Anne Frank's diary = porn?!

[Akasa]

OMG! You have got to be kidding me!

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pag...99-for-her-dau

[RedRoseSpiral]

I bet she'd stroke out if Anne Frank's father hadn't edited the more "racy" parts about her growing sexuality out. What we read, even the unedited version, isn't the original. Parts about her sexuality and of Anne being critical about her parents were taken out by her father before the diary was published.

[Gravekeeper]

Yeah, the "new" unedited version isn't what we read in high school. That said, the entries that mom here has a problem with are no more graphic than basic sex ed. So I'm guessing she's one of those nut jobs that thinks her kids will never have sex as long as she can prevent the rest of humanity from admitting penises exist.

[Panacea]

The mother tries to claim that she isn't trying to shelter her kid, or ban books. Both claims are bogus; if you are trying to have a book removed from a curriculum, you are trying to have the book banned. Period.

Her kid is going through the same changes Anne Frank went through. Reading about how another girl coped with these changes while hiding from the Nazis could help girls develop insight into how to handle serious life challenges. The mother's claim that kids don't need to see this to understand the Holocaust is just plain wrong; learning about a newly discovered sexuality in such a difficult time is crucial to understanding the real human costs of the Holocaust. And in a day where girls are having such a difficult time balancing their changing bodies with how they relate to their peers, seeing the struggles of Anne Frank could help them put things into perspective.

[Seifer]

Parents have forgotten how it feels to be a child in school. Kids talk about sex and certain body parts with their friends to help make sense of it all. Kids tell dirty jokes because it makes them feel older. Maybe if kids could have a serious example of someone their age going through puberty, it wouldn't seem so alien to them.

I remember getting frustrated with my sex Ed teacher when she fast-forwarded through a health video talking about tampon use because the boys were snickering. That information was pertinent to me, but because someone else couldn't handle it, I wasn't able to learn about the topic.

Edit:

I finally got home and was able to find an article that contained a passage from the unedited version. This is apparently the passage that is causing problems:


Until I was eleven or twelve, I didn't realize there was a second set of labia on the inside, since you couldn't see them. What's even funnier is that I thought urine came out of the clitoris…When you're standing up, all you see from the front is hair. Between your legs there are two soft, cushiony things, also covered with hair, which press together when you're standing, so you can't see what's inside. They separate when you sit down and they're very red and quite fleshy on the inside. In the upper part, between the outer labia, there's a fold of skin that, on second thought, looks like a kind of blister. That's the clitoris."

I'm honestly not sure what to say about this. The kids reading this were in 7th grade, so they're around 11 or 12. Is it the use of anatomically correct words that make people uncomfortable? Is it the description of the female reproductive parts? I honestly can't say if this would have made me uncomfortable in 7th grade. Maybe this is a good example of why we should actually teach kids in sex ed class - then maybe seeing these words and discussing such things wouldn't be so uncomfortable for them.

[HYHYBT]

if you are trying to have a book removed from a curriculum, you are trying to have the book banned. Period.

Well, no, not quite. The curriculum is required; banning a book would mean it isn't allowed. Lots of space between.

[Hyena Dandy]

if you are trying to have a book removed from a curriculum, you are trying to have the book banned. Period.

I don't think so. There are plenty of books that aren't in the curriculum, that are still accessible. Animal Farm wasn't in any of my middle school curriculums, but it was right there in the library. I wouldn't call it banned, I'd just call it not in the curriculum.

[Panacea]

It's still censorship, though.

[Kheldarson]

Yes and no. A parent has a right to have a say in their child's education. That means they should feel free to discuss what books are and are not required to read in class. I'd be more disturbed if she was trying to pull the book from the school entirely.

[Hyena Dandy]

Parents have every right to say they don't want something in the curriculum. There's a difference between saying students shouldn't be REQUIRED to read something, and saying students shouldn't be ALLOWED to read it.

Censorship is "You're not allowed to do this." Not "You don't have to."

[Panacea]

Parents have every right to say they don't want something in the curriculum. There's a difference between saying students shouldn't be REQUIRED to read something, and saying students shouldn't be ALLOWED to read it.

Censorship is "You're not allowed to do this." Not "You don't have to."

The kid in question was allowed to opt out. The mom is trying to keep OTHER kids from reading this book by removing it from the curriculum. In other words, one mom is trying to have control on an entire curriculum based on her prejudices and short sightedness.

Her kid is fine. Other kids = censorship.

[Andara Bledin]

The kid in question was allowed to opt out. The mom is trying to keep OTHER kids from reading this book by removing it from the curriculum.

While, yes, she is expressing her views on the curriculum, the quoted statement is inaccurate on its face.

She's trying to "keep other kids from being required to read the book by removing it from the curriculum. The other kids can still choose to read it.

I never read it. I haven't read a number of other books that friends and even my brother were required to read, despite the two of us attending the same schools. Apparently curriculums have some flexibility already.

[Kheldarson]

The kid in question was allowed to opt out. The mom is trying to keep OTHER kids from reading this book by removing it from the curriculum. In other words, one mom is trying to have control on an entire curriculum based on her prejudices and short sightedness.

