Sunday January 31, 2010
Of dictionaries and dirty words
By Jim Taylor
Vigilantes of the world, beware! You have nothing to lose but your credibility!
The Menifee Union School District in California pulled Merriam-Webster’s renowned Collegiate Dictionary from its Grade 4 and 5 classrooms because the dictionary contained a definition for “oral sex.”
Menifee, a city of 50,000 about two hours east of Los Angeles, has 9,000 students in elementary schools up to Grade 8.
Speaking for the school district, Betti Cadmus called the decision the result of “a growing concern among parents” that some words in the Tenth Edition of Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary were not “age appropriate.”
In other reports, Cadmus admitted that the complaint actually came from one parent volunteering in her son’s classroom.
Just one.
Protecting kids from curiosity
The story sent me scurrying to my shelf of reference books to see what other words I could find that might be unsuitable for nine-year-olds.
Let’s just say I found lots of them. But I can’t list them here. Besides, you’d need a dictionary to learn what many of them meant.
Should those words not appear in a dictionary? Should a dictionary that includes such words be banned from classrooms?
Webster’s Dictionaries are among the world’s most respected. Webster considers itself descriptive, rather than prescriptive. That is, it defines words the way people actually use them; it doesn’t define the way you should use them.
“We’re just reporting the language that people use today,” explained Megan Lieberwirth of Merriam-Webster Inc. in Massachusetts.
“We do publish elementary and intermediate school-specific references that do not have obscene or offensive language,” Lieberwirth added. “Obviously, a collegiate-level dictionary … contains more words.”
Vocabulary sizes
The ultimate reference in the English language is the Oxford English Dictionary, which has over 300,000 main entries and uses 59 million words to define them. The latest Webster’s Collegiate, by comparison, contains about 165,000 main entries. Elementary-level dictionaries contain far fewer.
So how many words does a nine-year-old need?
That’s a bone of contention among educators everywhere. The “Good News” Bible claimed it needed only 1,200 different words to convey the entire message of Christian scripture.
Some departments of education develop lists of words suitable for each grade level. Texts must conform to be included in any approved curriculum; texts that exceed prescribed vocabulary levels are rejected.
J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter books demolished that dictum. Kids devoured the series, even though they included – God help us! – invented words, Latin words, and even religious words.
I grew up having unrestricted access to my parents’ library of several thousand books. I read authors far above my supposed reading level.
In the process, I ran across words I didn’t know and concepts I didn’t understand.
I discovered, and delighted in using on my school friends, the English exclamation “Pshaw!” (a term of scorn going back to 1673) without needing to look up its meaning.
I’m sure there were passages about sex in those books. So what?
Canada has at various times had its own attempts to censor books like To Kill a Mockingbird and Catcher in the Rye.
I doubt if “Dick and Jane” books ever used the words “oral sex.” But confining children to “Dick and Jane” levels promotes neither reading nor intelligence.
It is simply not possible to excise every questionable usage. I remember being shocked, as a naive nine year old, when an older student showed me, with evident glee, that the Bible itself – the old King James Version, obviously – referred to those who “piss against a wall.”
Other passages rebuked those who “eat their own dung.”
I wonder if the concerned parent in Menifee would restrict her son’s access to the Bible, too, because it might encourage inappropriate acts?
Scale of values
I also wonder about that parent’s scale of values. No dry dictionary definition of a sexual act will be as evocative as what a child can encounter every day on television.
“What’s ‘nookie,’ Grandma?” our five-year-old granddaughter asked after catching part of Two and a Half Men one evening, just before bedtime.
By the time she’s ten, she won’t have to ask. It – or some equivalent – will be part of the common vocabulary of her schoolmates.
Why is it that a dictionary definition of something to do with sex is considered unacceptable, but definitions related to violence, racism, bigotry, and hatred are not?
Even supposing some child is inspired by a dictionary definition – is it worse to bring a new life into the world through sexual experimentation? Or to take away a life through unwise use of guns, bombs, or cars?
Webster’s Tenth has since been reinstated in Menifee classrooms, after no parents at all showed up for a board meeting.
I don’t own a Tenth myself. But several colleagues do. They affirm that the offending definition does not occur in the Tenth. But it does in the Eleventh edition – which is not found in Menifee’s classrooms.
Makes you wonder where the complaining parent got her research from, doesn’t it?
=====================================
Copyright © 2009 by Jim Taylor. Non-profit use in congregations and study groups permitted; all other rights reserved.
Please tell your friends about these columns. To send comments, to subscribe or to unsubscribe, or to request permission to reprint, write jimt@quixotic.ca Be sure to include Soft Edges or Sharp Edges in the subject line, so my spam filter doesn’t delete your message.
