Texas teacher fired for assigning ‘Anne Frank’s Diary’
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Texas teacher fired for assigning ‘Anne Frank’s Diary’
While that sounds very scandalous, and the school district's apology to parents seems to have been written with the same severity they might use to announce that another five kids have been shot dead in a classroom and the state will be making counselors available to survivors so that everyone can process how perfectly normal this is, you should know that what Anne Frank wrote about sexuality was ... astonishingly mild stuff. She was a teenager in the 1940s, for God's sake. Even her idea of "dirty jokes" were things that Winston Churchill might say out loud on any given day of the week.
Fortunately for all of us, we can see the actual content of the book that got a teacher fired for exposing her students to it and, holy eff, everyone having a cow about “Anne Frank's Diary” is out of their damn minds.
Here, have a look . Anne gets her first period. She talks about a crush on her female best friend. She's so sheltered she has to ask what the male "sexual organ" is called, and is told that it's a "penis." Oh, and there are some anatomically undetailed nude sculptures along a garden path, the sort of statuary that a millennium of artists strove to create before rich jackasses decided they'd rather decorate their own garden paths with statues of Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu . And at the end, Anne dies without ever learning more than that, because that is what the Holocaust did.
Take a look at that, and tell me what sentence is supposed to be shocking to a Texas eighth grader in 2023—one who practices active shooter drills at school and has the entirety of the internet available on their parent-issued smartphone. Somebody let me know which of those pages is the one that's supposedly so unforgivably sexual that your child's teacher should be fired for daring to expose your darling to such smut.
If you're wondering where all this new prudishness is coming from, you can take your pick of theories. It's possible that an acknowledgement of adolescent same-sex crushes is the taboo America's Giant Prudes find unforgivable. It’s possible that the mere mention of the word "penis" is what did the book in, because while pubescent Anne Frank might have been able to learn the word "penis" even while hiding out from Nazis in a cramped attic, a great many of these people want their own offspring to grow up knowing even less than that .
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
www.jewishexponent.com /texas-teacher-reportedly-fired-after-reading-from-anne-franks-diary-to-students/
Texas Teacher Reportedly Fired After Reading From Anne Frank’s Diary to Students - Jewish Exponent
JTA 4-5 minutes 9/20/2023
Andrew Lapin
A middle school teacher in a district outside Houston, Texas, has been fired reportedly for reading a sexual passage from Anne Frank’s diary out loud to eighth-grade students , the district told local news.
The passage came from a 2018 graphic version of the diary by the world-famous Jewish Holocaust victim that restored some portions of the initial book that had been cut from the most well-known editions.
“Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation” has also been at the center of several other recent book-related controversies in public schools : It was briefly pulled from another Texas district, permanently removed from a Florida district and has spent several months under review at another Florida district; a Republican Jewish lawmaker in Florida has called it “Anne Frank pornography.”
“A version of ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ book that was not approved by the district was read in class,” Mike Canizales, a spokesperson for Hamshire-Fannett Independent School District, told a local news channel. The teacher was sent home last week and replaced by a substitute, and “there is an active investigation,” Canizales continued.
The graphic version of Frank’s diary was reportedly on a reading list the school sent out to parents at the start of the school year, though district officials claimed it had never been approved for classroom use. The fired teacher had read portions of the diary aloud in class, in addition to assigning it for students to read.
In the book, adapted by Ari Folman and David Polonsky, a passage dated March 24, 1944, depicts Anne describing male and female genitalia, including descriptions of “the clitoris” and pubic hair. The words are really Anne’s own, and appear in her initial handwritten draft of the diary. The passage comes immediately after a passage describing “the sound of gunfire” as Nazi soldiers attacked Allied forces parachuting out of a crashing plane.
“It’s bad enough she’s having them read this for an assignment, but then she also is making them read it aloud and making a little girl talk about feeling each other’s breasts and when she sees a female she goes into ecstasy, that’s not OK,” a parent of twin boys in the class told local news. The parent was referring to another passage from the book, in which Anne briefly describes her latent feelings toward another girl, that some conservative parents and activists say they find objectionable.