Her kid is fine. Other kids = censorship.

Andara put it pretty succinctly, but here's the further thing. Sure, the daughter, along with a couple of other students, were allowed to opt out after expressing their discomfort (I will note I have read the diary, but it was the fully edited version I believe). But what if other children and parents were uncomfortable too but didn't speak out? Were they given the option?

And that's more the point. You teach, if I remember correctly, Panacea, yes? And I know that nursing has a lot of really graphic material. Do you tell your class ahead of time that such and such might be kind of gory or bloody or whatever for fair warning even if it's at the beginning of the year? Maybe not since again, nursing, but what if you were teaching a pre-med class?

The mom's saying she doesn't feel the unedited version is appropriate for seventh graders to be forced to read because of age and content. And maybe she's right, even though Anne was the same age. Maybe they should be allowed to read the edited version instead and do the same assignments. Or maybe they can have their choice of Holocaust related books, including the diary. But mom has a point that requiring the content in question (specifically Anne's graphic descriptions) in the curriculum without telling the parents ahead of time isn't kosher.

[Panacea]

She's trying to "keep other kids from being required to read the book by removing it from the curriculum. The other kids can still choose to read it.

I never read it. I haven't read a number of other books that friends and even my brother were required to read, despite the two of us attending the same schools. Apparently curriculums have some flexibility already.

Curriculum's should be set by educators to meet specific goals, not by parents who want to shield children from certain subjects. Our educational system is going to shit because non-educators are controlling what goes into curriculum and textbooks: subjects like evolution and history are being rewritten to favor specific worldviews instead of reflecting real science or real history. Limiting literature in this way impacts the educators ability to teach kids not simply to read, but to analyze the subject matter. Potential positive benefits of reading uncomfortable material are ignored by parents who give in to fear.

But what if other children and parents were uncomfortable too but didn't speak out? Were they given the option?

I don't think parents should be given a heads up on everything in the curriculum. At best, it should be available for the parents to review at the beginning of the school year. They can object then.

If they're too afraid to speak out, that's their problem.

And that's more the point. You teach, if I remember correctly, Panacea, yes? And I know that nursing has a lot of really graphic material. Do you tell your class ahead of time that such and such might be kind of gory or bloody or whatever for fair warning even if it's at the beginning of the year? Maybe not since again, nursing, but what if you were teaching a pre-med class?

Yes, I teach nursing. There are specific topics I have to teach, but I decide how they are taught.

It's not the gory stuff that raises controversy, though some students have trouble with it. It's thinks like ethics and cultural values. When I talk about STDs, STD preventation, contraception, abortion, etc, I take those subjects head on. That's not too comfortable for some of my students, especially the evangelicals. Sometimes they have to deal with patients who make choices they don't agree with. For example, we had a patient in clinic with a critically low blood value (hemoglobin) of 4. He needed a blood transfusion, but he was a Jehovah Witness. My students wanted to know what would happen if he didn't get the blood transfusion.

Me: He'll probably die.

They were shocked. Wasn't there anything we could do? My answer was, "about the transfusion? No. He has the right to refuse treatment. We'll give him fluids, epogen (a hormone that stimulates RBC production), and iron and hope for the best."

They have to confront patients who make bad choices in regards to unprotected sex, who use drugs while pregnant, and pass around STDs like the common cold. We can't be judgement of those choices. I might not agree with their choices, but I have to support them and help them as best I can.

My ability to help my patients comes from my background in the liberal arts. Understanding how people work comes not just from basic psychology (Maslow, Erickson, Piaget), it comes from the stories we tell about ourselves in literature. Limiting access to those stories limits our ability to learn about people different from ourselves and to learn how to empathize with them.

That's why I'm passionate about liberal arts education, and the subject of censorship. It doesn't protect kids, it harms them in the long run because they don't learn to have honest discussions of tough subjects . . . often subjects they are thinking about anyway.

The mom's saying she doesn't feel the unedited version is appropriate for seventh graders to be forced to read because of age and content. And maybe she's right, even though Anne was the same age.

Actually, she's not thinking it through. If a teenager in the 1940's could think of these issues in a much more sexually repressive time, what does she think is going on in HER kids heads?

Sex is all around us. We can't escape it; it permeates our marketing and consumption of goods. Kids think about these things. They need a safe forum to explore these ideas, and while it sounds great to say parents should guide their kids on this subject the fact is at this age kids want nothing to do with their parents on this subject. But they will listen to well trained adults who allow them to express themselves, and work through those thoughts and ideas in a safe environment like a classroom.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't think parents should be given a heads up on everything in the curriculum. At best, it should be available for the parents to review at the beginning of the school year. They can object then.

First, do we or don't we want the parents involved in their children's education? If we want them involved, we're going to have to actually, you know, involve them and be willing to deal with what that entails.

If they're too afraid to speak out, that's their problem.

Wow. I'm sure 7th graders everywhere speak up about everything, right?