=====================================
Your Turn
I don’t think any column has generated as much mail as last week’s rant against Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. But fear not – I won’t print everything…
Mischa Popoff asked, “Why are you angered by what you refer to as the ‘Bigoted underbelly of Christianity’ because of comments made by Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson? Muslim terrorists carry out acts of mass violence but we’re always quick to assert, rightly, that terrorists are not the voice for Islam. Limbaugh and Robertson are to Christianity what Osama bin Lauden and Kaleid Sheik Mohammed are to Islam: abominations.”
Chris Hansen of Kelowna, Bill Almolky in Nelson, and Jean Mosher simply offered congratulations on a thoughtful column.
Bruce McGillis wrote, “I can’t imagine any learned person saying and believing such crap…. Spouting this nonsense is probably and foremost a matter of keeping and gaining the money flow. It’s sickening!”
Bruce sent along a column from the NYTimes, by James Wood, which expressed much the same sentiments as mine.
John McTavish commented, “Your column on Haiti is powerful indeed. Amazing how immoderate the right wingers in the States can get! Our American cousins are certainly, for better but also for worse, passionate people.”
Krista Markstrom called the artibtrary imposition of one culture’s standards on another culture “dominatory xenophobia.”
“Today, the Pat Robertsons/Rush Limbaughs, Osama bin Ladens, and Kim Jong Ils of the world create too much negativity, taking away from what currently matters. We are at a crossroads with regard to environmental sustainability and religious/spiritual beliefs, which puts us at a point of a tipping balance. Which way do we tip? Do we listen to the dominatory xenophobes, the regimes that want profit and gain only for themselves, or do we start listening to voices of environmentalists and global interfaith religious leaders — including shamans/shamankas who are trying to bring us back to a world of reality? That means taking care of all life on this planet and not blaming everyone or everything else for the lack of why prosperity and value have not been at the center of others’ lives.”
David Mercier seemed to feel that I viewed Limbaugh and Robertson as typical of all Christians. So his final paragraph said, “I only hope that you now understand that to lump all Christians like your article suggested is unfortunate but I still will not hold any ill feelings towards you. I do hope that I did not come across as one who was judging you, as my goal was to give you a different point of view and hopefully an understanding that not all Christians are the same.”
In fact, I do not consider Robertson and Limbaugh typical of Christians in general, and I’m sorry if I implied that they were. But I find their comments so offensive that if they insist on calling themselves Christian, I don’t want to be identified with them. I’d rather have Christians rise up and disavow them totally.
David might concur. In another paragraph, he wrote, “Don’t assume that Pat and Rush speak for Yahweh or represent him in any way. They speak for a god but which one? I personally think they serve themselves, and their god is power, greed, control, etc. As they say they are Christian, I have the right to call them out and judge them according to the Bible.”
Here’s part a letter by Doug Brown: “I think you are way too soft on the Americans in this article! The history of their involvement in Haiti is abysmal. They refused to recognize Haiti for 60 years after the successful slave revolution in 1804 because they were still enslaving millions of their own citizens and feared a spread of slave revolt.
“Haiti was crippled by an economic embargo by France and the U.S. until 1863 and was forced to borrow money for reparations to France….
“The U.S. occupied and ruled Haiti by force from 1915 to 1934 and had to put down Haitian revolts, in one fight killing some 2000 people. From 1957 to 1986 Haiti was forced to live under U.S. backed dictators "Papa Doc" and "Baby Doc" Duvalier. They…were politically ‘anti-communist’ which is now translated as against human rights for the people. The Duvaliers ran up huge debts for Haiti which contributed greatly to the countries economic malaise, while feathering their personal nests.
“As you mentioned Limbaugh scorned Haitians by saying ‘they produce nothing, zilch, zero, nada’. An article by Bill Quigley, in commondreams.org, explains what happened to Haiti’s agricultural capacity: ‘Thirty years ago Haiti imported no rice. Today Haiti imports nearly all its rice. Though Haiti was the sugar growing capital of the Caribbean, it now imports sugar as well. Why? The U.S. and the U.S.-dominated financial institutions — the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank — forced Haiti to open its markets to the world. Then the U.S. dumped millions of tons of subsidized rice and sugar into Haiti — under cutting their farmers and ruining Haitian agriculture. By ruining Haitian agriculture, the U.S. forced Haiti into becoming the third largest market for U.S. rice. Good for U.S. farmers! Bad for Haiti.’
“The U.S. has been instrumental in preventing hundreds of millions of dollars of loans to Haiti in recent years and to our shame, along with the government of Canada, they destroyed democracy in Haiti when they supported the coup against Haiti’s elected President Aristide. Apparently Aristide was trying to improve the conditions in garment industry sweatshops where workers make $2/ day!”
