Ken, thanks for standing up to the incivility–which is, above all, what I’m reacting to here.

You’re right about at least a couple of things: I sure as heck realized I was giving Ms. Johnson the kind of mouthpiece that I usually charge decently large bucks for. But you can’t always choose your clients!

Well, our modus operandi here is to discuss social issues by making fun of people. We're probably irretrievably uncivil in that sense. Further, censorship makes me even less civil. Had the school here removed the book because an administrator said "you know, I deeply disagree with the editorial decision to republish the book with an adolescent girl's private sexual thoughts left in. They aren't material and it's a creepy invasion of her privacy," I might have had an entirely different reaction and been less quick on the trigger with ridicule. But that simply isn't what happened. The school pulled the book — after it had been taught without incident — because a parent complained that a couple of sentences mentioned vaginas. If I encountered the parent, or the administrator, at a cocktail party or a wedding, would I indulge in an urge to ridicule? No. That WOULD be unforgivably uncivil. But if calling them out on a blog is uncivil, than I am uncivil.

1. The fact that anything can be looked up on the Internet does not mean it should be taught in school

> no debate but the logic of the school board seems to be that the passage in question would 'cause harm' to school children. This is a point that is not supported by either Ron nor the school board. Also, this book had been used by the school district for years (without incident) – so what changed?

2. Casey’s point that “all they did was draw attention to it” is not compelling for similar reasons.

While the point may not be germane to the issue of censorship, I find it hard to debate that the lawsuit, and publicity, will get kids to read the passage carefully (and then they will ask 'why edit this').

3. SG, you use a lot of words to make your argument but you don’t demonstrate why, in fact, the sex lives of the victims of genocide actually are relevant to us in any way

>Ugh! Who is to decide what is 'relevant' and what is not? You or Anne Frank? The fact that her father edited it really has no bearing here. The point is that someone other than the origial writer decided to 'edit it'. This is censorship – do you support this?

4. Ken, for your part I don’t see how you have rebutted the argument by Bobbi Johnson, which I will state as follows: (a) That dignity and privacy have a legitimate place here;

>So you are telling me how to define dignity? That makes no sense.

(b) that the moral content of the Anne Frank story that so compelled the world when first published — in their censored version — is not remotely attenuated by the absence of her musings about genitalia;

>Again, how is it that you believe that you (or Bobbi J.) have anything to say about the 'impact'. I would argue that any censorship diminishes the original work. Talking about her vaja-ja is up to her, if you don't think it is relevant then that is your issue (or the issue of her father). But saying that you or Bobbi can meddle with the original text to support their idea of what is relevant is pretty laughable.

(c) that among adolescents literary and humane discussion, contemplation and growth will inevitably give way to prurience if the latter is given half a chance, and that the educational process does not benefit from such distraction.

>Wow, many words but the same conclusion, it is YOUR OPINION what impacts the educational process. This was not the intent of the author.

So, I don't know – if these are insightful arguments then I am an ass-hat. To me they seem to be very very weak arguments that, if accepted lead to arbitrary censorship.

Finally, this whimpy "I'm reacting to the incivility" is super weak and isn't supported by your orginal post. Maybe I am miss-reading "you take a lot of words…" but I think it is a pretty obvious slam. Also the comment "conservatives in particular value civilization" is also a slam (and a pretty stupid thing to say as it is your subjective judgement and cannot be defended logically).

Whew, so Ken/Ron – what say you?

You're right about at least a couple of things: I sure as heck realized I was giving Ms. Johnson the kind of mouthpiece that I usually charge decently large bucks for. But you can't always choose your clients!

By the way, straining to see the best? Not a terrible way to go through life!

Ron, I made a note to respond to you, but have been swamped. Suffice it to say I don't agree with your take. I think you are attributing to Ms. Johnson some palatable views that she didn't actually express. I understand the "privacy" argument, which is why I didn't criticize Otto Frank. But I see very little indication that anyone pulled this book — or wanted it pulled — because they thought it was indecent to the privacy of Anne Frank. That seems more like a post-hoc justification you are offering — one that may have some merit.