The day before the district fired the teacher, it alerted parents that “inappropriate” content had been read aloud in class. “The reading of that content will cease immediately. Your student’s teacher will communicate her apologies to you and your students soon, as she has expressed those apologies to us,” the district wrote in an email.
The Anne Frank Fonds, the Switzerland-based foundation that oversees the copyright to Frank’s diary and authorized the new graphic adaptation, has defended the work in the past. “We consider the book of a 12-year-old girl to be appropriate reading for her peers,” board member Yves Kugelmann has told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Jewish books including “Anne Frank’s Diary,” “Maus” and “The Fixer” have become frequently ensnared in a broader, conservative-led effort to purge schools of material that activists deem inappropriate, largely for content involving sexuality, gender identity and race. Teachers are increasingly facing censures and firings for including controversial books, including by race writer Ta-Nahisi Coates, in class .
I sure hope they don't have Judy Bloom's book "Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret"
Eighth graders are 13 or 14 years old. They can handle Anne Frank's diary.
“Anne Frank's diary. “
It should be a required part of the curriculum.
It often is.
In more enlightened schools
''Anne Frank's Diary'' should be required reading.
Anne Franks Diary was mandatory reading when I was in school, and it absolutely should be taught. but according to the article: “A version of ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ book that was not approved by the district was read in class,” Mike Canizales, a spokesperson for Hamshire-Fannett Independent School District, told a local news channel.
There are rules for a reason, and teachers are expected to follow them. She did not.
What were the rules? Who decided what the rules would be? And lastly, what are the reasons 'the rules' were necessary for this particular cirriculum?
The rules are provided by the school board, just like text books are approved by the state education department, they have approved reading lists. Etc. the same rules that didn’t allow this book also doesn’t allow books promoting racism or any other subjects the school finds objectionable.
You know, the Nazis were all about following the rules, no matter how ridiculous they were.
Wait a minute Tacos, no way in holy dill pickles with crackers on the side are you implying that these Texas rule makers are Nazis are you? Jeez o' Katy.
A Nazi comment, sigh…..
Tell me you don't know who Anne Frank was without telling me you don't know who Anne Frank was. Sigh . . .
The sad irony of your own comment was obviously lost on you.
(deleted)
Anne Frank seed -> Mindless allegiance to rules -> Nazis.
Read a book.
Dry your eyes and report it then
No one cares what you prefer.
I obviously stand by my words. Too bad.
I care what he prefers so now you have another post with inaccuracies. Not as moronic as the ignorant NAZI post but equally wrong.
If the shoe fits.......
I love how you guys pointlessly whine about a comment being ignorant with no further reasoning. You just don’t like being called out for the things you say. If you don’t like your words being compared to Nazis, try saying different words.
Omg that’s sad. Do you really think that is an argument? I just got through pointing out there was no reasoning behind your claim and you just ignore it. In school, didn’t they teach you to show your work?
“It’s obvious!” Oh Lord!
What's funny is the hypocrisy of your positions based on partisanship, The Governor of a State passes an EO that is clearly against the constitution and beyond the scope of her powers and just like this article you post 100 inane comments supporting it......and thinking everyone should fillow the rules, then i make a comment about rules that are legitimately within the power of the school board and you make 100 comments about NAZI's having rules and defending a teacher breaking those rules. That's hypocrisy and your comments model it perfectly.
If you can’t be honest, at least try to stay on topic.
So, you're a victim now?
You might be on the wrong story.
I am on topic. I won't accuse you of being dishonest. because your comments are consistently hypocritical.
Referencing debates from other seeds is not being on topic.
If you did, I would expect you to support the accusation, just as I will.
You have been misrepresenting my comments. If you care about the truth of this, I will be happy to send you appropriate links, including where I have already explained your misrepresentation.
Well . . . It is.
