Why are any schools allowing this in their libraries?

[tabbycatstripy]

There was a mini scandal over a Catholic school in Southwark last month, with complaints to the Archbishop from a Tory MP (Eliot Colburn), after an invitation to a writer to come and promote his books and talk to the kids was withdrawn because his books were judged by the diocese to be ‘outside what is permissible in a Catholic school’. Complaints were made to Ofsted, the governors were dismissed by the diocese, and apparently the HT, who wanted the visit to go ahead, was at odds with the church.

So far so normal.

Twitter then went crazy in support of this writer, saying the books were lovely, fun, inclusive, with hardly any sexual content, and it was all so homophobic.

Anyway, I just saw an extract from the book:

twitter.com/dolphinmaria/status/1503490597931339785?s=21&t=0ZURhjXM1Ln6esoraw6Ilw

Why does a Tory MP (or any adult) think this content is suitable for adolescents?

Why is any librarian placing books in KS3 collections that talk this explicitly about (and trivialise) anal sex, oral sex, and porn?

I'd consider that extract to be appropriate for 13+, which is upper end of KS3.

I can see how a Catholic school would be conflicted by an author who bastardises the lord's prayer like that. But then again, I don't think there can be many authors who don't have some examples of blasphemy in their books somewhere. I imagine this author was banned purely because he was saying that homosexuality is not something to be ashamed of.

I do find it odd that you’re so upset about the word ‘come’ tbh.

In Of Mice and Men, George (the ‘good’ guy) talks about paying for a ‘flop’,and how much better it is to go to a whore house than to try to engage with actual women. He speaks of getting everything out of his system with ‘no mess.’ Is this ok? ‘Flop’ is a colloquial slang term for sex. Does this need censoring?

‘ In Of Mice and Men, George (the ‘good’ guy) talks about paying for a ‘flop’,and how much better it is to go to a whore house than to try to engage with actual women. He speaks of getting everything out of his system with ‘no mess.’ Is this ok? ‘Flop’ is a colloquial slang term for sex. Does this need censoring?’

That’s a reference to lying down with a prostitute (yes, for sex). When he says “no mess” he means no emotional tie (what do you think he means that makes that sexually explicit?).

I find it inexplicable that you can’t see the difference between that and this. That book is much less explicit than this one.

I know what he means by no mess! The ‘mess’ is all the drama of engaging with a woman! I find that quite offensive and am surprised you don’t!

I think the trouble is that, traditionally, people are much more offended by words for bodily functions and sexual acts than by the emotional/abusive implications of actions. So it’s ok to allude to, say, the rape of Tess, with all the trauma and horror that entails, but if Hardy had described a sexual encounter (even a consensual one) in any bodily detail at all, that would have been too shocking.

There are no statutes that say children can’t talk about ‘offensive’ things, Relentless. In the right context, lessons should explore issues of consent and misogyny.

That doesn’t make “no mess” sexually explicit.

We need to get this straight. Sexually explicit material being given to children doesn’t mean ‘any reference to sex’, or any attitude towards sex. It means EXPLICIT.

Talking about objects penetrating anuses.
Talking about sucking cock.

These are very explicit sexual references.

The word ‘shag’ wouldn’t be. Teenagers know about sex.

But again, I wouldn’t give 11 year olds books that talk about shagging.

It’s about a graduated model of what is suitable.

But what is your actual point?

I am no fan of giving explicit material to young children. I don’t see the need. And we could argue all day about what’s more explicit than what. 11 year olds know that babies are made by inserting a penis into a vagina. They learn this in biology. It’s hard to argue that a reference to that, using what you might call ‘explicit’ terminology, is worse than veiled references to rape. But it’s a matter of opinion.

But, again, what is your actual point? I agree that the extract you quoted is unsuitable for 11 year olds. You seem to want all books with similar references removed from libraries on the basis that librarians might be incompetent. I, on the other hand, think that we need to allow challenging literature to exist for our older students.

Has the book you quoted been foisted onto 11 year olds? If so, I’ll join you in being upset.

If it just happens to be in a library, put there for older students, and properly regulated, I’ll postpone my disgust.

