Unreported by the Sun-News—well, what did you expect?—, two citizens are urging the Las Cruces School Board to censor a book entitled Jack of Hearts and Other Parts by removing it from the Mayfield High School library. They object to the book, written for high-school-age readers, as age-inappropriate because of the sexual orientation of the protagonist, a queer, and some explicit descriptions of sexual behavior.
All citizens have the right to raise objections to just about anything, including books available to or required for students in public schools. In this case, the standing of citizens raising objections depends on their qualifications. Professionals have relevant knowledge and offer informed opinion; they have motives and purposes appropriate to the issue. A few amateurs parallel the pros, but most rely on positions tangential or irrelevant to, and have motives and purposes independent of, the issue.
The two citizens objecting to the inclusion of Jack of Hearts and Other Parts in a high-school library, are Juan Garcia and Sarah Smith. Mr. Garcia heads the local chapter of the Coalition of Conservatives in Action; Ms. Smith champions various causes before City Council. I suspect that neither is a trained professional in education or a closely allied field. Neither is a parent of a Mayfield student, and, I am told, Ms. Smith home-schooled her children. So their standing is suspect because their pertinent knowledge is nominal, their opinions uninformed, and their motives and purposes more political or moral/religious than pedagogical.
Accordingly, they are impressively arrogant. Against the professional expertise and judgment of librarians and teachers, they presume that their political or moral/religious ideologies have superseding authority. I doubt that they have the education or experience to ascertain and explain the age-appropriateness of literature with sexual content. I doubt that they can ascertain and explain the age-appropriateness of various aspects of human sexuality as represented in literature. I doubt that they have anything other than their ideologies to justify their objections.
The ages at which students acquire knowledge of and engage in sex influence any ascertainment of age-appropriateness. Anyone familiar with the facts of life knows that students learn about sex a little in school libraries, some in health classes, and much in school hallways, lavatories, and locker rooms—and, of course, lots outside schools. They engage in sex as circumstances and opportunity permit. A common progression is from you-show-me-yours-and-I’ll-show-you-mine to masturbation to kissing to petting (light and heavy) to fornication, fellatio, and cunnilingus. I assume that, in these activities, there are stylistic, situational, or creative variations; experimentation with different kinds of partners and practices is not uncommon; but excess is more common than kinkiness. The progression is not rigid. Some people skip ahead or go beyond; some lag behind or fall out. At what ages is knowledge of these diverse activities age-appropriate? At what ages is engagement in them age-appropriate? How have Mr. Garcia and Ms. Smith ascertained the appropriate match of ages, knowledge, and activities?
I have to tell two family stories here. My first wife and I had two children, first Kelly, then David. When she was about five, Kelly asked the question, where did I come from. My wife gave the high-school, health-class answer. Kelly‘s face first grew serious with thought, then with horror: “You mean you did it twice!” When I was Kelly’s age and asked the question of my nannie, she told me that I came from my mother’s stomach. So I asked, why did she eat me. Perhaps storks would have been better answers both times.
The acquisition of sexual knowledge and experience—I omit child molestation and rape—occurs inevitably. What is inappropriate about knowing about sex and, if it does not result in irresponsible consequences—diseases, juvenile pregnancies, etc.—, engaging in it? Do Mr. Garcia and Ms. Smith play God by proscribing, as God forbade Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, what books high-school students should not read lest they learn about unconventional ideas about who has sex with whom and how? Do they object to this book because it depicts people whom, or practices which, they shun?
Do Mr. Garcia and Ms. Smith imagine a past Golden Age of exclusively adult, heterosexual, monogamous, procreative, and missionary sex, and want to restore it by banning from high schools this book and perhaps others involving sexual content? Do they fear that today’s students, presumably unlike supposedly sexually naïve students in my day over 65 years ago, are susceptible to what they think is alluring, perverted and contagious sex? Let me tell them that we knew and did not care who were LGBTQ; they were our classmates and friends. Even so, none of us woke up one fine spring morning and said, I think I’ll try being a queer for a day.
I have no hope that Mr. Garcia, Ms. Smith, and their ilk can get real. But the rest of us should get real about them. People who defy experts and object to literature with sexual content on purported grounds of age-inappropriateness have problems. Mine—ours, really—is not only their arrogance, political or moral/religious ideologies, and sanctimonious hypocrisies, but also their efforts to impose agendas on us. The time to resist their first attempted imposition on public education is now, to make it their last.
When it comes to public education, I wish, as I have blogged, that schools emphasized traditional academic subjects—for instance, reading with proficiency by all students after 4th grade—more than diversity, inclusion, and equality. But, if librarians or teachers believe that books like Jack of Hearts and Other Parts with sexual content serve the needs of high-school students, then libraries or courses should address their needs, not the demands of Puritanical meddlers like Mr. Garcia and Ms. Smith, who want to exclude from a school library a book with sexual content outside their up-tight comfort zone.
Including this and other unconventional books in school libraries or courses is true to education: a leading out of oneself into a world not well known. A key part of the job of school board officials is to help teachers open student minds, inform students about the world in which they live, and guide them to make good use of that knowledge.
Let us do more than hope that the Las Cruces School Board, which has done little for academic achievement, can rouse itself to protect students from those who would apply political or moral/religious dogmas to define what can or cannot be read as part of a civic and civilizing public-school education. To leave little to chance, citizens should ask their School Board representatives what their position on this issue is. Voters in School Board Districts 1, 4, and 5 should ask the same question of Board candidates.
District 1:
Patrick D. Nolan (575) 520-8817 PATRICKDNOLAN@GMAIL.COM
325 Townsend Terrace, LC, NM 88005
Joseph W. Sousa (619) 987-5150 jsousa12@hotmail.com
2870 San Miguel Court, LC, NM 88007
District 4:
Julia E. Ruiz (575) 635-3649 JULIARUIZ4SCHOOLBOARD@GMAIL.COM
PO Box 314, Fairacres, NM 88033
Edward Posey Howell (915) 549-0020 howellep29@gmail.com
1626 Calle Murillo, LC, NM 88007
Teresa Maxine Tenorio (575) 652-4500 TERESA4LCPS@GMAIL.COM
PO 47, Fairacres, NM 88033
District 5:
Jose L. Aranda (575) 405-9888 jaranda2@hotmail.com
4964 Kenmore Road, LC, NM 88012
Ernest B. Carlson (575) 635-2759 ecarlson4th@gmail.com
4655 Baylor Canyon Road, LC, NM 88011
Carol Lynn Cooper (575) 644-1790 CLCOOPER1946@GMAIL.COM
PO Box 13515 LC, NM 88013
Edward Frank (610) 888-6116 LASCRUCESLALO@GMAIL.COM
4111 Bella Sierra Court, LC, NM 88011
[Correction: in my previous blog, I cited the Sierra County Sentinel as an example of mature reporting and editorializing. That paper closed in December 2021. Its successor is the Sierra County Citizen, a weekly by volunteer journalists. Kudos to them all, especially Diana Tittle, who leads the effort.]
No comments:
Post a Comment