I don’t get the thinking here. It’s appropriate to teach about the Nazis and everything they did, but we can’t say “penis?” Have these people been hitting themselves in the head with hammers?
Hammers? Nah, selective passages from bibles.
It's not Anne Frank's Diary. It's a graphic novel interpretation of it.
Why would anyone expect kids today to wade through a text version?
Written by whom? Is it on Amazon?
Ari Folman is the author.
It seems the Daily Kos caught many of our friends on the left, hook, line and sinker.
Hilarious!
[ deleted ]
This is a link, in the seeded article
Not at all but based on this article perhaps you should ask yourself that question.
From the article:
It seems that the passage was taken from Anne Frank's initial draft of the diary.
And then there is this from the article:
Morning...hhhuuhhh...but isn't sex education taught in your schools over at Primary or Secondary level??
So what is this mothers problem??Other than maybe showing her own stupidity and ignorance...makes you wonder at times do people work at being stupid or does it come naturally..
Maybe some one should haul her arse over to Anne Frank's house and then she may just grasp what Anne and her family actually went through in 1944..I have been to Anne's house and you can still feel the human tragedy that unfolded there within its walls...
I am quite sure she would find that a lot more detrimental to her 12 yo sons minds than reading a passage out of Anne's diary..
Anne Frank’s diary is not a sex education book and a graphic novel discussing her vagina isn’t really the point of why her actual diary is so powerful.
her actual diary, published without discussing the vagina of a 13 year old girl, drives home what she went through in 1944.
Morning Sean...yes I have a copy of her diary which I bought at Anne Frank's house...
I have read it numerous times and find it still brings tears to my eyes...the tension and stress they lived under for so long is mind and soul destroying..
But for some stupid woman to raise such an insignificant complaint about an actual true story written from the heart during a war is just plain staggering...
yes. it contains sections that Anne Frank herself did not intend for publication.
Her diary that you read is not the issue though. That should absolutely be an assigned reading.
This is about a graphic novel.
Why is it that a young girl's questions/wondering about sex during a horrible time of war which eventually led to her being captured, sent to an extermination camp and murdered is so frightful, so taboo that American children are allegedly unable to handle the content but a former president that had a trysts with an adult film actress and Playboy model which is public knowledge and easily googled by anyone is apparently acceptable since the Texas school has not taken measures to erase all information of these actions in order to protect the children? Hell, these 'innocent children' could even stumble upon the statement, "When you're a star you can do anything--grab em' by the pussy." ? ?
Seems to me that the children need protection from the adults who must harbor extreme guilt and sexual complexes.
It was a diary. Did she intend any of it for publication?
To be fair, she probably didn't intend any of it for publication.
Her father published it after her death.
Anne Frank did not intend for any part of her diary to be published so your point is moot.
I don’t understand the issue beyond an argument that kids should be able to read a text version, not a graphic novel. Pubic hair descriptions shouldn’t be an issue since they already know how to eliminate that. Penises and what to do with them are on the internet which they have access to.
The bottom line is that parents should reflect on why, when confronted with the reality of the female body and female sexuality, girls are be made to feel uncomfortable.
Should adults reflect on why they are violating the privacy of a 13 year old girl to broadcast her private speculations about her vagina, despite all available indication being that she didn't intend those entries in her diary to be published?
That’s a good point that I failed to consider. It is a diary after all. I found value in reading it as a teenager but I was reading the abridged version. Her thoughts on puberty we’re probably assumed be Anne to be private.
I agree. It was incredibly powerful and one of those books that stays with you through the decacdes.
Here's my thought process on this story:
1. They are firing someone for reading her diary? That's incredibly stupid.
2. It's a graphic novel that includes some private stuff that was omitted from the authorized publication prepared by her father? Well, that's a different story.
3. Finding out that Anne was editing her diaries for publication before her capture and omitted those very personal passages that have been added to this novel? That's wrong and a violation of her privacy. Consent should matter in this.
I agree with your thinking. Like most topics here, folks way in on one side or the other without looking at the nuances and context.
