Ship of Fools: Christian parents call cops over free book giveaway.

Thread: Christian parents call cops over free book giveaway. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=027136

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Christian parents call cops over free book giveaway. Cops inform them thats not illegal.

Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :

Hey, c'mon, surely it is obvious that if they don't know the word then they won't do the deed!

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Looks as though all those who lobbied for this have thumbs.....

▲

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Thumbs? Thumbs?

Maybe its done differently in 'Merica!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thumbs? Thumbs?

Maybe its done differently in 'Merica!

Well for one the males are more likely to have to cope without a foreskin....

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Thumbs? Thumbs?

Maybe its done differently in 'Merica!

Those without opposable thumbs need to be more flexible. [Big Grin]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

Why don't these parents ban the Bible, with its tales of bigamy, incest and genocide? That can't be the kind of thing good Christians want their 10th-graders reading. (And it's often given away for free, too. What's up with that?)

[ 05. May 2014, 12:13: Message edited by: Porridge ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.

Very true.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.
Very true.

Heh. Touche'. I wouldn't agree with removing the bibles myself. Let people rwad them or ignore them as they wish.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

10th Grade are 15-16 YO. I am sure they already know the word, and have done the deed.

If the parents want their children to make good decisions, they need to bring them up asking the right questions, not keeping them away from anything that might "pollute" them.

As for the bible, I am sure they teach them a lovely, all-American cute version of it. Full of care-bears and sweetness. Just like all the other fairy tales they tell them.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

These days, people will call for a ban on just about any book. Even Laura Bush, who made such a big deal of being a former teacher and librarian, spoke out against it.
[Roll Eyes]

[ 05. May 2014, 13:54: Message edited by: Pigwidgeon ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

[Admin Note]

The site linked to in the OP raises warnings of being affected by the Heartbleed bug. I'm not an expert of internet security, but as I understand it reading the article should be safe. However, if you wish to register on that site to post a response there you may want to think about using a different username/password combination than you use anywhere else.

Carry on.

Alan
Ship of Fools Admin

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

One thing shines out of this one: the school should take careful note of the parents who have asked for the book to be withdrawn/banned because its likely to be their children who'll need the school to do the sex education bit.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

My kids loved that book and my son read it in sixth grade since we have an open bookshelf policy in our house.

On a separate note Judy Blume has done a great deal to fight censorship.

Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :

The book gets a thumbs-up from me [Two face]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Judy is a brilliant and most spiritual author - no wonder fundies are scared of her.

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Looks as though all those who lobbied for this have thumbs.....

Lucky bastards

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.
Very true.
Heh. Touche'. I wouldn't agree with removing the bibles myself. Let people rwad them or ignore them as they wish.

Pity the same can't be done for the book in question. It seems it's on the required reading list.

Isn't it terrible how people object to ideas they find offensive?

[Roll Eyes]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Isn't it terrible how people object to ideas they find offensive?

Indeed. That's why I visit this place, for the harmony and concord. In my experience, people on the Ship tend to keep schtum when they're offended by others' ideas, in a display of tolerance often not seen elsewhere.

▲

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
These days, people will call for a ban on just about any book. Even Laura Bush, who made such a big deal of being a former teacher and librarian, spoke out against it.

How divorced from our mammalian selves are we getting that a kid can't "hop on pop" without Laura - for God's sake- Bush getting everyone up in arms?

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

They use the whole arm?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Isn't it terrible how people object to ideas they find offensive?
Indeed. That's why I visit this place, for the harmony and concord. In my experience, people on the Ship tend to keep schtum when they're offended by others' ideas, in a display of tolerance often not seen elsewhere.

▲

Ah, passer. As meta as always.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
They use the whole arm?

Just the part where the thumbs are.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
These days, people will call for a ban on just about any book. Even Laura Bush, who made such a big deal of being a former teacher and librarian, spoke out against it.

How divorced from our mammalian selves are we getting that a kid can't "hop on pop" without Laura - for God's sake- Bush getting everyone up in arms?

