community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Penn-Trafford's book ban threatens enlightened thought, intellectual freedom
by Rossilynne Skena
Wednesday, Mar. 15, 2006 at 2:44 PM
reskena@yahoo.com (email address validated)
Student's opinion disagreeing with Penn-Trafford's banning of Sun-Tzu's "The Art of War."
“Books are the carriers of civilization. Without books, history is silent, literature dumb, science crippled, thought and speculation at a standstill,” said Barbara W. Tuchman, an American historian and author.
In Penn-Trafford High School’s AP Language and Composition (English I) class, thanks to a book ban, history is hushed. Literature is watered down. Thought and speculation are paralyzed. The banning of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” from the curriculum has all the aforementioned repercussions. Certainly, banning a book quiets complaints, but it also allows the P-T School District to control enlightened thought.
As an informal disclaimer, I would like to explicitly state that I have no idea who brought about the book ban. This is not meant as a personal attack. It does not matter who spearheaded the book ban; what matters is that one set of parents is deluded enough to believe they should have the audacity to repress thought. Please respond with any feedback by e-mailing writethewarrior@yahoo.com.
First, some background information about the AP curriculum is necessary -- technically, there is not a curriculum. Because the course was not created by P-T, the School Board does not officially approve the books for it, according to Principal Scott Inglese. He continued, because there was a complaint, the Board eliminated the book to error on the side of caution.
The College Board does not have a curriculum either. The College Board does not have any suggested readings, only suggested guidelines. Their only advice is a list of authors with which they caution: “There is no recommended reading list of the AP English Language and Composition course. The following authors are provided simply to suggest the range and quality of reading expected in the course. Teachers may select authors from the names below or may choose others of comparable quality and complexity.” In this case, students were given the opportunity to choose the literature they would like to study. The students chose to read “The Art of War.” Though Sun Tzu was not specifically recommended on the College Board’s list, political writers and history writers were encouraged. Further, in one of the anthologies the College Board actually suggests, “World of Ideas: Essential Reading for College Writers,” excerpts from “The Art of War” are included.
Students also chose to read “The Communist Manifesto and Other Revolutionary Writings.” This work was also in question, but has now been okayed by the parents. Ironically, the “communist” ideals parents objected were those they were performing. The first step in tyrannical rule is the burning of books. Simply because the parents do not believe in Communism, Socialism or Marxism does not mean it should not be taught. The “Red Scare” is over. Moreover, allowing two people to control the thought of young, intellectual minds is the feared tyranny the same people are trying to hide. Furthermore, allowing the complaints of one set of parents to determine what will and will not be taught creates a startling precedent: the likes and dislikes of parents determine curriculum.
Thankfully, these parents are “allowing” the class to read the revolutionary writings that have shaped the world. The tactics of revolution delineated in “The Art of War,” however, are still currently banned.
Giving students a choice? What a novel concept. The College Board suggests allowing students to take charge of their course by selecting the literature they want to read. This notion was apparently too progressive for the complainers who objected that “The Art of War” is “not morally relevant, does not belong in the classroom and is not a part of the curriculum.”
In rebuttal to the objections, the teaching of morality is a parental responsibility. Certainly, warfare is not pleasing to read about, but it is a part of the world in which we live. Moreover, “The Art of War” barely discusses actual combat; its focus is simply strategy.
Secondly, “The Art of War” absolutely does belong in the classroom. The course is based on rhetorical strategies. Sun Tzu’s book is a system for the success every over-protective parent wishes for his or her precious little ones. The work is a primer for how to win. The students in AP classes are the ones driven by competition and the promise of winning. These are the students vying for valedictorian. The student (and his or her parents) must realize the importance of tactics. Further, the students can garner from Sun Tzu’s work an abstract appreciation for rhetorical strategy: how one should structure a piece of writing to thoroughly attack his or her opponent, how one should write a persuasive essay for the AP exam and how one should rationally structure his or her writings in a lucid, direct manner. “‘The Art of War’ is an outstanding beginning for [learning] Machiavelli [next year]. It teaches rhetorical strategies. With political writings, it shows how essays and words change nations,” said AP English I teacher Maegan Kern. Is the fear that these 4.5 GPA students will conspire to run from room 130 with machetes in hand to annihilate the hierarchy of the school? Simply because students read about revolution does not mean they will incite riots.