Ah yes, questions about the human body and sex are abhorrent and must be stamped out in order to give the fear ridden and guilt complexed adults a sense of accomplishment?
She didn't INTEND for her diary to be published. Again, your point is moot.
Source?
Do you not have google?
Well since I was looking for it in the SEEDED ARTICLE, I asked for HIS source, but since you jumped in (being snarky), the person making the claim should back up his claim since it is NOT IN THE SEEDED ARTICLE. Do you understand now?
Historical figures dont have privacy, especially when they are dead.
As far as I understand, even though some are calling this book a novel, the content is from Anne Frank's diary, except that "dialogue" was added. Which makes sense because a graphic book of any sort is by design and requirement much shorter than one that is just words.
The book in question doesnt make anything up, it just rephrases some in order to fit the confines of the form.
One would hope that people could pay more attention to the message Anne Frank's Diary conveys and less to a small number of what they call "inappropriate" passages.
So, the reworked diary was also incomplete, so how do you know she did not intend to add back some of the omitted passages?
The comic book version describes Anne as bi-sexual.
And?
Well that's going to be pertinent to the objections.
We have yet another example of folks on the left trying to sexualize content aimed at kids.
Are kids reading the comic book in school?
How about you read the article before expecting other people to do your work for you?
Yeah. That's what the firing is all about.
The book in question is a graphic novel called "Anne Frank's Diary".
Not to be confused with "The Diary of Anne Frank", which is the one we're all familiar with.
The headline is trying to drive clicks with some clever outrage mongering.
Was the passage from the COMIC BOOK? How about you actually read the comments AS WRITTEN [deleted]
Graphic novels and comic books ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
How about you read the article, before calling people names.
I did read the article and I said I had earlier in this conversation IF YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION.
[deleted]
That's the third time I posted this. IF YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION, you would know this.
That's your point? Really??
How was ComiCon?
BTW - I read more books (without pictures) in a month than you probably have in a year.
Yes, that's my point. Really.
What does Comic Con have to do with anything in this seed? I mean they sell things other than comic books at Comic Con if that's what you're getting at.
OK, well...
I was an 8th grade teacher in Texas.
Having 13yr old kids read a "graphic novel" that sexualizes a timeless classic is a great way to quit your teaching career.
It's not quite as efficient as urinating on the principal's desk, but it works.
Anybody too stupid to realize that should probably not be teaching.
They're the only people who would ever give a shit about the difference between a comic book and graphic novel.
So, Anne Frank didn't sexualize herself in her diary even though those passages were omitted from her diary during publication and then apparently readded to the graphic novel. Who actually thinks a 13-14 year old girl doesn't write in her diary about getting her period or sexual feelings she has or questions she has about boys? 13-14 year olds are not as pure and innocent as the right seems to think they are.
Again, you seem to think 13-14 year olds don't know what a penis is, don't know what a period is, don't know what bisexuality is. You don't seem to know a lot of 13-14 year olds.
Finally, just because YOU don't care what the difference is between a comic book and a graphic novel, doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
Why would that matter? The diary was published without any of that, and the inclusion of sexual content detracts from the lessons about the holocaust.
Just because they're not pure and/or innocent does not mean the materials they encounter in school should be sexualized.
You continue with these completely moronic assumptions. Of course they know what those things are. That does not mean those concepts should be included in the curriculum, any more than we should have classes on how to roll a joint or make a margarita.
Reasonable adults understand this. The concepts of age and location appropriateness don't seem to confuse people with common sense.
Nobody gives a fuck. It's completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Explain how the small amount of passages that Anne wrote regarding her period, her crushes and/or her questions about anatomy (which were omitted for whatever reason, and are things all 13-14 year olds think/ask questions about) detracts from the lessons about the holocaust. She lived her live during the holocaust, and all of those things were part of her experience during that time period.