I didn't click the link right away, and took "hop on pop" to be a euphemism for masturbation I simply hadn't heard before. And now I've ruined Dr. Seuss for myself. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
They use the whole arm?
Just the part where the thumbs are.

Damn, was looking for new ideas.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
These days, people will call for a ban on just about any book. Even Laura Bush, who made such a big deal of being a former teacher and librarian, spoke out against it.

How divorced from our mammalian selves are we getting that a kid can't "hop on pop" without Laura - for God's sake- Bush getting everyone up in arms?
I didn't click the link right away, and took "hop on pop" to be a euphemism for masturbation I simply hadn't heard before. And now I've ruined Dr. Seuss for myself.

To add to your dismay, were you aware of his work developing anti-Japanese propaganda during WWII?

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Isn't it terrible how people object to ideas they find offensive?
Indeed. That's why I visit this place, for the harmony and concord. In my experience, people on the Ship tend to keep schtum when they're offended by others' ideas, in a display of tolerance often not seen elsewhere.

▲

Public sexualization is not tempered for children in western society.

It should be.

But it's not an issue most of the Ship's denizens seem to care about.

I'm a theological liberal but a social conservative.

Sue me.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To add to your dismay, were you aware of his work developing anti-Japanese propaganda during WWII?

I'd have been more dismayed if he'd been working on anti-US propaganda.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Isn't it terrible how people object to ideas they find offensive?
Indeed. That's why I visit this place, for the harmony and concord. In my experience, people on the Ship tend to keep schtum when they're offended by others' ideas, in a display of tolerance often not seen elsewhere.

▲
Public sexualization is not tempered for children in western society.

It should be.

But it's not an issue most of the Ship's denizens seem to care about.

I'm a theological liberal but a social conservative.

Sue me.

Forget legal action, but are you advocating sweeping things under the table? These kids are 10th graders, age 14-15. Even if they have been protected from the term few will be unaware of the act.

Your viewpoint isn't socially conservative, but wilfully ignorant.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

I said public sexualization.

We are a woefully sex obsessed society.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
To add to your dismay, were you aware of his work developing anti-Japanese propaganda during WWII?
I'd have been more dismayed if he'd been working on anti-US propaganda.

Given the US's internment of Japanese-American citizens during that war, one could argue that some if it was.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I said public sexualization.

We are a woefully sex obsessed society.

How the hell is book-reading anything to do with public sexualization? Exactly how many people did you used to have reading over your shoulder in the school library?

Posted by Stoo (# 254) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
How the hell is book-reading anything to do with public sexualization? Exactly how many people did you used to have reading over your shoulder in the school library?

More than in the toilet cubicle, that's for sure.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I said public sexualization.

We are a woefully sex obsessed society.
How the hell is book-reading anything to do with public sexualization?

Really?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Exactly how many people did you used to have reading over your shoulder in the school library?

Tons.

I only read the best books.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

Has anyone on this thread actually read the book? If not I highly recommend it. It's a coming of age story based on his lived experience and it is hugely popular because it resonates with countless young people.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I said public sexualization.

We are a woefully sex obsessed society.

So, let me read between a few lines here:

1. This book discusses things that teenagers do, or are curious about, but nobody's talking about. It's bringing what is normally taboo out of the shadows, into the light, safely destigmatizing it, showing new ways of looking at it, giving people—yes, people, not idealized Precious Little Angels—new perspectives on things that they might just want. You're saying that's sex obsession and a bad thing.

2. Sometimes, bringing dark, taboo, and unspeakable issues into the light from the darkness where we've put them, and where some social conservatives want them to stay, is kind of the point. Are we going to pretend that these things don't happen, or are we going to create narratives dealing with them, narratives and stories that could help others? Repression and silencing in the name of propriety helps nobody.

