More From ClassKC.org

From ClassKC.org:
****
But isn't Shakespeare also full of objectionable content? Do you also oppose Shakespeare?

This argument is truly a sad one as it shows neither a true understanding of Shakespeare nor a true understanding of the spirit and motives of the classkc.org Web site. Yes, Shakespeare discusses serious subjects such as love, murder, drugs, and violence. But Shakespeare's works contain neither a pervasive nor gratuitous amount of sex, violence, or vulgarity. They do not teach our children about new types of sex nor do they invoke sexually stimulating feelings through explicit passages. Unlike many of our other books, a student or teacher who "talks like Shakespeare" would not be breaking other Blue Valley codes of conduct nor would they be kicked out of school for sexual harassment. Shakespeare's characters do not go through undeveloped, implausible, unresolved, vulgar, sexually-charged, and otherwise morally repugnant storylines found in some of the other books on the required reading list. As Shakespeare's characters work through their humorous, tragic, or dramatic roles, they teach us something about true character and a tremendous amount about the art of creative writing. No, we do not oppose Shakespeare. We consider his works to be an obvious cornerstone of a undamentally sound education in English literature.
****

Look, I don't claim to be a Shakespearean scholar -- at least not in this context. But it seems to me that there could be no better way to demonstrate lack of "a true understanding of Shakespeare" than to say that he doesn't contain pervasive or gratuitous sex, violence, or vulgarity. He's chock full of it. How could he have kept his raucous, drunken crowd enchanted without some of each?

If one thinks that Shakespeare's passages aren't explicit, one doesn't understand the language. Essentially this argument says "Shakespeare is fine, because we can rely on our children's ignorance to keep them from understanding it." Very nice. Further, is it better to have one's children stimulated through implicit passages? Seriously, I've been stimulated four times in my life: Once each from Victoria's Secret, Desparate Housewives, Romeo and Juliet, and the Elephant Man. Each time, same result.

I love the concept of "new types of sex," regardless of where its taught. I think they mean new to the children, but I like to imagine that the Blue Valley teacher's lounges are full of anatomically correct dolls and checklists. "Is this one new?" "Seen it." "How about this one?" "Done it." "Now?" "Keep trying." "I've got to get something ready for Fourth Hour!"

Would you really be able to call a teacher a "whore" in the Blue Valley District and get away with it? Or is the assumption that teachers, like the students, are too ignorant to understand the language?

Shakespeare's storylines aren't implausible, unresolved, vulgar, sexually-charged or morally repugnant? Tamora eats a pie made from her sons! Titus's daugher is raped and has her hands and tongue cut off! Certainly this doesn't happen in every play, but let's not say each work is pristine.

Finally, the suggestion that Shakespeare can show us something of true character and true craft is correct, but why must we limit it to a man dead for nearly 400 years? The analysis on the website doesn't say "this book is vulgar, but well-crafted." It instead calls for the removal of any book with "inappropriate" language to be removed from a mandatory reading list.

The more I read the website, the more I realize that ClassKC wants reading to be a left-brain exercise of dropping words and ideas into particular categories, rather the allowing it to be a right-brain idea involving thoughtful critical thinking.