Explain how it's sexualized. Just mentioning puberty is sexual now? Mentioning crushes is sexual (not just an everyday occurrence for teens)? Talking about anatomy is sexual (we can't even use the words vagina or penis anymore?)? By your own comments, it seems that the right wing can't stop thinking about teens in a sexual manner.
So discussing these issues (no one is talking about rolling joints or making margaritas and that's just your histrionics again) that these teens already know about is somehow sexualizing 13-14 year olds (again, that's only in conservative's dirty minds). And, again, we are talking about 13-14 year olds, so yes, it's appropriate to talk about things they already know about and are going through in their own lives especially when it's written by a 13 -16 year old (the ages Anne was when she wrote her diary).
Apparently, you have a fuck since you responded to it, now didn't you.
You righties need to stop thinking about children in a sexual manner because it's only you people who equate talking about puberty and the things that come with it as "sexualizing children".
The book, the graphic "comic book" as you call it makes it perfectly clear how Anne Frank's musings about sexuality fit into her story, in a crucial and moving (if one is open minded) way.
She lived the last year of her life under constant threat of being sent to a death camp. She and her family never knew what might be their last day of hiding. She was a young teen who thought her life might end before she got to experience what almost everyone else does. Not only does the "sexuality" fit into the story, it fits into it seamlessly. It adds to the power and poignancy of the book . As they say, Stevie Wonder could see that.
Why do you suppose they were omitted in the first place?
They have taken a very well established book and edited it to include sexual content.
No. And that's not what we're talking about. Go do some research and learn a little about the issue.
You're just continuing down this juvenile track of increasingly stupid comments.
In this case, it is sexualizing content presented to 13-14-year-olds.
As we've discussed, but you desperately don't want to acknowledge, there is such a thing as age-appropriateness and there is also such a thing as location appropriateness. This book is not appropriate for this age and setting, as literally everyone except this teacher and a few political hard-liners have agreed.
The Diary of Anne Frank was written by a 13-16 year old. This book was not. Again, why do you suppose these ideas were removed originally?
They took an edited book and inserted the edited material back into it is more like it. It's a truer version of the book than what was originally published. What don't you get about that.
Yes, it is the issue with you people.
I'm not the one complaining about the "sexualization" of children when there is in fact no sexualization of children going on.
No, it's not. The content is appropriate for 13-14 year old since it was written by one.
The book most certainly is age appropriate and location appropriate as it was written by a 13-14 year old (up to age 16). The only ones bitching about it are again out of touch conservatives.
This book is the Diary of Anne Frank with some of the originally edited out content put back in and with illustrations. It's still Anne's words from her diary before passages were edited out.
As I said, they edited it to include sexual content.
For adults, that's fine. But the sexual content makes it inappropriate for school curriculum. Every professional educator knows that.
Your rationalizations get worse by the post. Are you really attempting to suggest that anything written by a 13 year old is suitable for inclusion in public school curriculum? Do we really need to explain how ridiculous that is?
The ones bitching are the lefties who are angry this teacher got fired for being an idiot.
I notice you still haven't managed a response to the "why do you think they were removed in the first place"?
Again, impasse
'Anne Frank's Diary' is a profoundly moving graphic presentation of the classic
Of all the accidental classics in the canon, the books whose authors never intended them to be read even by their friends and family, much less by generations yet unborn, none harrows us like "The Diary of Anne Frank." The book is the diary-jottings of a teenage Anne Frank, made while she was hiding with her family in the secret annex of an office building in Nazi-occupied Amsterdam. The family was eventually discovered, and Anne died in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in 1945 at the age of 15. The diary she kept in hiding was published in 1947 and has been in print ever since, translated into every language, read by countless school children who encounter this sharp, funny, emphatic girl their own age and then learn her fate, often their first introduction to the enormous subject of the Holocaust.