I think I’m clear about my point. You can be as relaxed as you like. I don’t want this book being given to (or made available) to young teens. If that means saying some library staff have bad judgment because what I’ve seen suggests they will give it to young teens, I’ll say so.

You’ve seen that it is given to young teens? How young? (Because it does matter) But not 11 or 12 year olds? So why did you keep mentioning 11 year olds?

I think, with respect, your point is weak. The gushing support for the book on Twitter means nothing, unless those people are specifically the librarian/teachers in the named school.

There will always be books in the school library with varying ranges of appropriateness. You seem to simultaneously agree with this and be unhappy with it.

No, I am saying I have specifically seen school librarians saying the book has very little sexual content, or ‘mild references’ and there are no issues whatsoever.

You seem to be ignoring that.

I’m saying the book is clearly marketed at some KS3 students (both from the colour scheme/design and age of the characters - children read slightly ‘up’, so a book with 14 year old protagonist is aimed at children a couple of years younger.

You seem to be ignoring that.

Up to you, but these are my points and issues.

@334bu

*We trust you do to your job and exercise your judgment, but we can't trust you when it comes to books that mention sex and homosexuality."*

Many schools won't have a trained librarian to take such decisions.

That's why all schools should have a qualified librarian. You do know that librarians carry a Masters qualification and are required to be a member of CILIP, the professional body. Librarians are also required to have Chartered status and renew this on a three yearly basis. So yes, librarians are professionals and take their jobs of enabling access to appropriate resources and information exceptionally seriously.

I take offence that several people on this thread who claim to be educationalists and work in schools seem to think that all we do is randomly buy books and allow anybody who fancies it to borrow something that is explicitly not for that age group.

How many of you have actually spent time in the school library, taken time to find out what librarians actually do and what benefit they can give to your school. And then actually ask the school to employ a qualified, Chartered librarian.

‘ How many of you have actually spent time in the school library, taken time to find out what librarians actually do and what benefit they can give to your school. And then actually ask the school to employ a qualified, Chartered librarian.’

I’ve always cultivated good relationships with librarians in school and worked very closely with them on reading progress. I know what KS3 students pick off the shelves. I know this book would appeal to many of them. I know my own colleagues would have been shocked at this specific passage and removed it from the library for KS3/4. And rightly. They were great.

But there are many people who don’t see the issue, which is an issue whether they have a Masters or not.

@tabbycatstripy

No, I am saying I have specifically seen school librarians saying the book has very little sexual content, or ‘mild references’ and there are no issues whatsoever.

You seem to be ignoring that.

I’m saying the book is clearly marketed at some KS3 students (both from the colour scheme/design and age of the characters - children read slightly ‘up’, so a book with 14 year old protagonist is aimed at children a couple of years younger.

You seem to be ignoring that.

Up to you, but these are my points and issues.

We haven't ignored anything of what you have said and given you ample examples of how the material is managed in schools.

You haven't read the whole book so don't know what the overall is content is so there may be very little sexual content.

You obviously don't trust anyone's judgment but your own. That's fine. But give it up now.

‘You haven't read the whole book so don't know what the overall is content is so there may be very little sexual content.’

That’s not the issue. Saying ‘very little sexual content’ and ignoring clearly explicit sexual content (not saying, for example, ‘There is a small amount of explicit sexual content in this book and it would be appropriate in KS4 but not KS3’) undermines my trust in their judgment.

Who’s ‘we’?

But there are many people who don’t see the issue, which is an issue whether they have a Masters or not.

Many people can see the issue with 11 and 12 year olds reading that book.

They simultaneously have little issue with the book being available for older students.

‘They simultaneously have little issue with the book being available for older students.’

I am not talking about those people, as I’ve said. It’s possible for us to disagree on the issue without me thinking your judgment is inherently bad.

But if you downplay the sexual content, or if you pretend not to see the issue with it, or if you try to deflect concerns with appeals to authority, I will think your judgment probably is bad.

Why is any librarian placing books in KS3 collections that talk this explicitly about (and trivialise) anal sex, oral sex, and porn?

You said this in your first post. I think lots of people then probed to see if a librarian really did ‘place this book in a KS3 collection’ as we couldn’t see any evidence of this. Some of us pointed out that secondary school libraries have a large audience and qualified professionals to oversee them.

