“Loukydad, for all his many posts and fuming and taking his football and going home, has completely failed to explain how Fun Home has anything to do with threatening his gender identity as a man, or anyone’s gender identity. Because it doesn’t.”
exactly!!
=D>
This. Utterly and completely this. No matter what your position on the other points being argued in this thread, this.
I’m glad to hear that we’re all on the same page, Loukydad. You were born as what you are, and I was born as what I am. And nobody’s denying anyone else’s existence or trying to change or “repair” their nature. Simple, isn’t it? What’s all the fuss about?
This seems like an overly harsh standard to me. I’m not going to comment on Loukydad, but I will comment on Mr. Grasso.
Surely the young man is allowed to publicly state that he’s not going to be reading Fun Home and to explain his reasons why. Again, I didn’t see where he was calling for censorship or a boycott. To his credit, it does sound like Grasso did some research about the book before deciding that he wouldn’t read it (though some people claim that he’s changed his mind and is now going to read it except for a few pages of illustrations). And clearly you’re imposing an impossible standard if you demand that someone must have read a book in order to have a valid opinion that they don’t want to read a book.
Carried to an extreme, should we forbid people who’ve never run a business from commenting on corporate tax policy? Survey after survey has shown that the average voter (of either party) is shockingly uninformed on the most basic issues. Should we not allow them to comment, much less vote?
BTW - Personally, I don’t agree with Mr. Grasso. I think he’s hurting his education. I also find his moral and religious reasoning to be overly simplistic. But I really don’t see why he’s being so harshly criticized.
ADDED - Personally, I’m mostly in the absolutist camp when it comes to free-speech, particularly at universities. But it’s been my observation that increasingly over the last 20 years many Americans are willing to censor speech they don’t like. Disgustingly, this seems to be occurring more and more at universities. As long as Grasso stays clear of this and isn’t really bothering anyone else, then in my book he can do as he likes and can bear the consequences of his choices.
Thanks @al2simon. Above was the umpteenth person adding on to Grasso things that you would equate with some fanatical Westboro-Baptist type of brainwashed zealot. He didn’t SPOUT OFF on the book. In his public comments – he has simply not shown that at all (and I commend him for that). He speaks reasonably and behaves in ways similar to an orthodox Jew or observant Muslim or devout Mennonite or conscientious vegan.
He poignantly said he declined it b/c he was told there were explicitly sexual drawings in it which violated his conscience to view. He didn’t call for the book to be banned or assail the writer or the Duke officials who added the book to the reading list. He said his choice wasn’t b/c the book dealt with homosexuality and would have made the same choice if the drawings depicted hetero but explicit drawings. In the follow-on article in Inside Higher Ed, Grasso states that he was informed of which pages of the book contain the objectionable material and WILL read the book to engage its ideas, skipping the cited pages.
He’s not calling anyone a cry baby or a whiner, he’s not telling others to “grow up” or to crawl back up to their mommies’ va-jay-jay, he’s not condescending or jumping to conclusions or making moralizations – he’s ironically been the subject of these. He’s actually fully engaging up to the point of his conscience. Would you deride a vegan dinner guest for quietly refusing your ice cream dessert?
Former President Carter (so gracious at his news conference about his fight with cancer) was famously derided for saying “I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times” when he looked lustfully at other women. He’s experssing nothing more or less than what Grasso has stated (cf. Matthew 5:28).
Like I said in my post #95: I’m very disappointed that many of the posters, with whom I share progressive leanings, are so quick to twist this situation up into something it’s not and to place accusations upon Grasso something that, pending evidence otherwise, he’s not deserving.
^^^Bravo, @T26E4. I completely agree. There is nothing wrong with him not wanting to see explicit images (and making a personal choice not to), and it’s a separate issue form what the book is about.
Super Liberals - with their satchel full of perceived slights and banned words and microagressions and what not - are the worst. Super Conservatives - thinking that their book has to be shoved down everyone’s throat and they better like it - are also the worst.
There’s some pretty offensive stuff in the bible. Things about murder, justifiable rape, donkey semen, and even wiping out the entire global population…twice. But they want to be offended by this. Right.
Note that the keyword was ‘recommended.’ As in…not required, but suggested for broadening your horizons and exposing you to the way the world thinks and works.
That’s a little different than what you’re claiming, @T26E4.
I thought the anti-vaccine crowd is the worst of the super liberals.