The self-portrait that young diarist creates in the pages of the diary she received as a birthday present is rendered indelible in large part by the sheer disproportion involved. On the page, we read of daily hardships interspersed with dry commentary and ardent imaginings, and we smile, because the innocent humanity of the author is so immediately recognizable: We all know (or have been) somebody like Anne. But outside the page, brooding and gathering dark strength in the world beyond that Amsterdam annex, an entire apparatus of state machinery is intent on the annihilation of this little person. In the sane version of Anne Frank’s life, this diary would have been tucked away in some hope chest for decades and maybe read with comfortable embarrassment by its matronly author today, at age 88. In reality, a nightmare intervened.
Given all this, "The Diary of Anne Frank" seems the least likely material imaginable for a graphic novel adaptation like the one now appearing from Pantheon books, edited by Ari Folman and illustrated by David Polonsky. Indeed, Polonsky has said this was his own initial reaction: Of course not . The whole subject is so revered and so relentlessly tragic that rendering it in comic-book form seems like a flimsy and sordid sacrilege.
In the handling that Folman and Polonsky give it, what happens is nothing short of a revelation. The story told in Anne Frank’s diary has been re-told in many different forms over the years. There have been stage plays, movies, musicals, operas, and earlier comic-art adaptations. But nothing has ever quite captured the strange, stubborn delicacy, the forlorn wistfulness, of the diary like this before.
Polonsky’s artwork gets the lion’s share of the credit for this, naturally enough, and the key to his approach is its variety: Some pages are filled with variety, as when Anne is fantasizing about all the fineries she’d like to bring for her stay in a luxurious version of the Annex, and other pages are devoted to a single image, as when Anne tries to imagine the conditions at “the faraway camps” where rumor has it hundreds and thousands of deportees are being murdered. Polonsky creates a precise visual iconography for each of the eight people (the Franks and four others, including a boy named Peter with whom Anne gradually falls in love) living their cramped and furtive life in the Annex and then innovates endlessly on those designs, morphing day-to-day reality into all the shapes of Anne’s adolescent fantasies.
This account of life in the Annex is so wrenchingly hypnotizing precisely because the hiding-place is no refuge but rather a bizarre kind of staging-area. The family has left their bright and solid middle-class life; they’re living in an attic on starvation rations while they wait and hope for a better future the reader knows isn’t coming. Anne is both a chronicler of daily depression and a normal teen, swinging between histrionics and sarcasm on an almost hourly basis, telling herself: “This gloom will pass.”
Readers all over the world have treasured that hard-headed optimism for decades, but although some members of her family will survive the betrayal that uncovers their hiding-place to the Nazi forces, Anne herself will be transported to one of those faraway camps, where she and her sister Margot will die miserable deaths from typhus only a month or two before the camp was liberated by British troops in April of 1945.
Seeing all this in addition to reading it is devastating. When Anne dreams of flying, we see her flying; when she dreams about promenading down the street on Peter’s arm, we see the admiring gazes of onlookers; when Anne writes “What I’m experiencing here is a good beginning to an interesting life …” we see, in one of the book’s most wrenching images, the adult woman Anne never became, sitting at a desk in front of her typewriter, with faded newspapers commemorating her wartime adventures framed on the wall behind her.
Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation represents an artistic gamble; in hands less skilled and daring, it could have been a shocking failure. Instead, readers will here enjoy a genuine work of art … and have their hearts freshly broken.
You'll notice here John, that nobody has said anything about whether the thing is any good or not.
The problem is that.... once again... people are trying to put sexual content in front of children.
I know you don't want to hear this, but every time that happens, Trump gets another vote.
So, 13-14 year olds (8th graders) don't know what a penis is? They don't know what a period is (when most girls have their periods by then)? They don't know what bisexual is? This is all just more histrionics from the right.
Why is it that everyone on the left side of Che' insists on missing the point? The book was NOT on the approved reading list from the district, You all would be losing your minds if the book promoted white supremacy, but are perfectly okay as long as it meets your beliefs.
She violated the rules, PERIOD!!!
Who said I'm on "the left side of Che"? Just because YOU think that, doesn't make it true. Because you are so far right that you can't see center with a telescope, doesn't make anyone "the left side of Che". Your ATTEMPTED insult is noted. (I say attempted because, since I have no respect for you, you can't insult me.)
