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from a Tory MP (Eliot Colburn), after an invitation to a writer to come and promote his books and talk to the kids was withdrawn because his books were judged by the diocese to be ‘outside what is permissible in a Catholic school’.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?

‘An old black ram is tupping your white ewe’

Well, we can’t have that kind of language in books that children might read.

@tabbycatstripy

I see what you mean. No (and obviously!) the question was rhetorical. I think a librarian who chooses this book for selection in a school (not for older teens but for younger ones) is showing poor judgment. They are bound by the same legislation and safeguarding policies as teachers and they need to do better than this.

Yes. Yes they are bound by the same legislation. As I've said previously, that's included when decisions are made about the selection criteria.

It's your opinion that it's poor judgment. Your choice to disagree with the criteria and report concerns. If you disagree with the choices made then you need to ask for the selection criteria to be reviewed.

Then there won't be any danger of any other similar books ending up in the library because the selection criteria has been changed. A selection criteria that has been agreed with the head and governors means that it isn't just one persons opinion, it's a collective decision as to what type of material is included.

Ncwinc

Are you comparing that language to “sucking cock” and “make Harry come”? Seriously?

‘It's your opinion that it's poor judgment. Your choice to disagree with the criteria and report concerns. If you disagree with the choices made then you need to ask for the selection criteria to be reviewed.

Obviously that’s what I would do.

Yes. I am.

I really hope that a space for the gender critical doesn’t end up being a space for the kind of people who ban books from school libraries and sex Ed from schools in the US.

@tabbycatstripy

‘It's your opinion that it's poor judgment. Your choice to disagree with the criteria and report concerns. If you disagree with the choices made then you need to ask for the selection criteria to be reviewed.

Obviously that’s what I would do.

Perfect! Now you understand the process of how books are selected for school libraries. You can make an informed complaint and know that whatever the outcome, books are selected with a reason and not just randomly picked because of a fun looking cover. You can rest easy knowing that particular books aren't a safeguarding risk or that ones that are are less likely to be chosen or will be swiftly got rid of through a transparent process.

That's all I was looking for.

‘I really hope that a space for the gender critical doesn’t end up being a space for the kind of people who ban books from school libraries and sex Ed from schools in the US.’

This isn’t sex education. Sex education is an important part of the curriculum. This is just smut. And yes, banning books from school libraries is an important part of keeping kids safe. Remove the racial context (which would be treated sensitively in class when KS4 children read Othello), no reasonable educator would think “tupping” was comparable to talking about things being shoved up kids’ bottoms.

Get a grip.

‘You can make an informed complaint and know that whatever the outcome, books are selected with a reason and not just randomly picked because of a fun looking cover. You can rest easy knowing that particular books aren't a safeguarding risk or that ones that are are less likely to be chosen or will be swiftly got rid of through a transparent process.’

I don’t know why you think this is what I have agreed. I haven’t. I would complain about this particular text, then, if necessary, the selection criteria, then, if necessary, the judgment of whoever chose it. I wouldn’t ‘rest easy’ because someone else thought what I thought was unacceptable was fine.

In the end I wouldn’t work there, and would make a complaint to Ofsted about the safeguarding at the school.

Anyway, will leave this as I have work to be getting on with.

@Ncwinc

Yes. I am.

I really hope that a space for the gender critical doesn’t end up being a space for the kind of people who ban books from school libraries and sex Ed from schools in the US.

Same. In my mind GC involves opening the world up, celebrating difference, and being aware that sometimes we need to deal with the tricky stuff openly. Not this.

@tabbycatstripy

‘I really hope that a space for the gender critical doesn’t end up being a space for the kind of people who ban books from school libraries and sex Ed from schools in the US.’

This isn’t sex education. Sex education is an important part of the curriculum. This is just smut. And yes, banning books from school libraries is an important part of keeping kids safe. Remove the racial context (which would be treated sensitively in class when KS4 children read Othello), no reasonable educator would think “tupping” was comparable to talking about things being shoved up kids’ bottoms.

Get a grip.

It's not the 'tupping' that's the problem here. It's the black ram and white ewe. Shakespearian racism at it's finest. Funny how you missed that when you refer to Othello.

I also sincerely hope that the GC argument can open up the world for people. I did think about getting this thread moved to books or AIBU as it's certainly not about sex and gender!

@tabbycatstripy

‘You can make an informed complaint and know that whatever the outcome, books are selected with a reason and not just randomly picked because of a fun looking cover. You can rest easy knowing that particular books aren't a safeguarding risk or that ones that are are less likely to be chosen or will be swiftly got rid of through a transparent process.’

I don’t know why you think this is what I have agreed. I haven’t. I would complain about this particular text, then, if necessary, the selection criteria, then, if necessary, the judgment of whoever chose it. I wouldn’t ‘rest easy’ because someone else thought what I thought was unacceptable was fine.

In the end I wouldn’t work there, and would make a complaint to Ofsted about the safeguarding at the school.

So censorship is the hill you're willing to die on. Please make sure you actually read the whole book before you make a complaint.

@tabbycatstripy

Anyway, will leave this as I have work to be getting on with.

We all do. Luckily this has clarified a few professional ethical points for me so I can put it down as CPD.

I'm off to select inappropriate books for the children's section.

