Sticking head in the sand
Book bans
Regarding “Opinion: Ban books? Focus on teaching kids to read.” (March 23): Right-wing extremists are at it again, trying to ban books — an effort similar to trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.
When I was in seventh grade, my mom told me she didn’t want me to read “1984.” She had heard that some young people had committed suicide after reading the book. I tried to check it out at the school library; Mom had already contacted them and they refused to let me have it. I asked my older friend who was my usual book source; she had gotten to him, too.
Two weeks later, we were at the airport to pick up a cousin who was visiting. In the airport bookstore, in paperback, with the cover torn off and a price of a quarter, was “1984.” Bingo. I didn’t kill myself after reading it, obviously. I asked my mom what the big deal was. It’s just a book.
Sticking your head in the sand doesn’t make things disappear. Pretending that systematic oppression hasn’t happened doesn’t change history. You can’t be “made” to feel guilty. If learning facts makes you feel guilt, that might require self-reflection.
Ironically, over the office of our school, in letters a foot high, is emblazoned, “you shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.”
Bruce Ellis, Houston
I love to read. I encouraged my children to read. Among the first questions I ask when I see one of them after an absence, is “what are you reading?” Most of them know to have a title in mind, even if they haven’t read anything recently. While schools should be cautious in selecting books for elementaryage kids, to avoid confusing subject matter they aren’t ready to digest, they should seek interesting subjects, not necessarily within the students’ predictable frame of reference. For older kids, books dealing with racial and LGBT issues, among others, should not only not be taboo, they should be on the main menu — required reading. These issues are part of the real world that students will be entering.
Teachers should encourage students to discuss the subject matter with their parents. Parents should be open-minded
and maybe ask the student, “Why do you believe your teacher assigned this particular book or this particular subject matter?”
School districts should not operate in a vacuum. PTA meetings should include a focus on titles and subject matter. Parents’ questions and concerns should be addressed, thoughtfully and seriously. Teachers’ training should include courses on interaction not only with students, but with their parents.
In order to have an intelligent population, we must have an educated population. Our education system should prepare students for an inclusive future in an inclusive world. Our city, state and nation will be the better for it.
Jim Greenwood, Houston
Regarding “Lawmakers pass bill aimed at teaching ‘American principles’,” (March 24): Almost 100 years ago several states banned the teaching of evolution in public schools. The infamous “Scopes” trial was broadcast nationwide on live radio.
Now, over half the states are trying to restrict the teaching of critical race theory in history class. Today’s conservative politicians are using the same tactics to promote their ambitions without any basis in reality.
When will they be called to task? Public education is too important to allow a few disgruntled parents to decide policy.
Terry Gaiser, Houston
might see in the Russian news agency TASS. The irony of the article is that he accuses the thugs of doing exactly what many climate-change-oriented investment managers (such as BlackRock, mentioned in the article, but not as a thug) are doing: threatening the companies they’ve invested in to tow the green line or be disinvested. BlackRock said definitively it advocates for fewer fossil fuel investments. Who’s the thug? The horror!
Mr. Tomlinson, let me ask you, will Republican thuggish advocacy preclude you from making the investments of your choice? Both parties have the right to advocate their investment choices, except of course some are thugs and some not.
John H Reed Jr., Houston
Perhaps Chris Tomlinson should read the Railroad Commission mission statement before criticizing members’ efforts to prevent the denial of capital to the Texas oil and gas industry by “green energy” interests.
RRC’s mission statement per their website: “Our mission is to serve Texas by our stewardship of natural resources and the environment, our concern for personal and community safety, and our support of enhanced development and economic vitality for the benefit of Texans.”
The RRC’s job is not only to regulate the oil and gas industry but also to promote and protect it.