices for themselves. The rights of one set of parents should not override the rights of another set of parents.
"As Rhode Islanders, we are proud to be the descendants of Roger Williams, who made many contributions to this State and our nation, such as insistence on the freedom of conscience. Subjective and unwieldy restrictions infringe upon this freedom, which guarantees each of us the right to seek out and engage with various viewpoints. This allows students to learn and grow up to become well-informed citizens."
Age appropriate? For whom? This is ridiculous. I began reading Laura Ingalls Wilder's books to my kid when she was 3. When Pa walked off looking for work and wasn't heard from for 6 months, I thought, "She can't be getting this." "Why didn't he just call Ma and tell her he was OK?" I said. "Oh, Mom," my daughter said in digust, "they didn't HAVE telephones in those days." I think she was 5. And when they were told to leave Indian Territory and the neighbor said, "The only good injun is a dead injun," we had a long talk about why someone would say something like that. By then I think she was all of six. I gather now we're abolishing Wilder's books because they are "racist." Not appropriate.
Of course, we could just abolish school libraries altogether. (I trust everyone knows I'm being sarcastic.) Then there wouldn't be any problem, right? Maybe the parents should check the books their kids bring home, and if they are not age-appropriate for that kid, figure out what to do. At least they get to see the books, unlike the completely inappropriate stuff the kid might be connecting to on the internet.
When I was 11 years old I read the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Took me most of the summer. It is about death, destriuction, torture and other inhumane acts. I am sure it would not be admistted as age appropriate for an 11 year old. It is not age appropriate for anyone. But it is an important book and it was important to read at that age. helped prepare me for standing up to the orange headed monster now invading DC .
From the Rhode Island Council of Churches:
"The Rhode Island State Council of Churches would like to voice its concern about what appears to be a well-intentioned but ill-advised set of instructions given to school librarians. We support the ACLU’s recent letter to the Glocester School District urging them to cease arbitrary restrictions that would limit students’ access to books. Librarians are well-educated and trained to curate a collection of materials appropriate for students. We support and encourage parents to be engaged in deciding what books/materials their children may access. However, making those decisions for others is an infringement of the rights of families to make such choices for themselves. The rights of one set of parents should not override the rights of another set of parents.
"As Rhode Islanders, we are proud to be the descendants of Roger Williams, who made many contributions to this State and our nation, such as insistence on the freedom of conscience. Subjective and unwieldy restrictions infringe upon this freedom, which guarantees each of us the right to seek out and engage with various viewpoints. This allows students to learn and grow up to become well-informed citizens."
Age appropriate? For whom? This is ridiculous. I began reading Laura Ingalls Wilder's books to my kid when she was 3. When Pa walked off looking for work and wasn't heard from for 6 months, I thought, "She can't be getting this." "Why didn't he just call Ma and tell her he was OK?" I said. "Oh, Mom," my daughter said in digust, "they didn't HAVE telephones in those days." I think she was 5. And when they were told to leave Indian Territory and the neighbor said, "The only good injun is a dead injun," we had a long talk about why someone would say something like that. By then I think she was all of six. I gather now we're abolishing Wilder's books because they are "racist." Not appropriate.
Of course, we could just abolish school libraries altogether. (I trust everyone knows I'm being sarcastic.) Then there wouldn't be any problem, right? Maybe the parents should check the books their kids bring home, and if they are not age-appropriate for that kid, figure out what to do. At least they get to see the books, unlike the completely inappropriate stuff the kid might be connecting to on the internet.
Seriously? Are we talking about cognitive age? Emotional age? Circumstantial age? This “idea” is laughable for all age groups.
When I was 11 years old I read the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Took me most of the summer. It is about death, destriuction, torture and other inhumane acts. I am sure it would not be admistted as age appropriate for an 11 year old. It is not age appropriate for anyone. But it is an important book and it was important to read at that age. helped prepare me for standing up to the orange headed monster now invading DC .
The ACLU is right. The kids have seen it all. The internet makes access to almost anything easy to everyone.