3. And forget about just sex. What about war, death, and violence? If you're 17 here in the States, you're old enough to enlist. Tim O'Brian's magnificent The Things They Carried, which deals very frankly about war, death, personal responsibility, and guilt (among many, many other things) is pretty commonly challenged. Would you have graphic descriptions of soldiers swearing, screwing, and stepping on land mines suppressed in the name of social conservatism? Just think of the children reading such things! Never mind that many of them have already signed up at the local recruiting office and are shipping out to basic training the day of their last final.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

While we are celebrating this bold, groundbreaking book that discusses adolescent masturbation, let us remember that Judy Blume already broke that barrier in 1973, with her book , Deenie. She got the same mountain of shit for it, too.

Respect. [Cool]

[ 07. May 2014, 18:43: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Has anyone on this thread actually read the book?

I have not. I did assign a book during my brief part-time teaching stint which had been banned by various local high schools, and a parent of one of my ADULT (18-or-over, college freshmen) students did complain to my department head about the book. The parent had not read it, and when urged to do so by the department head, refused, saying (or so reported my Head) "I would never read trash like that!" (Don't ask me; I just worked there.)

I wish someone would keep track of how many would-be banners and objectors actually have the slightest idea what they're trying so hard to keep other people from reading.

I spend a little of my professional time in high schools when evaluating new admits to my program. My general impression is that trying to "protect" the average 14-15 y.o. from detailed sexual information is a job for King Canute.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
While we are celebrating this bold, groundbreaking book that discusses adolescent masturbation, let us remember that Judy Blume already broke that barrier in 1973, with her book , Deenie. She got the same mountain of shit for it, too.

Respect.

Her book "Forever" was the most secretly passed around book when I was in middle school. Declare something taboo and everyone is going to have to read it.

Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :

Sorry for double post didn't see Ariston's post. My kids both had "The Things They Carried" as an assigned reading and found the book to be powerful and moving. It was one of both their favorite readings in 10th grade and they still mention it from time to time.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

A story about sexual awareness and teenagers: I was supporting 4 statemented students in a year 10 or 11 (same sort of age) class - 14-16 year olds - when the teacher showed a film about just saying no, what people felt about their first sexual experience and why it was worth delaying. The class talked through it and when he asked me why I said that I thought I was sitting with the only two virgins in the class - two students with significant learning difficulties.

A couple of weeks later I brought in a sex ed video put out by BBC education aimed at that age group. In the film, one of the group of teenagers had symptoms of an STI - chlamydia. The film ended with the entire friendship group at the STI clinic to be checked out. And the class paid attention for the entire film - because it was relevant to them where they were, paired off, sexually active teenagers.

In fact, that film got shown to the entire year and I got a lot of stick in the staff room for bringing it in by one the DT teachers who had to cover the lesson one day.

Yes children are sexualised early, but that's talking about the overly sexual content of pop videos, fashion, advertising ... Teenagers also have hormones and sexual feelings. And teaching STI awareness or masturbation is not objectifying women, neither is it showing teenagers graphic porn, which is how many of the young people of my acquaintance find out about sex around parents who are too embarrassed to explain sex or try to put up taboos and hold their kids back. And that porn route gives far more unrealistic expectations than a book that, from the sound of it, is sensitively exploring what it is to be a teenager.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
While we are celebrating this bold, groundbreaking book that discusses adolescent masturbation, let us remember that Judy Blume already broke that barrier in 1973, with her book , Deenie. She got the same mountain of shit for it, too.

Respect.
Her book "Forever" was the most secretly passed around book when I was in middle school. Declare something taboo and everyone is going to have to read it.

Yes. Yes. The boy named his penis. Eye opener to curious young virgins nationwide.

Posted by ArachnidinElmet (# 17346) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
While we are celebrating this bold, groundbreaking book that discusses adolescent masturbation, let us remember that Judy Blume already broke that barrier in 1973, with her book , Deenie. She got the same mountain of shit for it, too.

Respect.
Her book "Forever" was the most secretly passed around book when I was in middle school. Declare something taboo and everyone is going to have to read it.
Yes. Yes. The boy named his penis. Eye opener to curious young virgins nationwide.

