New DI Column: Banning Kurt Vonnegut
15 Comments Published by Brian on Monday, April 16 at 10:00 AM.
New column's up today (I switched days with Jon since the school board election I'm discussing happens tomorrow and we wanted it to be timely): "Banning Kurt Vonnegut and Other Sins Against Man."
Labels: DI, education, entertainment, politics, role of government, society
Y'know, Brian, I really am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about fascist book-burners when the challengers to the status quo manage, with the help of powerful outside forces, to only raise one-fifth the money of the incumbents. My guess is that the "I don't give a rat's ass" factor is at work here and that the incumbents could have kept about a quarter of the money, given the rest of it to the school to buy library books and still would win the election by a landslide.
My surprise in this story is not necessarily about trying to pack a schoolboard, (since this happens all the time and the pro-censorship folks make a big fuss, ban a book or two or eliminate evolution from the science books and then get voted out by a landslide in the next election.)
The big story to me is that there are still students capable of reading Slaughterhouse-Five in the curriculum. Since less than one-third of HS seniors can read at 1969 12th-grade level when they graduate, I'd figure that the book would be too damn hard for them.
This is really a tempest in a teapot. As long as there are freely available public libraries and parents with the willingness to buy books, what the evil government schools let the students read is irrelevant.
Tom
What I found more interesting in the article was President Bartlett's statement that "that's where all the governing that really matters to anybody really happens" , referring to local government. Having lived for 15 years in rural Massachusetts, where Town Meetings were where all the political action took place, I thoroughly agree. I really felt empowered at Town Meetings, knowing that my voice was not only heard, but could impact the decisions that were made. Unfortunately, that spoiled me when it comes to local politics here in Illinois, because even if I were to go to a City Council meeting, I don't really feel my voice would have much impact. So, once again, I feel powerless to effect any change in our government, be it local or national. The result - I often get apathetic.
Before anyone jumps all over me for being apathetic - stop. I really don't want that to be the point discussed. My main point is my agreement with Pres. B. about local government being where change can be accomplished. I'm surprised Tom hasn't written on this.
I have written on it. I regularly talk about how, in government:
One's Family is > (better than) the Neighborhood Association > the City Council > the County Board > the State Legislature > The US Congress > The United Nations.
Tom
Tom -
Is it really a problem that kids are worse at reading than in 1969? Especially, when you consider what that vaunted class of 1969 did, at least as part of that generation. I mean, based on your criteria, that class was one of the worst in history:
1) This generation was the one who led the way to the high level of secularization we have in this country right now.
2) It perpetuated the increase of big government.
3) They couldn't keept their pants on, thus an increase of STDs, both in number and type.
4) This isn't really a seperate issue, but I like how it was stated by Stephen King: "We [baby boomers] were given the chance to save the world. We settled for the home shopping network."
5) Debt, dependance on oil, and hiding behind Vietnam as the excuse for why the way they are. All baby boomers.
6) It was their responsibility educate the next generation. Obviously, per your own admission, they blew that hardcore.
So I guess book smarts aren't all it is cracked up to be.
I love that you ended this column with, "So it goes."
You know, Prescott, your reply is one of the cleverest things I've seen on this blog in a couple of weeks. Let me think about this overnight and I'll write you the thought-out reply you deserve in the morning.
Tom
Brian, in your column it sounds like you're not even sure whether these people are running specifically for the reason of banning those books!!! Which is outrageous given that the entire premise of your article is this Board's attempt to ban these books...yikes...sounds like some shady fricken journalism to me. you muckrakin' fool.
I've got an opportunity to comment on Prescott's post, finally, (busy morning.) I want to start out by saying that 1969 has no special position in the history of secondary education in the United States. It is used as a reference merely because the best judge of student performance, the NAEP test, began in that year, and it's been sliding since.
It's very likely, actually, that even though the science and math taught in 1969 was superior due to the Sputnik fallout a decade before, the social studies and language instruction that the students received that year would have been inferior to that taught in 1900, for instance, when Greek and Latin were mainstays of secondary education.
Nonetheless, questioning the correlation between a better education and desirable outcomes is a process that I do not recall having been done in my memory. The tacit assumption is that it would make a better life more likely.
I'm going to ignore the digs at baby boomers for now. I have the utmost contempt for most of my generation, although the specific accusations that Prescott has aimed at them in the cases of 2, 3 and 5 are much more likely to be the result of the actions of the Silents or the WW2 generations. I plan to write a column on WHY ALL THE BABY BOOMERS ARE MORE THAN A LITTLE NUTS pretty soon that should explain quite a lot, and I will address those there. It would be a distraction to the questions being brought up right now.
So, is ignorance better? Where do I begin?
1) Ignorance of the scientific method opens the door to hysteria concerning natural phenomina, as well as allowing the large-scale manipulation of public opinion.
I see this every day in everything from creationist science to global warming. First clue--if anyone mentions in an article that there's a consensus of scientific thought, throw the article away.
That is not how science works. Science uses data that is acquired with no observer bias to construct hypotheses that make observable and verifiable predictions about the future. Even one negative result is adequate to disprove a theory. People's opinions do not matter, just the data.
Anything else, or things taken on faith are religious in nature.
To tell the truth, when I read a CNN or MSN article in any scientific field and I see the average of one mistake per article concerning the science, it makes me wonder what their score is on subjects that I am not an expert.
2) The universe doesn't care if the engineer came from a disadvantaged background.
