A Tacoma school district has banned a book about gay teens meeting on the internet because, according to School Superintendent Patti Banks, it might undermine the school’s message that meeting people in internet chatrooms is a high-risk activity. In the book, Geography Club, a teen who thinks he’s the only gay kid in school finds out the guy he met online in a gay chatroom is a popular jock, and they form what is essentially a covert GLBT club at school, calling it the Geography Club, because it sounds so boring, they don’t expect anyone else will join.
After a couple with kids in both the middle and high school requested the book be removed (there’s always got to be one hysterical family who raises hell about this kind of shit in every school system!), because “the book could result in a ‘casual and loose approach to sex,’ as well as encourage use of Internet porn and the physical meeting of people through chatrooms,” the book was banned—but not because it’s about the gays! Of course not!
In banning "Geography Club," Superintendent Patti Banks said she was alarmed by the "romanticized" portrayal of a teen meeting a stranger at night in a park after meeting the person — revealed to be a gay classmate — in an Internet chatroom.A parent who is contesting the ban notes that “the most important part of the book is that it's about bullying, outcasts, about tolerance,” and the author of the award-nominated book, Brent Hartinger, said:
She said her decision was not due to the homosexual theme of the novel by Brent Hartinger of Tacoma.
"We want to send a strong, consistent message to all our students that meeting individuals via the Internet is extremely high-risk behavior," Banks wrote in a letter Nov. 2 to two parents who requested the book's removal.
"To the extent that this book might contradict that message, I have determined it should not be in our libraries, in spite of other positive aspects (e.g., a strong anti-harassment theme)."
"The reason gay teens are drawn to the Internet is that's a safe place to explore their identity without being harassed or bullied... It's ironic my book would be pulled for this reason, contributing to this atmosphere of silence and gay intolerance."So because of a possible endorsement of a “casual and loose approach to sex” (but not, certainly not—no!, because the teens in the book are gay), and because, I guess, the protagonist doesn’t get his throat slashed after meeting someone from a chatroom, the best decision is to ban a book with positive messages about inclusion and self-esteem for gay teens. Well, I’ve got a couple of questions:
1. Is the best way to educate students about what parents and educators deem a risky behavior banning a book about it? If so, then I have a few suggestions for other books they might want to ban:
A Tale of Two Cities—Revolutions are pretty dangerous.
All Quiet on the Western Front—War is pretty dangerous, too.
The Red Badge of Courage—Ditto.
Johnny Got His Gun—Ditto.
I imagine the Tacoma Schools can take the idea and run with it from there.
2. Is categorically dismissing a behavior as risky, in which many students (and, likely, many of their parents) have already engaged without negative result, really the best way to educate them about it, or does such black-and-white dismissal of a complex issue undermine one’s credibility on the issue altogether? Parents and educators have been telling teens for decades not to smoke pot, and try to scare them with horror stories about how a single joint could ruin their lives, but kids still smoke pot—and the vast majority of those who do never experience any ill effects; how many kids have taken their first draw on a bong with the thought they were about to have some kind of zany experience, only to find themselves a little more mellow, a little bit giggly, a few minutes later, with the thought—at some point—that everyone who issued alarmist warnings about pot was totally full of shit. Pretending things are intrinsically evil or always dangerous when they’re simply not, for the supposed benefit of kids, is not only dishonest, but doesn’t work, and has the effect of undermining one’s authority on anything else on which one offers advice, as well. Yes, meeting a stranger from the internet “in real life” can be risky, but the risk can be easily lessened. Using the book as a jumping-off point to talk to kids about minimizing risk when meeting someone new (whether they met them online, or whether they’re out at a diner and get invited to a party at a stranger’s house) seems a heck of a lot more useful than banning the book.
3. Assuming for a moment that meeting a chatroom buddy outside the chatroom is such high-risk behavior that teens shouldn’t engage in it at all, is banning one book about it really going to prevent it from happening? Are the only kids in America who are going online and meeting people in person doing it because they’ve read this book? Somehow, I doubt it. Kids and adults alike are barraged with messages telling them to go online every day now—many of which are specifically geared toward finding people to meet. This book is one of possibly millions of messages that could enter a teen’s environment. On the other hand, how many positive messages do gay teens get every day? Call me kooky, but I think the affirming effects of the book for gay teens, merely by virtue of percentages, does indeed outweigh any possibility that it contradicts the school’s message on internet safety.
Two shrill and over-reactionary parents complained about the possibility that a book would endorse a behavior any parent with a kid online ought to be talking to that kid about anyway, and the school decided that their right to “protect” their kids from the real world is more important than providing encouraging and supportive reading material for every single gay (and gay-friendly) kid in both schools. Now, tell me again this isn’t about the book being about gays, that this isn’t about a couple of bigots who are desperate to make sure the homophobia they’re teaching at home isn’t undermined by some touchy-feely book about faggots. And tell me again that the school isn’t motivated by anti-gay sentiments, when what they have done is caved to two bullies by pulling a book off the shelves that tells us bullying is wrong.