There are probably folks from both major parties (and indies) in that group…
“Loukydad, for all his many posts and fuming and taking his football and going home…”
Sorry but not the case. Just made a more harm than good kind of determination out of consideration. I also thought I had for the most part made myself clear enough, but seeing my positions totally misunderstood and mischaracterized, let me tie up the loose ends.
You have conjoined my opinions about the book assignment with Grasso. That is very interesting to me, because the reality is that while I haven’t read the book myself, if I were in his place I would have no issues with reading it. I invite you to look back over my posts if you like. You won’t find it, because I don’t line up with him at all. You are wrong to assume that I have precluded that I have anything to gain by reading the book, or that I can’t see value in trying to understand the young girl, or that I could have no empathy for what she is dealing with. To be honest I can’t even understand the kind of arrogance and condescension it must take to have assumed everything you apparently have about me and my feelings about the book assignment.
My objection is the complete lack of reciprocation and balance. The attitude Hunt expressed so well in post #203. I don’t have time to further articulate it right now, so I will leave anyone who cares and is a thoughtful person to self-reflection on the matter.
As for reading things from different perspectives and challenging ourselves, I am anxiously awaiting for the release of Purity (Franzen) to be released next week. I discovered The Corrections and Freedom in recent years and have been anxious for his next. I am very certain he comes from a very different place than me on a lot of things, but I still read it. I will admit mostly for the entertainment value. I may work in a tragicomic in the meantime while I wait.
I am curious, what have you read lately?
If people are offended or scared by words they should be applauded for not making themselves victims by subjecting themselves to things that trigger bad feelings or thoughts. See: “trigger warnings”
People should be more sensitive, understanding and compassionate to people who avoid such “trigger events”.
I just picked up a copy of Fun Home to read on an upcoming plane flight overseas.
“My objection is the complete lack of reciprocation and balance. The attitude Hunt expressed so well in post #203. I don’t have time to further articulate it right now, so I will leave anyone who cares and is a thoughtful person to self-reflection on the matter.”
Balance to what? Does there need to be one hetero book to balance this out?
Haven’t read all the posts, but I see many that seem to refer to “christians” and “religious” as though these are “user-groups” somehow separate from Duke and it’s mission.
Duke is strongly tied to the United Methodist church (2/3 of it’s trustees are appointed by the church). Duke is most assuredly a “christian” institution that some will avoid because of those ties. It is NOT a public, non-demoninational university.
On the topic at hand…overblown in my mind. It’s on the “recommended” reading list. Don’t read it if you’re uncomfortable; but avoiding perspectives that make you uncomfortable can be debilitating. Nothing wrong with Duke putting it on their list. Good for them. Some individuals might just learn something from the reading.
Isn’t America about respecting and exploring other people’s views(as long as they are not outrageous and globally unacceptable)? What happened to diversity??
No, it can definitely be a decision of conscience not to read sexually graphic things.
The Duke Freshman who refused to read the book stated the following:
“My first challenge came well before I arrived on campus, when I learned that all first years were assigned “Fun Home,” a graphic novel by Alison Bechdel. The book includes cartoon drawings of a woman masturbating and multiple women engaging in oral sex.”
IF this is accurate, it is a sad thing that this would today be considered “literature” worthy of university study. If it is not, then it should be corrected.
He also relays the following astute observation from a Muslim student: “I received many messages from Christians, but a message from a Muslim man stood out. The man, currently a sophomore at Duke, wrote, “I’ve seen a lot of people who just throw away their identity in college in the name of secularism, open-mindedness, or liberalism.” Is this really what Duke wants?”
Apparently, this is exactly what Duke wants, more’s the pity.
[Article here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/25/im-a-duke-freshman-heres-why-i-refused-to-read-fun-home/]
This feels like too many movies where, of course, the woman has to be naked. Come on, Duke, if you want true equality - throw in a few naked men.
Don’t know if this has been mentioned yet, but I just noticed something funny about this whole discussion.
Duke’s official seal and motto are on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_University.
Duke’s official motto is on the bottom of the seal. It’s Eruditio et Religio. The English translation is “Erudition and Religion” or “Knowledge and Faith”.
The people who came up with this motto over 150 years ago clearly believed that it was possible for scholars to pursue erudition and to observe their religious faith simultaneously. I think both Mr. Grasso and his critics could benefit from this history lesson.