A bridge has to have certain qualities in order to not fall down--it's as simple as that. If there is grade inflation that allows a student that cannot adequately calculate the stress vectors and resulting inelastic strains that interact with wind velocities over a canyon to design the bridge, people die.
Most big screw-ups [Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge] are the result of several unusual mistakes occuring within a near-simultaneous time frame. Only by absorbing large amounts of good data within one's education can a student of engineering receive the background that would enable them to predict and prevent such occurances.
3) Those who ignore the lessons of history are fated to take the class over during the summer semester.
There are many, many lessons in human nature taught by the experiences of past individuals that are universally applicable.
Some are relatively simple, like "don't get involved in a land war in Asia." Others are a bit harder to grasp, such as "disease has played a major role in the politics of the world."
In any case, any person who desires to be a effective public official must have a background in which they understand the mistakes of the past. This is the social engineering version of the bridge problem above.
4) The ability to read well counteracts the vagaries of birth and class to a measurable extent.
The African-American community in the United States are, for the most part, descended from slaves. If one reads the stories of those who have successfully escaped poverty and oppression, time and again the value of the library and books are mentioned.
Reading quickly and well unlocks the culture and thoughts of the greatest thinkers that humanity has produced. It allows the reader to vicariously experience the lives of those authors that are very different than themselves and learn from them. This opens the way to better decision-making on the part of the reader as well as engendering tolerance towards other individuals and cultures.
In addition, literature is timeless. One can read the original thoughts of Plato in the Greek or the J author in Biblical Hebrew and step into their shoes. Shakespeare's plays are the equivalent of 1600 television, written for the masses, yet full of clever innovations in language and thought. For a moment, the 21st Century disappears and the reader is tranported to earlier times, thereby giving a deeper understanding of where we have been and allowing an extrapolation of where we are going.
5) The Fine Arts make us better at being people.
What history does for our logical experiences, the fine arts do for our emotions. When one listens to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, the tones and recurring themes transport the listener into the body of a man with an overwhelming love of music coming to terms with his approaching deafness.
Sculpture, music and painting allow one to feel emotions completely different than the ones that are common in the viewer's life. This leads to the knowledge that "everyone is not the same as me" and sponsors empathy for the aliens among us.
This has gone on a bit longer than I had originally planned. Maybe I should have done this as an article, instead. In any case, I hope that my message has been adequately promulgated.
Tom
Tom
Wonderful post, but you didn't really address the failures of your generation as Prescott pointed them out.
Brannnnnn-don, reread what I said early on.
I'm going to do an entire article on Baby Boomers--just not today. I've got a story about the psychokiller that I had as a student and relating that experience to the events at VT that's percolating through my brainstem and may actually be brewed by tomorrow.
All things in time, Grasshopper.
Tom
Tom -
It seems to me that you are right about the possibilities of education. I don't how closely it mirrors the realities of what education is.
I am going to discuss your points out of turn. First, the fine arts. Your point is well taken, but for every Beethoven there is a Wagner and a Black Sabbath. For every St. Augustine, there is a Machiavelli. Art is not always constructive. It can be destructive as well.
Secondly, I would put a caveat on your remaining points. I believe that while a certain degree of education is possible for EVERYONE, not all of us can obtain the same level of education. For example, since I don't have a natural prediliction towards theoretical science and higher level math, I will never be as educated as you in the sciences. I think we can all agree on that.
That being said, being educated does not automatically confer upon an individual, or a society, the advantages that you claim it can have. There will always be a disparity in education within different sectors of a society, no matter what we do. As long as there is that disparity, where one group is more intellectually capable than the other, those gifted individuals will be ABLE to manipulate public opinion, suppress and enslave others, and to selectively utilize the lessons of history.
Education, the sciences, all of it, is no more or less than a tool, to be used for constructive or destructive purposes. One can just as easily use the lessons of Gandhi as they can of Machiavelli. Education, not coupled with a morality, a sense of purpose, or beneficial goal, can be more destructive than ignorance. In ignorance, an evil party will be inefficient and ineffective. With education, they can do more.
Intellect without wisdom is worse than wasteful. It can be downright evil.
Prescott, anything not coupled with morality is destructive. Always apply that caveat to things that I describe.
I've always figured that the second thing someone did with a hammer was hit someone over the head with it.
Part of the reason that I advocate the smallest government that is practical is that I understand the deep-seated desire to manipulate those of lesser intellect in order to rule them. By limiting power, one limits this danger.
Most of the time, I get the feeling that we agree more than either of us may be comfortable with.
Tom
Tom don't flatter yourself. Prescott likes the military and thinks we should all go off gallavanting around and showing how big our military prick is.
Uh, Brandon, I was flattering him.
If he's a big supporter of the military, he should read my new column.
Tom
I was reading a Sports Illustrated today and saw a little blurb about good ol' Kurty boy. I guess back in the 50's he was hired by SI to write for them, even though he admitted he knew nothing about sports. His first task was to write about some horse jumping a fence at some famous race and it caused a raucous.
He wrote a one line caption, left it on his desk, and never returned to SI. He wrote: "The horse jumped over the fucking fence"
HAHA, that made me laugh out loud the first time I read it.
Tom, good points about how being able to read is good...I can't believe someone actually tried arguing against that. I attribute my success in life thus far to my great love of music and history. Anyone can master some specific subject matter...those that try and learn as much as possible about everything are the ones that are the people that matter.
Ok, enough self-endulgences. I guess I'm just saying that if people want to remain ignorant, they're hurting themselves and society. Intelligence helps everyone; however, I don't think that means we have to know everything...as the left seems to think we need to know every detail about any war as it is going on.
/rant