As for breaking the rules, it's ANNE FRANK'S DIARY. If that's too graphic for you prudes, that's, again, a YOU problem. This teacher should sue the district and see what a court of law has to say about this "rule".
I have seen the book. It is 150 pages long, and maybe 7 or 8 have some reference to sex, in the form of a thirteen year old girl fantasizing what it would be like to be in love or have sex. There is one page where she describes a day when she examined her sex organs.
This book is a powerful powerful story of a life lost to ideologies of hate.
Many of the pages depict the horror of the Holocaust. Are you under the delusion that readers will take a prurient interest in this book? Good god.
John was the Book on the approved reading list by the district? do you want teachers to have the ability to introduce any reading material they want?
So you approve of teachers breaking the rules as long as it meets your approval, how very hypocritical of you. so you are okay with Mein Kampf? maybe a couple books extolling the virtues of slavery? or do you think approved reading material decided by the district might actually be a good thing?
The subject isn't Mein Kampf nor a book extolling the virtues of slavery (well Florida can teach that apparently). The subject is ANNE FRANK'S DIARY, but your attempted deflection is noted.
Actually it is not.
The subject is a graphic adaptation of Anne Franks Diary.
Error noted.
What kind of mind equates an anti -Nazi book with the Nazi bible ?
That's not the subject, it's what the moronic left is trying to say the subject is, the subject is a teacher read and taught from a book that the district didn't approve. Period.
“..,teacher read and taught from a book that the district didn't approve. Period.”
No danger in that sentence, eh?
what kind of mind is so entrenched in partisanship that it tries so desperately to miss the point. Was the book on the approved reading list John, IT DOESN" MATTER WHAT THE FUCKING BOOK WAS! was the book on the approved list? and did the teacher violate the rules?
You said a teacher might want to teach Mein Kampf because of the precedent set by this Anne Frank book.
There is incongruity in that comparison.
It's a more accurate version of her diary. No error detected.
Actually, it is the subject because the teacher was fired because she read from and taught a more accurate version of ANNE FRANK'S DIARY. Period.
I know, right.
No i did not say that. if you are reduced to lying about my comment you have lost. What i said was...
So you are okay with Mein Kampf? nothing about precedent or anything else, you are the one trying to set precedent for a teacher to teach what they want whether or not it is approved by the district, what i'm saying is teachers should follow the rules on approved reading set by the district! that book could have easily been anything. but since you approve the subject matter you don't care about rules, if the teacher was a right winger teaching Mein Kampf you would have lost your mind, that is your hypocrisy not mine, neither should be taught if not approved.
Another’s interpretation of her diary, is more accurate than her diary?
Hilarious!
Yes, more accurate since they added passages back in that were edited out of the original. How hard is that to understand?
There are numerous passages in the book that are Anne Frank's exact words. Those passages are the majority of text in the book.
Nothing in this book was invented by the authors. At times they take something from the book that was not written as dialogue and turn it into dialogue. That is what literary art does.
If you think anything in the book is not borne out by the diary, you would be wrong.
Irrelevant until the book is approved by the school district. You opinion doesn’t matter. Wishfuls opinion doesn’t matter and neither does mine. Only the districts parents opinion matters.
That said, I read it. Not the recent version but the old one. Can’t remember if middle school or high school. Not sure if her pubescent observations of penis’s and vagina’s add much to the weight of the work other than to push agenda’s popular with many of my friends on the left here.
SOSDD …..
That's really very obviously not the point.... which is something that should not need to be explained to an adult.
I'm not sure how there is a disconnect between the concept of "what many 13 yr olds know" and "what is appropriate content for a school setting".
Let me help you break this down to a remedial level. There are "things that teenagers know and do". Then there are "things that are appropriate for school". Many, many things in the first group are not in the second group. There is a reason for that, and almost all grown-ups understand it.
