More Inappropriate Material for Oak Lawn Children
Congratulations to Karen Lukes and her son for exposing how inappropriate material is being pushed on children and how propaganda is being used to hide this from the public. Instead of mutely accepting the public school's recommendation of a pervasively vulgar book for her son's summer reading, she spoke out that something was obviously wrong.
For this she was vilified by the school's administration, the media's claims of her "banning" books, and a letter to the editor by someone purposefully hiding her affiliation with the public school system. Even the book's author joined in on the unreasonable assaults, but, in fairness, I believe this was only due to her being misled by the existing propaganda at that time.
So what happened? The public school apologized "for not warning parents about a controversial book." Whoops, there's the media's spin again. The book is pervasively vulgar, not "controversial."
Indeed the School Board President Jerry Mulvihill agreed, saying, "We all felt the same emotion ... when we first heard the language...." The controversy here was not the book, rather, it was the manner it which the school system pushed it on children.
And the School Board "apologized repeatedly" for failing to inform parents about the contents of the book. It even promised to "improve communications" with the parents next time.
What this means is Karen Lukes was right. And it was wrong to vilify her and propagandize the public. And people should be sceptical the next time the School Board cries out about censorship and other phony issues designed to divert attention from the truth. And it means people should pay more attention to what Karen Lukes is saying.
Karen Lukes may have won this battle, but Oak Lawn is still losing the war. The School Board will continue to assign pervasively vulgar books, only now it will provide adequate warning. Is this acceptable to the Oak Lawn community?
Why is this happening? Jerry Mulvihill tells us in the Daily Southtown newspaper account. "[But] once we had the opportunity to read the book, understand the theme of the book and hear the rationale of the professional staff ... we began to understand both sides of it."
"Both sides"? Is the "professional staff" admitting they are on the other side from the citizens trusting their children to the public school? Is a public school assigning a pervasively vulgar book ever justifiable? Jerry Mulvihill thinks so, and he's in good company--with the American Library Association (ALA).
The ALA said that children reading a book about girls with different lipstick colors having oral sex with boys so as to leave a rainbow mark on the boy's penis would allow the children to learn about this from a "safe distance." [Read more HERE.] Oh yes, the book had a positive message overall. What a coincidence that the School Board felt another pervasively vulgar book is okay because it had a positive message overall. Should a School Board be following Oak Lawn community standards or ALA standards? I suppose this was the "other side" Jerry Mulvihill referenced.
Even children's book authors have become disgusted with recent trends in children's books, and the books have invaded school libraries and school curricula as well. According to Laura Miller, "Why Teachers Love Depressing Books," Barbara Feinberg, author of "Welcome to Lizard Motel: Children, Stories, and the Mystery of Making Things Up" (Beacon Press), found her 12-year-old son Alex "steel himself, again and again, for the joyless task of completing the assigned reading for his 'language arts' class...." "Her curiosity plunges Feinberg into the contemporary genre of young adult ( Y.A.) 'problem novels,' the bane of her son's existence." [Read more HERE.]
Speaking of "language arts," did you notice what language arts teacher Rita McDermott said? The pervasively vulgar book "hooked the boys, our reluctant readers...." The ALA recommends books for "reluctant readers."
One such book was so pervasively vulgar that it was pulled out of 371 junior and high schools in New York City, but only after parents became aware of the book. [Read more HERE] I think this should be a lesson for District 126 parents.
We already know that the ALA got directly involved in the Oak Lawn Public Library to ensure children maintained access to Playboy magazine despite a survey showing 98% of the people against this and despite the Village government requesting that the library stop this. The ALA believes in local control only when it can be used as a stick to stop an Illinois bill (HB 1727) designed to require library filters statewide to protect children from the criminals attracted to unfiltered computers. In Oak Lawn, the ALA has total control over the library. The citizens have none.
Now the ALA policy is again assuring children maintain access to sexually inappropriate material. Will the public allow this to happen again? Will no one other than Karen Lukes and Dave Smith of the Illinois Family Institute stand up to protect the children from an out of town organization already proven to ensure children maintain access to Playboy magazine?
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format
|
 |
|
| |
|
Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188
Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376
Evil men don't understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5
(NKJV)
|