In disagreement with the third argument, “The Art of War” is no less a part of the curriculum than F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “The Great Gatsby” or Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter.” Should these classics be ousted for their moral relevance? “The Great Gatsby” delineates a life of riches that leads to obsession with money and promiscuity in relationships. “The Scarlet Letter” chronicles the ignominy of a woman who bears an illegitimate child in accordance with the male oppression forced upon said woman. Unquestionably, the “lack of morals” these books proclaim might agitate those with antiquated values, but nevertheless, this “immorality” still occurs in society today and cannot be hidden.
Further, the student in question chose to take the course. If this students would have looked at the prior year’s curriculum, he or she would have realized “The Art of War” was taught, and presumably, might be taught again this year. That would have given the parents a solid nine months to complain rather than waiting until all 33 AP students had bought or borrowed copies of the book.
Simply because the class is designed as a college course, another question arises. When this student travels to a prestigious university, does mommy or daddy intend to call Yale, for example, to fuss about the literature taught? A university would scoff at such an imposition. Parents should have no interaction in a college course.
Moreover, the students will most likely be taught “The Art of War” in college anyway. Not only does it teach rhetoric but also business strategy and communication.
AP students, you have not wasted your $4.95 on a book you cannot read for class. Read it, learn the importance of strategy and stay determined, as Sun Tzu would, to win this fight. “In a desperate position,” he said, “you must fight.” I appeal to you to battle for intellectual freedom, and when you win, do as Sun Tzu wrote, “learn that victories should be followed up and the defeated enemy given no chance to recover.”
As a former President of Yale University, Alfred Whitney Griswold said, “Books won’t stay banned. They won’t burn. Ideas won’t go to jail. In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost. The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.”
This is the typical extreme backwardness of Penn Trafford
by Rako
Wednesday, Jul. 26, 2006 at 2:29 AM
Book banning is just one more event in a long series of ultra-backward activities coming out of Penn-Trafford.
The school has the lowest paid teachers in the state. Is the teachers' strike still ongoing? It is a mix of both rednecks and wealthy ultra-conservatives, closer culturally to Greence County, which voted for the pro-slavery candidate Breckinridge, not Lincoln in 1860.
Both Penn Trafford and Greene County were 2 of the state's 3 districts still clinging to the practice of SCHOOL BEATINGS when the state government banned it last winter. While "paddling" developed in the South, the practice held on (like the Klan's influence) in areas bordering former slave states.
"Feared Disciplinarian Spudy Retires After 36 Years"
http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/penn-traffordstar/news/62301
Penn Trafford's "feared disciplinarian" (aka sadistic) principal retired this summer. This would not be the first instance I know of when sadistic teachers retired after they could no longer beat students. The paper does not say he retired as a result of the change, but I doubt it is a coincidence.
"Spudy also is infamous for paddling his students well after other administrators had abandoned the practice. In fact, it was only in thelast few years after corporal punishment was banned from schools that Spudy gave up the paddle."
The article's last statement above is incorrect. It was only LAST YEAR after beatings were abolished that he was forced to stop.
What brings a reporter to describe a retiring teacher as "infamous" and "feared," when so often strict principals have been described in the media as "caring but stern" etc.
The principal must have been exceptionally mean, as the reporter implies.
Note his child's statement that "They say I bet your dad used the paddle. The truth is, that never happened in our house." Do you believe that their "infamous" father decided to "spare the rod" when raising energetic 9 year olds?
PENN-TRAFFORD School District's "beating plan" specified for the 2005-2006 year.
http://www.penntrafford.org/studentrights.htm
State ban on paddling unruly students not yet approved by March 09, 2005
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05068/468325.stm
According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the High school beat about 10 students a year, but it was not allowed in elementary school. The superintendent predicted another 10 students would be beaten in the 2005-2006 term, but the new laws put a stop to that!
A girl who went to highschool at Penn Trafford said that the principal's speech at the high school graduation ceremony was a condemnation of bad behavior and drug use, etc. in the spirit of "Happy Graduation: You Are Bad Students!"
Of course the sadistic environment was bound to affect the students and spawn "Principal Spudy Wannabees":
Plea reached in student paddling case
http://www.corpun.com/usi00302.htm
Two Penn-Trafford High School seniors reached a plea agreement Thursday that would give them probation and drop more serious charges in the alleged kidnapping and paddling of freshmen.
What Penn Trafford's troubled youth need is some serious therapy sessions to deal with their tramatic environment. Or even a Catholic school, since Catholic Schools abolished hitting 10 years ago, and could provide a REAL caring alternative.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)