Jim Henderschedt wrote, “I’m right there with you. If Rush and Pat are examples of 21st century Christianity, I don’t want any part of it either. People have complained about the poverty in Haiti (before the earthquake) but I really didn’t see a whole lot of people rushing to try to improve the situation. Maybe Pat and Rush and all their followers should be enlisted into a work force to go to Haiti and help rebuild — and not come back until the job is done!”
Lloyd Strickland wrote, from the Clearwater Christian Church, about five hours north from here up the North Thompson valley, “As a sort of semi-evangelical I agree with you whole heartedly. This sort of trash talk is not anything I want to be identified with, and why anyone would want to listen to either one of them is beyond me.”
James Farris added his own personal perspective: “I share your anger and your analysis of Haiti’s plight… I spent several days in Haiti in 1961, as a member of a three person visitation by the International Missionary Council.
“Memorable moments:
– Our hosts discussing the state of the country in whispers.
– The sight of nine-year-old Baby Doc being driven to school in a Rolls Royce.
– On a drive to the north coast, the number of sinister check points manned by the Tonton Macoutes.
– The lunch we planned to eat by the roadside, consumed ravenously by visitors.
“I remember how happily I returned to my residence in Guyana, rated [at that time] as second-poorest country in the hemisphere after Haiti.”
Steve Roney felt that I had contradicted myself. If I denied that God had caused the earthquake, why would I then assert that the white Christian God had inflicted on Haiti 311 years (not 411 – a slip of my typing finger, unfortunately) years of slavery, etc. “There is only one God,” Steve asserted. “A fair bit of this could more fairly be described as done by men to men, and indeed Haitians to Haitians. In this case, God is out of it.”
=====================================
About My Books
Over the years, I think I have written (or ghostwritten) about 17 books. Several of them (mercifully) are no longer available from any source. But here’s a listing of those that are still available. The ones marked “WLB”, you can order from Wood Lake Books, either on-line at http://www.woodlakebooks.com, or call Wood Lake Books directly at 1-800-663-2775 in Canada, 1-800-654-5129 (Pilgrim Press) in the U.S. The ones marked “JT only” are now available only directly from me — as collector’s items, I price them all at $25 Cdn.
- Everyday God: Insights from the Ordinary
- Worlds in One
- Chance
- Seeing the Mystery: Exploring Christian Faith through the Eyes of Artists,
- Surviving Death
- Everyday Psalms
- Everyday Parables
- Letters to Stephen
- A New Understanding of Virtue and Vice
- Precious Days and Practical Love: Caring for an Aging Parent
- for Beginners
- Spirituality of Pets
(1981 and 2005, WLB, $19.95)
(1985, JT only)
(1989, JT only)
(1990, with William S. Taylor, JT only)
(1993, JT only)
(1994 and 2005, WLB, $19.95)
(1995 and 2005, WLB, $19.95)
(1996, WLB, $17.95)
(1997, WLB, $19.95)
(1999, WLB, $19.95)
(2001, WLB, $11.95)
(2006, WLB, $39)
=====================================
TECHNICAL STUFF
To comment on something, in these columns, send a message directly to me, at jimt@quixotic.ca.
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send me an e-mail message at the addresses above. Or you can subscribe electronically by sending a blank e-mail (no message) to sharpedges-subscribe@quixotic.ca. Similarly, you can un-subscribe at sharpedges-unsubscribe@quixotic.ca.
You can access several years of archived columns at http://edges.Canadahomepage.net.
I write a second column each Wednesday, called Soft Edges, which deals somewhat more gently with issues of life and faith. (It’s also included in Ralph Milton’s e-newsletter Rumors.) To sign up for Soft Edges, write to me directly, at the addresses above, or send a note to softedges-subscribe@quixotic.ca
********************************************
PROMOTION STUFF…
If you know someone else who might like to receive this column regularly via e-mail, send a request to jimt@quixotic.ca. Or, if you wish, forward them a copy of this column. But please put your name on it, so they don’t think I’m sending out spam.
For a lighter look at life, faith, and the lectionary, I recommend my friend Ralph Milton’s weekly e-newsletter Rumors. You can subscribe to it by sending a note to ralphmilton@woodlake.com.
For other web links worth pursuing, try
- Charlene Fairchild’s United Online site,
- David Keating’s “SeemslikeGod” page
- The Canadian Centre for Progressive Christianity home page
- Dan Strizek’s Gathering Place for Creation Spirituality
- Alva Wood’s satiric stories about incompetent bureaucrats and prejudiced attitudes in a small town are not terribly religious, but they are fun; write alvawood@gmail.com to get onto her mailing list.
*****************************************