As to the disruption — the articles suggested that the issue arose after the book was taught. There's no indication that it caused actual disruption.

Maybe I'm straining to see the worst, Ron, but I think you're straining to see the best.

Of course the title isn't serious because if you take this sort of stuff seriously then it gets pretty depressin and, it doesn't generate page-views. I myself have taken note to use the term 'vagina' and 'hitler' more in the titles of my blog posts.

The really sad thing about this whole episode is that it shows that Americans (or many of them) still can't accept sex as something natural. It's ok to talk about gassing millions of people but God forbid that a vagina is in there anyplace.

I am mainly suggesting, however, that the way the question was treated here was not really serious, and to note that people on a respectable blog like this should actually consider thinking before they start calling people "asshats" and mocking points of view that they obviously can't even comprehend.

As to your last question, "When they can relate to her, they understand at the end what a terrible loss occurred. Isn’t that what education is supposed to do?" I would say, if it is a yes or no question, "No." It may be a desideratum of education, but I can probably think of half a dozen other things that are more important, one of which is the ability to empathize with people who, in fact, are not exactly the same as you.

Which is ironic, considering my criticisms of the comments (and the blog post) here.

Believe me, if these parents saw half of the confiscated notes we used to get from eighth graders, they would no longer be concerned about Anne Frank's "vulgar" thoughts.

Maybe the uncensored version works just as well. But I know that when teens read Anne's thoughts, they find that they can relate to her. These are topics that they're thinking about, too. They can't relate to her fear that she'll die, but they can relate to her fights with her mother or her confusion about her body. When they can relate to her, they understand at the end what a terrible loss occurred. Isn't that what education is supposed to do?

1. The fact that anything can be looked up on the Internet does not mean it should be taught in school (or utilized in the title of a blog post), as "mmmwright" says. In fact, to the contrary, demonstrating to children that there is a distinction between "everything that's out there" and what we choose to draw near, especially into our homes and schools, is to expose them to the concept of civilization. (For what it's worth, conservatives in particular value civilization.) This does not have anything to do with whether or not that the passage was appropriate. Rather I am saying that the argument of "they all know about this anyway" is one that "proves too much," and is not sound.

2. Casey's point that "all they did was draw attention to it" is not compelling for similar reasons. It assumes facts not in evidence, including the proposition that this news story in any way changed the students' awareness of the passage, which is not at all obvious. But it also amounts to an end run around the merits of the question: Was this censorship right, or wrong?

3. SG, you use a lot of words to make your argument but you don't demonstrate why, in fact, the sex lives of the victims of genocide actually are relevant to us in any way — given that no one can realistically assert that anyone has ever been under the impression that they did not have sex lives. Also, your claim about "pretty much anything done regarding the history of nazi Germany and the holocaust today" ignores the point that Ken did not ignore, namely that these deletions are consistent with those made by Otto Frank, not today, but quite a few yesterdays ago.

4. Ken, for your part I don't see how you have rebutted the argument by Bobbi Johnson, which I will state as follows: (a) That dignity and privacy have a legitimate place here; (b) that the moral content of the Anne Frank story that so compelled the world when first published — in their censored version — is not remotely attenuated by the absence of her musings about genitalia; and (c) that among adolescents literary and humane discussion, contemplation and growth will inevitably give way to prurience if the latter is given half a chance, and that the educational process does not benefit from such distraction.

Yes, privacy, because these were the private journal writings of a murder victim, not Anne Frank's voluntarily published memoirs, much less a "tell all" literary escapade about coming of age in war-torn Europe. And Otto Frank was her DAD. Does anyone here have daughters? Dead ones? Murdered ones?

What am I missing, then? Or am I just an "asshat" too?

I'm not sure but this may be the first time I've seen Godwin's Law come into effect in the title of a blog post.

But in doing so you have proved Godwin's law false, so congratulations. A step forward for science.

I've resorted to attempts at humor here because I'm basically too speechless at the idiocy of the school administrators to sensibly comment.