Here’s an interesting piece about this controversy. Warning-it contains the panels about which Grasso is complaining…
The Vox article has this quote from Grasso -
I hadn’t seen him say this before. He’s no longer just saying he won’t read the book; he’s asking for professors to warn him about the presence of material that most 18 year-old proto-adults should easily be capable of handling.
Frankly, I’d tell him to go take a hike. Of course, generally I’d say the same thing to other students (feminist groups, etc.) who want similar warnings unless there was an extraordinarily good reason why it was justified in a particular case.
My friend went to Duke, and as a Jewish person, felt that the Christian vibe on campus was huge and discriminatory towards non-Christians. Like, she was on a campus bus and asked to have the Christmas music turned down, and the bus driver turned it up and started singing instead…
I’m not sure if she was being sensitive, but she was coming from a campus that had a huge Jewish presence - as well as Catholic and Protestant presence - and it was totally a new thing for her.
The fact here is that these students were not -required- to read this book. It was recommended. If they didn’t want to read it, they could have simply skipped it and gone to the next one on the list.
Last time I checked, discriminating on the basis of religion was against the law. As a secular institution, Duke didn’t “decide” anything of the sort.
I’ll admit, I didn’t read the article, but I read a couple handfuls of comments on here, and skimmed through more. So, these students chose to apply to Duke. These students were admitted to Duke. Then these students decided, I assume without coercion, to attend Duke, but then have issues with readings the school may assign. If students don’t want to read or be subjected to material they find immoral, then why would they consider attending a school that would likely cover such material? Wouldn’t it be more in line with their interests of morality to apply to a school that is aligned with their same moral underpinnings.
Even so, a student can read a text and not have to agree with everything expressed in it. I’m sure there have been some Atheist students who’ve read the Bible or whatever generic example would fit here. And, I can imagine that they didn’t agree with everything. I’m sure a good school like Duke would permit their students to have a differing of opinions.
In any case, I’ve read Fun Home - it was a REQUIRED reading for my freshman English composition course, and I’m sure glad it was required. Way better than some dry analytical writing. It’s a graphic novel, and it’s very short, what would a freshman student have to complain about? If they’re worried about coming into contact with a few nude drawings, then they’re really going to hit the fan when they go out and live life in the real world and see wayyyyy more than that.
“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.”
al2simon - What an interesting contribution to the conversation to wake up and read this morning. Do you really know what you are saying? The men who came up with this motto over 150 years ago took it from a Charles Wesley hymn. Do you know who Charles Wesley was? Do you know who John Wesley was? Charles Wesley wrote over 6000 Christian hymns. One of the most well known in our day is Hark the Herald Angels Sing. His brother John Wesley is the father of Methodism. They liked to hang around with a gentleman name George Whitefield. Would a study of what these men thought about this issue and a whole host of things be an interesting discussion topic at Duke? I hadn’t thought of this, but perhaps they could assign one of John Wesley’s writings for summer reading.
“My friend went to Duke, and as a Jewish person, felt that the Christian vibe on campus was huge and discriminatory towards non-Christians. Like, she was on a campus bus and asked to have the Christmas music turned down, and the bus driver turned it up and started singing instead…”
Oh, please. Hearing a radio station play Christmas music in December isn’t “discriminatory” to Jews. Get real.
“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."
The Bible contains stories of rape, you know. Is it not worthy of study?
Wait…are you aware of who Alison Bechdel is?
I know exactly who she is.
Just saying that gay or straight, it’s usually the woman’s body that will be shown nude. Not that I am yearning to see any more nudity, I’m just tired of this double standard.
I mean I just think it’s weird to call out the creator of the “Bechdel Test” for promoting inequality.
Jakii Edwards “Like Mother, Like Daughter” might be an interesting choice to read side by side, for a different perspective. I think I will try to conquer both before Purity is released next week.
Glad I don’t have to ask Duke’s permission first.
What do you think PG? Want to read it to and compare notes?
There are depictions of a naked man in Fun Home. One is of a dead man (the family owned a funeral home) and the other is a very blurred soft focus picture of one of the young men the father slept with.
One small note, Alison Bechtel did not create the Bechtel test, she merely popularized it.
I’ve read the book and seen the musical. Really it is about as far from pornographic as possible while still depicting nudity. If someone lusts over a dead naked guy, well that’s their problem.
Pizzagirl: I suppose you are talking to me, though you do not quote the person to whom you are responding. Please correct that.
Does the Bible contain visual depictions of rape in great detail? Um, no. Reading about something is not like looking at a depiction of naked, oral sex. Not the same at all.
I looked at the Vox piece above that contained some of the panels from the book. Eww. No. Not ok.
And don’t even try to go there about this being an anti-gay sentiment. It isn’t. It isn’t appropriate to assign a book that graphically depicts a woman giving a b*** job either, or a man doing oral things to either gender.
This is only getting a pass precisely because we can’t offend the gay community. Ridiculous. It’s inappropriate as classroom literature regardless of the genders participating in depictions of graphic sexual encounters.
If some heterosexual man wrote a similar book which depicted women performing oral sex on engorged men in the book, it would not even be considered.
I think it’s less that, and more that it’s getting a pass because not only is it an acclaimed piece of literature, but that it’s hard to separate the arguments of those that think it’s indecent from those that specifically don’t want to view it because it heavily features homosexuality.
God forbid students have a frank discussion on sex in the classroom.
I think it’d depend on the overall quality of the book to be honest.
I’m talking to whoever said “come on, make it fair, put in a naked guy.” I was just commenting that there are depictions of both sexes. That’s all. Nothing more.
I never said that, but you quoted my words elsewhere in that response.
Please quote your speaker(s). Thanks.