That book is the reason (one of them) that I can't take anyone called Ralph seriously.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I said public sexualization.

We are a woefully sex obsessed society.
How the hell is book-reading anything to do with public sexualization?
Really?

Yes, really. Because when I was a young lad - I don't remember exactly how old, but younger than these kids - my mother gave me a book to read as part of the birds and bees talk. In fact the birds and bees talk was pretty much 'here's a book, if you want to ask us any questions after, you can'.

And I already knew a reasonable amount of what was in the book.

What's woeful is parents who somehow fool themselves into thinking that they're the only source of information on sex, or parents who actually refuse to be a source of information on the topic at all.

Even if someone never 'does anything' before their wedding night, they should not be in the position of getting to their wedding night not knowing what's going to be happening. Nor should they be restricted to hearing whatever vague, unhelpful testimony they can get from parents who don't want to discuss such things and spend 2 perfunctory minutes 'explaining' and think they've done their parental duty.

Books are perfectly valid sources of information, and to my mind they're hardly 'public' in the way that films or TV shows or music videos are.

[Edited hours later when I suddenly noticed I had achieved a massive coding fuck-up. Sigh.]

[ 08. May 2014, 08:23: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

one of the kids I coached this year had a piece she performed that was brilliant. It was a study on mental illness, and done in a funny way. dealt with some really heavy issues. She gave a stellar, gripping performance.

At our community performance, I told the audience that all mature or difficult material would be in Act 2, in case parents wanted to remove younger children before that time. I NEVER limit what ages can attend a show of any kind, as I believe that is up to the parents to choose. But I did warn them.

After the show, I had a mom corner me and read me the riot act because she didn't want her 15 year old daughter to "have to hear such language!" I asked her what part of the piece she found disturbing, since we'd cut the foul language out of it already.

her problem wasn't the sensitive topic or the irreverent way it was treated. it was that my student said "blow job". That was it.

"I mean, I bring my daughter to a performance, I don't expect to have to explain such language later!"

Again. Daughter is 15. She could probably tell YOU what it means.

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ArachnidinElmet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Yes. Yes. The boy named his penis. Eye opener to curious young virgins nationwide.
That book is the reason (one of them) that I can't take anyone called Ralph seriously.

"I've heard from several young men who say: 'Judy, how could you do this to me?'" Blume admits. "I apologise to all of them. It's nothing personal."

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(crying with laughter.)

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

Books are absolutely brilliant for teaching adolescents about sexuality. You can get factual information into their heads, encourage them to read and improve their literacy (because they'll probably be interested in this topic, even if they aren't big readers), avoid the awkwardness of birds and bees talks, reduce the risk of them getting STIs and/or becoming parents before they're ready and most of the work is done by the kids in their own time. All you have to do is buy a few decent books on the subject and leave them lying around where they'll get picked up. I honestly don't know why every parent doesn't take this approach (assuming that the kids don't have problems with reading/reading comprehension of course. If they do I guess you need a different tactic.)

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Christian parents call cops over free book giveaway. Cops inform them thats not illegal.

Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.

They didn't ban the book, they just got it removed from the required reading list.

On the flip side, objecting to a book can apparently get you arrested.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Generally speaking when you are on the book banning side it's time to take a good hard look at your priorities.
They didn't ban the book, they just got it removed from the required reading list.

But I'd argue that's the same side as book banning. Just not as far to the extreme end. Further, trying to prevent someone from giving out free books is even farther toward the extreme than merely banning it from the school library.

[ 09. May 2014, 19:51: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'd argue that's the same side as book banning. Just not as far to the extreme end.

The same side, sure. But a required reading list is, you know, required, and it's required regardless of whether an individual child or parent feels the book is developmentally inappropriate to that particular child at that particular time.

quote:
Further, trying to prevent someone from giving out free books is even farther toward the extreme than merely banning it from the school library.

At this point I'm just surprised that they didn't get arrested for sexual assault or child pornography for distributing sexually explicit material to minors.

