Keeping minds open…A conversation about learning & schools in Wyoming, Ohio

Dr. Kist-Klein, Mr. Levy, members of the School Board.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak tonight.

The purpose of my coming here is to participate in what is lovingly being called “The Wyoming Book Banning” discussion.  While I have read the book currently in question, I’m not here to go through a litany of point/counterpoint on 22 quotes taken out of context and demonized.

My points will be brief.

First – I fully support the reading list decisions made by the experienced professional educators in our classrooms.  I believe they are the key asset responsible for our school district’s recent ranking and, as the son of two life long school teachers, I know the importance each of them place on the welfare of every person in their classroom.

At the same time, I oppose the degree to which the School Board has created a platform for what I believe to be an imposition of individual personal values onto the broader community.  Without judging these values, I believe it is inappropriate for a publicly elected school board, particularly one of your reputation for educational excellence, to legitimatize these valid personal values as a de facto representation of the community you were elected to serve.

Second – I do not support the four part rubric criteria developed to “test” each book on the reading list.  There are outstanding element of the criteria:  relationship to the course of study, uniqueness of the content, appropriateness for the maturity and comprehension level of the class involved.  All seem to be valuable criteria.

Where I diverge with the Board’s criteria is the inclusion of “the extent to which the content could create controversy among students, parents, and community groups”.  This criteria sets the stage for what I will call “Intellectual Bullying”…the process by which the mere threat of disagreement is sufficient to create the outcome desired by those who disagree.  In effect, it invites anyone with a disagreement to stand outside the school doors, holding their breath and stomping their feet until they get their way.  In effect, you are saying with this criteria “to object is to win”.

While only discussed in quiet hallways, by extension I oppose the creation of a “reading board” designed to vet the reading lists developed by our English department.  It is simply a slippery slope that feels better until the first issue.

I know the Board is in a difficult position and I submit that these criteria do nothing more than further entrench the Board in a values decision process it is neither charged with nor capable of resolving.  There exists today a policy that provides the best mechanism for reflecting community values in the reading list. – the long standing informal policy allowing students, with the support of their families, to “opt-out” of a reading assignment that for any reason not requiring explanation they may find objectionable.  Let’s simply formalize it.

The opt-out process enables parents to tailor the supplemental reading list as they find appropriate FOR THEIR FAMILY without obligating the School Board to broadly impose these individual values on the community.  To degree concerns about any individual book create a sweeping agreement to “opt-out” that is, in effect, a community decision and, as a result, nobody will be reading the book.  Let the community decision emerge from the actions of the community rather than trying to impose it by prior restraint.

Third – there has been some suggestion that all the energy surrounding this issue is interdependent with other issues that may be before the board in an attempt to somehow make the board “look bad”.  My request of you is that you consider no one can make you “look bad” without your consent and participation.  I have said this to several of you throughout the discussion and I’ll say it in public.  The degree to which you have chosen to approach this as a “closed door” discussion, open only to one side of the argument, has not engendered trust among many in the community.  Transparency will reverse that trend.  Positioning, such as the “first and foremost” statement that no books will be “banned” in the schools simply reinforces the mistrust.  I’m open to hear other interpretations but when a school district puts a book on the “not welcome here” list…it’s censorship and book banning.  Reframe it all day…the end result is the same.

In closing…books are about ideas.  Ideas broaden our minds and the integration of multiple ideas creates knowledge.  The ability to integrate new ideas into an existing web of knowledge creates wisdom and the ability to think for oneself.  Ultimately, it is our responsibility, and yours, to ensure our students cultivate the broadest possibility to think for themselves.  Narrowing the breadth of ideas may provide a false sense of serenity and protectionism for some families and I support their rights to do so for themselves.  But…I do not support their right to impose their criteria on our family or on our community.  To do so will weaken our schools and, ultimately, our community.

Thank you.

Martin Murray

9/29/09