‘ It's not the 'tupping' that's the problem here. It's the black ram and white ewe. Shakespearian racism at it's finest. Funny how you missed that when you refer to Othello.’

I didn’t. I said the racist content would be dealt with in a classroom, but it’s not the issue here. Don’t conflate them. This is about sexualised content, and schools have statutory responsibilities particularly in that area. Explicit sexual language of this nature isn’t suitable for younger students, but lessons about the nature of racism and homophobia are (of course).

With that said, I wouldn’t teach 12 year olds Othello.

‘So censorship is the hill you're willing to die on. Please make sure you actually read the whole book before you make a complaint.’

Yes. I am willing to die on the hill that not all books are suitable to be given to children by school staff. Very happily.

As a primary school teacher in a deprived area, I can most certainly tell you that kind of language is rife in primary schools, let alone secondaries. It’s not helped by how it is used and portrayed on social media where parents are letting children as young as 7 access TikTok and it’s ilk. But being in a book meant for all secondary children I would say that this is perfectly acceptable and is a good way of discussing and education children on the effects and appropriateness of that language.

‘I can most certainly tell you that kind of language is rife in primary schools, let alone secondaries.’

I know far too many children use sexualised language. Let’s not encourage it.

And no, it’s not standard. This is confirmation bias. We see some children (who should have been protected more) using this language and we assume it’s the norm. But it isn’t, at least not if proper judgment is used about safeguarding them.

I know far too many children use sexualised language. Let’s not encourage it.

I'm pretty certain that's the message the book is trying to get across tbf. That is not good language to use, that it's bullying and inappropriate. I don't think the author is encouraging it.

@tabbycatstripy

‘So censorship is the hill you're willing to die on. Please make sure you actually read the whole book before you make a complaint.’

Yes. I am willing to die on the hill that not all books are suitable to be given to children by school staff. Very happily.

I thought you had work to do?

Censorship is very much like the TRA 'no debate'. It's one opinion that matters and everyone else must abide by it.

Making suitable books available to children via an agreed set of criteria is a very different matter.

I very much feel that in this area, you are very much for no debate. If you deem it unsuitable then it must go. Unfortunately that's not how life works.

@MedusasBadHairDay

I know far too many children use sexualised language. Let’s not encourage it.

I'm pretty certain that's the message the book is trying to get across tbf. That is not good language to use, that it's bullying and inappropriate. I don't think the author is encouraging it.

The reason to read the whole book and not have a knee jerk reaction against an extract that's been chosen to shock!

@MedusasBadHairDay

I know far too many children use sexualised language. Let’s not encourage it.

I'm pretty certain that's the message the book is trying to get across tbf. That is not good language to use, that it's bullying and inappropriate. I don't think the author is encouraging it.

Exactly this! No where ,OP, in what I said did I say it was acceptable language for children to use, but did say how the book can be used to discuss the effects of this type of language.

I simply don’t think it’s an argument that we should expose children to obscenity in order to teach them about the wrongness of the sentiments behind it. It’s not necessary.

Rhubarb, clearly I am debating it. The response I got from you was very much “trust my professional judgment”, which to me, sounds more like ‘no debate’ than anything I have said.

I have explained my concern about the language. I have engaged about the importance of educating on sex, relationships, sexuality and racism. I have explained that I think it’s possible to educate on those topics without resorting to presenting children with obscene materials. I have provided the statutory backing for my judgment. I have explained my red lines and the actions I would take to feel I had met my own sense of my professional obligations.

That’s not no debate.

‘Exactly this! No where ,OP, in what I said did I say it was acceptable language for children to use, but did say how the book can be used to discuss the effects of this type of language.’

Giving it to the children to read is not necessary to teach these ideas. We don’t teach children racial slurs in order to explain that racial slurs are bad, and which are worst. We don’t show kids porn (although I’ve seen it suggested) to teach them that porn can be damaging.

We can talk about the topics without presenting them with explicit material, and we should.

@tabbycatstripy

I simply don’t think it’s an argument that we should expose children to obscenity in order to teach them about the wrongness of the sentiments behind it. It’s not necessary.

Rhubarb, clearly I am debating it. The response I got from you was very much “trust my professional judgment”, which to me, sounds more like ‘no debate’ than anything I have said.

I have explained my concern about the language. I have engaged about the importance of educating on sex, relationships, sexuality and racism. I have explained that I think it’s possible to educate on those topics without resorting to presenting children with obscene materials. I have provided the statutory backing for my judgment. I have explained my red lines and the actions I would take to feel I had met my own sense of my professional obligations.

That’s not no debate.

I've got to the point now where I can't argue my position any further. You are refusing to accept that you don't know anything about this book other than this one page and think that you're the only one who knows what children should or should not be reading and how that material should be selected (or not) for libraries.

Honestly, you seem that think that fiction libraries (possibly even fiction books) should not exist because they might have problematic story lines.

That's censorship and censorship is the same as no debate.

Censorship is not the same as no debate. Censorship in this context is taking a decision that some things aren’t suitable for children. We can debate (and are debating) what those things are.

“But that’s censorship!!” is a futile thing to say because I know it is. Censorship is both good and necessary when dealing with kids. I don’t let my daughters (both under 10) watch Scream or Hostel. That’s censorship. I don’t let them read Cosmo. That’s censorship.

So what if it is? It’s called safeguarding.