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Further, trying to prevent someone from giving out free books is even farther toward the extreme than merely banning it from the school library.
At this point I'm just surprised that they didn't get arrested for sexual assault or child pornography for distributing sexually explicit material to minors.

you really are one special gold-plated little nugget of batshit, saysay.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

Aw, that's so sweet of you to say.

But if we're going to put kids on the national sex offender's registry for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex under the age of consent (which in some states is 18), and we're going to threaten to put them on the list for producing, possessing, or distributing child porn for sexting, or arrest nine year olds for assault for a playground skuffle, or arrest parents for child porn for taking a bath-time photo of their kid, or arrest kids for drawing on their desks at school, or chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun, or any of the other crazy shit we're allowing for the sake of safety and security, where does it end?

Posted by Antisocial Alto (# 13810) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

On the flip side, objecting to a book can apparently get you arrested.

No, disrupting a public meeting can get you arrested. He interrupted another speaker and wouldn't stop talking, although he was asked repeatedly.

Seriously, don't believe anything you get from Glenn Beck that isn't confirmed by an independent source.

Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :

The world would be so much easier if *everyone* just followed commandment 1.....

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'd argue that's the same side as book banning. Just not as far to the extreme end.
The same side, sure. But a required reading list is, you know, required, and it's required regardless of whether an individual child or parent feels the book is developmentally inappropriate to that particular child at that particular time.

Don't most school districts have an opt-out mechanism?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Aw, that's so sweet of you to say.

But if we're going to put kids on the national sex offender's registry for the rest of their lives for having consensual sex under the age of consent (which in some states is 18), and we're going to threaten to put them on the list for producing, possessing, or distributing child porn for sexting, or arrest nine year olds for assault for a playground skuffle, or arrest parents for child porn for taking a bath-time photo of their kid, or arrest kids for drawing on their desks at school, or chewing a pop tart into the shape of a gun, or any of the other crazy shit we're allowing for the sake of safety and security, where does it end?

It ends where it starts: by using the squidgy stuff between your ears.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Assuming there is any, of course.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Don't most school districts have an opt-out mechanism?

Most? Having not done a national survey, I couldn't say. Not all of them do - schools in Delaware require sex ed, parental permission is not required, and opting out is not necessarily an option. Is opting out of one book taught in a required class an option most places? If it is, then I could see one or two parents choosing that option if the majority of parents approve of the required reading. However, if the majority do not want the book to be required (which, again, is not the same as saying the book is not going to be available in the school or public library if a particular student wants to read it), then I don't see the problem with allowing students to opt in to exposure to particular themes.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It ends where it starts: by using the squidgy stuff between your ears.

They made that illegal over here. It's called disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, terroristic threatening, failure to obey, or something along those lines.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Don't most school districts have an opt-out mechanism?
Most? Having not done a national survey, I couldn't say. Not all of them do - schools in Delaware require sex ed, parental permission is not required, and opting out is not necessarily an option. Is opting out of one book taught in a required class an option most places? If it is, then I could see one or two parents choosing that option if the majority of parents approve of the required reading. However, if the majority do not want the book to be required (which, again, is not the same as saying the book is not going to be available in the school or public library if a particular student wants to read it), then I don't see the problem with allowing students to opt in to exposure to particular themes.

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It ends where it starts: by using the squidgy stuff between your ears.
They made that illegal over here. It's called disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, terroristic threatening, failure to obey, or something along those lines.

If you believe that is true then I have to assume that Joe Public is as well informed on both sides of the Pond.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But I'd argue that's the same side as book banning. Just not as far to the extreme end.
The same side, sure. But a required reading list is, you know, required, and it's required regardless of whether an individual child or parent feels the book is developmentally inappropriate to that particular child at that particular time.
Don't most school districts have an opt-out mechanism?

According to the Concord Monitor, the book has been assigned in two previous years; on those occasions parents were notified beforehand but this time they failed to send out the notification before distributing the book. Now as then, alternative reading assignments are available upon parental request.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0