Peabloggy

I am taking a course on young adult literature this semester. The assigned reading for the class includes the usual Newbery award winners and feel good stories about the values of hard work and education. In addition to those family friendly faves, however, are books that deal with the issues of homosexuality, sex, and rape, all in the high-school-age setting. I personally hold no illusions about what my students will already have learned about these subjects by the time they get to my classroom, and hold no objections to teaching literature that deals with them; but the multiplicity of problems that could arise when dealing frankly with such issues in school worries me. The story of a parent barging into a teachers room, demanding a teacher’ head on a platter, waving an assigned book that contains the “F” word, and insisting that her child had never been exposed to such language at a public school was recently relayed to me. The absurdity of such a statement, unfortunately, does not render it powerless. At what age, then, and in what setting, does it become acceptable to discuss such sensitive issues? Would parents rather they learned it from CSI and Grey’s Anatomy or a credentialed, accountable, highly educated professional instructed in how to teach those topics?

I understand and respect the rights of parents who may actually succeed in shielding their children from all things bad in this world, and would happily make exceptions in such cases. There, I said it.

Luke Webb

Anne Lamott, author and activist, wants to propose a revolution. But not your typical revolutionary show of military force or government takeover. In an article for Salon.com, she expresses her frustration with the current political climate in the US. Regardless of political leanings, I think her suggested tools for revolution are worth consideration. She writes:

“In this revolution, there will not be any positions except kindness. And libraries. We will not even have a battle cry, as that can lead to chanting, and haranguing…We would simply look one another in the eyes, shake our heads, and say, “This just can’t be right.”

I consider Lamott’s thoughts on revolution in light of widespread frustration with things like the No Child Left Behind act. I think about her words alongside those I read over the break from Promoting Reading in Developing Countries by the International Reading Association and Vincent Greaney - accounts of countries where the literacy rate for women is practically 0% and areas where some of the most compelling reading material is a discarded owner’s manual for US-made vehicles - written in English, a language few to none of the local children speak.

And I thought about libraries. I remembered how excited I was as a child when I got to pick - I got to PICK - a book from the library to take home. I think of my current life as a grad student on a budget, and how grateful I am for the stacks and stacks of books available to me with the click of a button - from local libraries, and even distant ones through elaborate loan systems.

We cannot underestimate the power of ideas, and I’m experiencing renewed gratitude for the easy access I have to so many of them. So how can we provide wider access to more and better reading material for communities that currently lack it? I’m wondering where I sign up for Lamott’s revolution.

- Rachel Bowers

I just found out about a contest that The Washington Post has for people to submit alternative meanings for common words. 

For example:
1. Coffee (n.), the person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted (adj.), appalled over how much weight you have
gained.
3. Abdicate (v.), to give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. Esplanade (v.), to attempt an explanation while drunk.

It is funny, but it also caused me to think about how often people (including me) do not know the meaning of the words they use.  If enough people use a word in a different way over and over, then everyone else assumes they are right.  For example the word actor means a professional acting performer, whereas actress means an amateur acting performer.  Many people do not know this.  It is common for people to refer to female actors as an actress.  Julia Roberts is not an actress, she is an actor. 

When I began to self-reflect, I realized that many of my interpersonal conflicts and arguments have been due to faulty communication and misunderstanding.  These factors boiled down often deal with one or both persons involved not knowing what words truly mean. 

I would like to get back to basics.  I want to know where the words I use come from and what they really mean.  Words hold power.  To know what words mean can be empowering. 

-Anna Oparah