Continuing to analyze Paul Freeman’s disconnection
Paul Freeman pushes onward,
“Two of the texts referenced are new or relatively new and had never been checked out by any student prior to the conversation about them on social media. One is older, has been in our collection for years without complaint, and has not been checked out in some time. Which all seems to suggest that the outrage associated with these texts has been intentionally manufactured if not feigned, and appears not to be of strictly local origin. To date, no one has filed a formal complaint or request that the Board of Education review any title, as is provided for in Board Policy 6334.
All of which leads to the request that we remove these books or otherwise monitor, restrict or police the circulation of these titles from our libraries.
Regardless of the growing national movement to limit access to challenging texts, we believe it is a parental right and responsibility to talk with our children about their media diets and to monitor the media that they consume.”
ANALYSIS—what’s rather hilarious here, is that Freeman tiptoes in saying “appears not to be of strictly local origin”.
What he doesn’t grasp is that the books themselves are not “strictly of local origin”; when parents from across the country are raising a fuss, Freeman is utterly befuddled as to how Guilford parents got word of it.
NOTE: toward that last sentence — “…to talk with OUR children” — is NOT “to talk with THEIR children”. He uses “their children” below; was above a…..Freudian slip???
He continues, “Whether a high school-aged child is checking a book out of a school library or a public library, whether they are purchasing a title from a local book dealer or from Amazon, whether they are watching a video on YouTube or TikTok, it is incumbent upon us as parents to be aware of those decisions. We encourage all parents of Guilford Schools students to talk to their children about what they read, to look into their backpacks on a regular basis, and to monitor the smart phones and other devices they use which provide them access to materials much less strictly curated than those which we shelve in our school libraries.
The responsibility and the goal of our district and our educators is to provide a wide variety of materials that have been selected by professionals through our established procurement process for our entire school community. We strive to provide books in which every student can see themselves represented and through which every child can learn to empathize with others who are not like themselves. To be sure, some titles contain strong language and depict difficult (often realistic) situations which may be hard for some to confront. That does not make the content inappropriate. We believe students deserve to have access to these diverse and challenging materials.
ANALYSIS—Freeman says, “and other devices they use which provide them access to materials much less strictly curated than those which we shelve in our school libraries.”
So — popular books on gender-bending and sex, from across the country – are ‘strictly curated’ then?
Freeman’s phrase, “….in which every student can see themselves represented and through which every child can learn to empathize with others who are not like themselves.” should raise red flags to you, parents. Here’s why.
When children are being taught about sexual parts, sexual acts and then Freeman claims students can “see themselves represented” OR “learn to empathize with others who are not like themselves” — he is an agent of change: if children don’t yet see themselves as sexual somethings, they must learn to empathize with very foreign ideas, including those of groomers and pedophiles.
He goes on, “……We are not willing, however, and we are not structured to serve as moral monitors of whether some materials within our diverse literary collection may be deemed inappropriate in the eyes of some. Our goal as educators, teachers and librarians, which is in alignment with our Portrait of a Graduate, is to encourage broad reading among all students and to make available a wide variety of materials to all students.
ANALYSIS BREAK—well what is Portrait of a Graduate? It falls under an organization (Battelle for Kids) which is funded by (drumroll please…) Bill Gates. The Portrait is all about promoting mindsets. Excerpt, to educators:
“Our Portrait of a Graduate design process engages the education system and the broader community—educators, students, elected officials, community members, families— to help you build a unifying, collective vision for your students. Bringing together these diverse perspectives is essential for enduring educational transformation” — hold up. Enduring transformation? As in, it lasts long, or it will go against the grain? Or BOTH?
Freeman’s writing then takes on a semi-defensive tone, whining, “we are not willing….nor structured….to serve as moral monitors….”.
He goes on that the, “Board of Education policy (6334) provides a vehicle for any community member to ask that the Board review any title. To level personal attacks and insinuations is beneath the dignity of this community, is unkind, unfair and uncalled for.
Please also let us agree that we will refrain from attacking educators, personally and publicly, and address any concerns through appropriate channels. More than any library book or TikTok video, our children learn by the example we set. In Guilford, we strive for that example to be inclusive and welcoming, with rich discourse that embraces diverse ideas. When we engage in thoughtful conversation, we model our values….”
ANALYSIS—whoo boy is Freeman out of touch here with “more than any library book or TikTok video” as far as influence goes! In Freeman’s arcane world, children still look and look up to their parents. He hasn’t yet realized that when children spend 6-7 hours per day with a teacher, the teacher has a lot of influence on them. Add to that the social media factor; Freeman’s gaps in reasoning include a big one here. TikTok’s influence is found here. And that doesn’t include all these guys…..
Dr. Freeman did ban Dr. Suess books; yes, banned them in spite of his own verbiage above: “to encourage broad reading among all students and to make available a wide variety of materials to all students.”****
****except certain Dr. Suess books that were arbitrarily banned because….something something ‘strictly curated’ for Guilford locals by national experts.