You still haven’t shown that the book was ‘placed in a KS3 collection’, unless I’ve missed it? You’re speculating.

I am not speculating. I’ve told you I’ve seen librarians saying the book has minimal sexual content and is absolutely appropriate, without caveats. They are clearly not making an argument that it should be given out only to older students which, in the context of a discussion about the appropriateness of the book for schools, is relevant.

Well, if librarians have said that, it’s very strange. ‘Without caveats’? Suitable for all children? This wasn’t in the original material you linked.

But, again, have these mysterious librarians placed the book in KS3 collections?

You are suggesting I quoted them as saying ‘without caveats’ (which obviously I didn’t)?

I am saying they didn’t (in fact I didn’t see anyone) caveat their praise of the book with the fact that it clearly does contain highly explicit sexual references. That misled me, and I was then shocked when I read the actual material, and wondered why those librarians didn’t mention that it does actually have several very lewd references in it.

I feel comfortable inferring from that they are not being (as I think they should be) careful not to hand the book out to children under 16.

And as the book is clearly marketed at children under 16, that stacks up with my interpretation as well. 16 year olds don’t read 14 year old protagonists.

So in my opinion, the sex references are unsuited to the book and its intended audience (not older teens).

Anyway, we’ve gone round the houses enough I think.

Yes, I agree. We have gone round the houses enough. FWIW I don’t like unnecessarily explicit content. And I would be horrified if 11 year olds were reading that.

I think we have some common ground.

But I was simply trying to suggest that more explicit/shocking stuff than that exists in most secondary school libraries. And it is regulated.

I think the homophobic nature of the original objections to the school visit made many of us regard the story with scepticism.

@tabbycatstripy

You are suggesting I quoted them as saying ‘without caveats’ (which obviously I didn’t)?

I am saying they didn’t (in fact I didn’t see anyone) caveat their praise of the book with the fact that it clearly does contain highly explicit sexual references. That misled me, and I was then shocked when I read the actual material, and wondered why those librarians didn’t mention that it does actually have several very lewd references in it.

I feel comfortable inferring from that they are not being (as I think they should be) careful not to hand the book out to children under 16.

And as the book is clearly marketed at children under 16, that stacks up with my interpretation as well. 16 year olds don’t read 14 year old protagonists.

So in my opinion, the sex references are unsuited to the book and its intended audience (not older teens).

Anyway, we’ve gone round the houses enough I think.

If you're inferring all that from a few tweets - where by definition people have to restrict the length of your posts - you are making some pretty massive leaps.

And "16 year olds don’t read 14 year old protagonists" is an incredibly wild generalisation. Harry Potter? Lord of the Flies? The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time? The Go-Between?

Typically, they don’t, Fulmine. Harry Potter is one of those weird series that generates an adult fan base. LOTF is ‘proper literature’. But in Young Adult fiction (which this is) the kids punch up.

This writer aims for children around the age of 14 to buy the books. That’s KS3. It’s too young. Just take the “sucking cock” and references to anal out and I wouldn’t have a problem with a gay teenage book, I’d think it was cool.

Anyway, I do have to work.

Have you heard the language in a year 7 playground? ( not that I have seen any evidence that this book was aimed at the younger end of secondary school pupils).
It is clearly the mangled version of the Lord's Prayer that the homophobic characters are using to taunt the gay kid. Sounds pretty realistic - even the nicest schools have horrible little nightmares in them - in my experience they are entitled little sods whose mummies can't accept that they would ever put a foot wrong but also say things like 'boys will be boys' when they behave so horridly.
Adolescent literature has long been a source of handwringing for mothers / parents who aren't able to acknowledge the realities of modern adolescence.

It’s not realistic at all. Kids in the first few years of secondary don’t make pastiche versions of the Our Father including references to sucking cock and anal sex.

I am not handwringing. This is a live safeguarding issue in my professional sphere.

@tabbycatstripy

It’s not realistic at all. Kids in the first few years of secondary don’t make pastiche versions of the Our Father including references to sucking cock and anal sex.

I am not handwringing. This is a live safeguarding issue in my professional sphere.

My professional sphere too but I'm not professional enough to have a view because that view is not the same view as your view.