As someone who has taught literature in this state, tutored many, and has composed poetry, I thought it prudent to exercise some freedom of speech on the issues at the heart of the debate in South Windsor: the freedom of thought, the idea that human sexuality is a subject that exists outside the bounds of classroom discussion, and about the nature of obscenity. <\/p>\n
First, the irony of this issue being sparked by the particular poem that was read in a classroom is not lost on me, as the poet who composed the work in question, Allen Ginsberg, was brought up on obscenity charges for his works during in his own lifetime. <\/p>\n
Now today we would never think to drag someone before a court for the contents of a poem, as we recognize that art is protected speech. So, by todays standards, the likes of Lenny Bruce would be a welcomed headliner rather than a comedic deviant going bankrupt defending himself before judges for the contents of his act. <\/p>\n
Were not talking poetry circles or nightclubs here, you say. This is a school. <\/p>\n
So what is acceptable to teach at a school? <\/p>\n
When debating this, consider how often any student comes across gruesome acts of carnage and brutality in their courses. Forgoing the violent actions detailed in our history texts or the modern events of the Islamic State discussed in a civics or current events curriculum one need not leave the world of literature for examples of permissible teachings that recall the most heinous acts a human being can commit, and which students discuss at length. <\/p>\n
Selecting perhaps the most classic of all literary writers, well go to Shakespeares Macbeth, which recounts the rise of a would-be tyrant as he murders his way to power and glory, only to be stopped when the heroic forces decapitate the terrible protagonist to end his reign as ruler of Denmark. <\/p>\n
Perhaps you say, Violence is a separate issue. <\/p>\n
Fair enough. But there are works of classic British and American literature at the foundations of our curriculums in this state that contain sexual acts and overt innuendo. <\/p>\n
Lets stay with the Bard and head over to Hamlet. Does anyone miss Hamlets meaning when he approaches lady Ophelia about Country matters? Or how about the rather sordid relationship implied between Hamlets family members? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
More: As someone who has taught literature in this state, tutored many, and has composed poetry, I thought it prudent to exercise some freedom of speech on the issues at the heart of the debate in South Windsor: the freedom of thought, the idea that human sexuality is a subject that exists outside the bounds of classroom discussion, and about the nature of obscenity. First, the irony of this issue being sparked by the particular poem that was read in a classroom is not lost on me, as the poet who composed the work in question, Allen Ginsberg, was brought up on obscenity charges for his works during in his own lifetime. Now today we would never think to drag someone before a court for the contents of a poem, as we recognize that art is protected speech. Continue reading
\nGetting to the issues at the heart of the debate in SW<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"