The editorial “Book bans can threaten local control” (Oct. 13, TribLIVE) calls it “admirable” for parents to take an “active and engaged role in their schools,” while raising the red herring that such activism threatens local control.
The state already exerts significant influence over school curriculum and staffing. Thus, the Trib’s argument is fallacious fearmongering designed to intimidate those who object to inappropriate content.
Of greater concern is that the bill to create statewide standardized procedures comes at it from the wrong end. It would be better for local panels of parents, students, teachers and administrators to review proposed material before it becomes part of the curriculum or a library’s holdings. This less adversarial approach validates the views of each stakeholder.
Yet, the Trib is dismissive of those who question content, mocking them as a small sect it deems unrepresentative of the more liberal community at large. This viewpoint disrespects historic changes sparked by a few concerned individuals. School prayer was banned, and the Stephen Foster statue was removed, because, in each case, one individual lodged the initial complaint. And the groups that forced banning certain Mark Twain and Dr. Seuss titles were hardly overwhelming in number.
Every citizen has the right to question what is being taught in taxpayer-funded public schools without being ridiculed. Checks and balances are integral to democracy. A uniform process that promotes open debate would further the community’s common educational goals and might help put a stop to all this childish sniping.
Peter Busowski
Jeannette