For example.... every one of these kids knows how to say "fuck". We don't allow that in schools, either. Do you see how this works?
No, understand exactly what's happening here.
They approve of teachers breaking rules as long as those rules were established by non-liberals. This is all about the batshit religious zealotry of the Church of Liberal Politics.
And one where she expresses lesbian urges.
Lovely melodrama, there.
No, this is just liberals doing that thing they do where they excuse and defend any behavior of any other liberal, without regard to how moronic that defense may be.
I don't think you've ever met a 13 year old kid.
Regardless, The Diary of Anne Frank is a tried and true outstanding literary work that is completely appropriate for school settings for decades. The rewrite may be a fine book, but it is not at all appropriate for an 8th grade classroom setting.
You dont think a lot of things.
Yes, it is the point. 13-14 year olds are mature enough to discuss puberty, who they have crushes on (whether same sex or not) and discuss anatomy.
All you've done is give YOUR OPINION on the matter. The fact is 13-14 year olds are old enough to read what another teenager has gone through in her life which doesn't need to be sanitized for 13-14 year olds when they already know about all of those things and have experienced them themselves.
Kids say fuck in school all of the time. Just because it's frowned on doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and the only time I've seen a teen be punished for cursing is if they direct it at school staff. When they're just talking among themselves, they pretty much say whatever the fuck they want to.
Then again, neither do you.
And hypocrisy, It's amazing how some here fully supported a governor making a decree that no guns allowed in Albuquerque was a great thing and everyone should follow the rules, but rules established by a group to teach children need to be ignored. and they wear their hypocrisy like it is a badge of honor.
No, it isn't. They are old enough to discuss all sorts of things that are not appropriate to include in school curriculum. That idea is so unbelievably obvious it's moronic to ignore it.
Every one of these boys will have seen Andrew Tate on social media. Does that mean it's acceptable for a teacher to assign his book as class reading?
By a happy coincidence, that question shares the same answer as "should we put sexual content into the Anne Frank story for 8th graders"?
The correct answer there is "of course not, don't be a fucking idiot".
No, I'm explaining to you why these rules exist.
You're just desperate to ignore the fundamental concepts of age and location appropriateness. You also are desperate to ignore the vast difference in developmental levels between kids that age.
Some kids that age will definitely have experienced some of those feelings. Most will not have had any such experience and may never.
None of that has any bearing whatsoever on what constitutes appropriate curriculum for a public school.
Now we're getting somewhere. Yes. They say fuck in school. That does NOT mean that the word should be introduced into the curriculum. Do you understand how this works?
Impasse
The kids who were read this book by their teacher (who was fired) are in eighth grade, the same age Anne Frank was when she wrote her diary.
I looked through most of the book on Scribd. It is a powerful story of a typical teenage girl forced by an evil ideology into a tiny world that she , at times, rebelled against. That rebellion sadly existed mostly in her mind and in her diary.
It is appalling that "educators" decided to punish someone who showed this book to teenagers.
A lot of eye opening moments here in the last few weeks, If a democrat governor passes an EO that is obviously wrong concerning gun control on her largest city, everybody must follow that rule, If a democrat breaks a rule concerning gun control, that's okay because it's related Joe. if a teacher violates district policy in teaching a book that specifically is not on the reading list, that's okay....as long as we approve of the comic book. but posters are outraged when you mention another book not on the reading list. the hypocrisy isn't even surprising anymore, but expected.
What is it about the "comic book" that you dont approve of ?
What gives you the opinion that i don't approve of the comic book? are you still trying desperately to miss the entire point John?
Everyone here knows what your point is.
Then articulate my point John, since you are trying desperately to prove you don't get it.
When my daughter turned 11, I rented 'But I'm a Cheerleader' starring the shortly to become great actress, Natasha Lyonne. Despite the explicit scenes not one of the girls or boys at the party grew up to become gay. Stop with the fainting spells, they are adult adolescence!
You showed an R-rated movie to a group of 11-year-olds?
Mom and Dad were in the room to cover the R.