ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Sunday, June 2, 1996 TAG: 9606030014
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: 3 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STAN GLASOFER
I HAVE followed with considerable concern the stories about the Bedford County fourth-grader who brought a book to school and the teacher who took it away from him. Several points have occurred to me.
Yes, a child, with his parents' blessing, may read what he wishes. There are many books my children read at home, where we as a family can discuss the material. However, my wife and I recognize that some reading material may not be for school.
It's certainly appropriate for the school district to determine what should or should not be on school grounds and what is age-appropriate.
Although the child's father, Thomas Gardner, has stated that this was not obscene material, the teacher seeing the word "condom" in the presence of 9-year-olds (and if the teacher can see the word, then other students in the class might see it as well) must make some assumptions that this is subject matter not for consideration in that setting.
One could say, using the father's argument, that printed material advocating hate crimes or drug use, giving instruction on building bombs, or dealing with sexually explicit ideas - if it contained no "obscene" words - must be permissible in any classroom, regardless of the age and maturity of the students.
I'd rather see the teacher, acting on behalf of the majority of the class, temporaily remove the book.
The father has argued that the principal should have returned the book to the child. It's the policy of many school districts that any item confiscated from a student be returned to the parent. For one thing, it assures the school district that the parent is aware of the item. Also, if the item were deemed inappropriate to be in the hands of the student to begin with, then it would be wrong for it to be given right back to that student.
One shouldn't assume that the principal did not intend for the book to be returned to its rightful owner.
nThrough the father's actions, this has become an issue far beyond what it needed to be. If there are those who complain that public schools spend far too much time and money on nonacademic activities, then this would be an excellent example of individuals (including the media) diverting school district employees from their primary responsibility - educating students.
nGardner is taking the teacher and principal to court to have a judge determine if "the door of learning afforded by the First Amendment" was denied to his son. Even though the father isn't asking for monetary damages, this still must be considered a frivolous lawsuit, wasting our courts' time. I find it difficult to understand how those who support laws to limit needless lawsuits could see any benefit to his case.
I compliment the teacher and the principal for their actions. I would hope that if a similar occurrence were to happen again, they would respond in exactly the same manner.
Stan Glasofer of Roanoke is a retirement planning specialist.
LENGTH: Medium: 61 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Vince Kralyevich/AP.by CNB