Wednesday, January 27, 2010



CA: Nutty ban on a dictionary

Officials are going through dictionaries looking for naughty words
"Students in some Riverside County schools are now without certain dictionaries, as the district banned them.

Officials with the Menifee Union School District say the growing controversy over the removal of a dictionary from the classroom has led to the misconception that all dictionaries have been pulled. The district is responding to the controversy that is attracting national and international media coverage after officials temporarily removed copies of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition for containing graphic terms like “oral sex.”

A parent volunteer working in her son’s classroom came across the term, according to Betti Cadmus, and submitted a written complaint to the school’s principal, who contacted the assistant superintendent of curriculum. The complaint resulted in the district removing the dictionaries from the fourth- and fifth-grade reference section at Oak Meadows Elementary School, which Cadmus said Monday was the only district school to be using that dictionary.

“One of the misconceptions is that all dictionaries are being banned from our district,” Cadmus said. “That could not be farther from the truth. There are dictionaries available for use at all school sites; the dictionaries (in question) are still on site, but are temporarily not in use.”

Cadmus said it was not just one parent that complained, but that there was a growing parent concern at Oak Meadows Elementary over the explicit term, which it turns out was not contained in the dictionary; though other words that might be considered age-inappropriate were found.

Source

17 comments:

jwenting said...

Let me get this right: a dictionary was banned for containing a word that's appropriate for a dictionary to contain but wasn't even in it?

Unknown said...

This is as stupid as it gets. Honestly, what's a dictionary when it's not all-inclusive? Granted, there might be "bad" words in it, but those words are part of our language. Such is life. Stupid is as stupid does.

Stan B said...

I'm sorry, but this is just ignorance on the part of the parents. If the kids don't know certain words, they won't think certain thoughts? Is that the theory?

How is anybody going to do a report on William Jefferson "BJ" Clinton if they can't understand what oral sex is?

Anonymous said...

I've never heard of dictionaries that were directed toward providing "age appropriate" words.

We The People said...

Stan, you forgot what Bubba told us. "Oral sex is NOT sex"! Unfortunately, i've only been able to find one female that line would work on.

First of all, this is The Peoples Republic of Mexifornia, a state that is controlled by communists and illegal alien gangs, so nothing should be a surprise. Also, i'm betting that sooner or later, the "true" reason behind this irrational hysteria will become known and we'll find out it had nothing to do with some "non-included" words. Stand by.

Anonymous said...

If it wasn't in there in the first place did this parent lie? If so, why?
"oral sex" is not a "word" it is a phrase, is it appropriate for a dictionary to define phrases?
"oral" is defined and "sex" is defined, is it really necessary to define them together?

Annon 3:31 am said...

BTW I don't think the dictionaries should have been banned, nor do I necessarily think anything should be removed from the dictionary. I just question if things like "Oral Sex" are really necessary or are they being included for shock value. I mean let's face it; libs would have your 2 year old knowing what a BJ is.

Use the Name, Luke said...

"I've never heard of dictionaries that were directed toward providing "age appropriate" words."

There are "college" dictionaries which are supposed to be more advanced than "standard" dictionaries.

I don't think it would be unreasonable to have "age appropriate" dictionaries for younger children that have fewer words and simplified definitions.

That said, unless this is supposed to be a dictionary "for young children", it's just a dictionary. It's purpose is to list the definitions of words, and allowing PC to exclude "offensive" words damages the utility of a dictionary.

Anon 3:31 am said...

"I don't think it would be unreasonable to have "age appropriate" dictionaries for younger children that have fewer words and simplified definitions."

Actually I am pretty sure these exist

Anonymous said...

Basically, what these school authorities and "this parent", (and some of you) are saying is that we should continue the philosophy of the bleeding hearts and shield young people from the realities of the real world. This may make some people feel comfortable now, but in the long run, it will have a negative impact on the youngsters who, if this govt. permits them, will eventually, and hopefully, grow up.

Besides, with the internet, isn't this issue moot?

Anonymous said...

I'd be glad that the children actually know how to use a dictionary.

Anonymous said...

So anon 6:50, should we show porns to our 5 year olds so they know what the "real world" is all about?

Anon 6:50 said...

I was wondering when some nitwit would bring up the porn argument. If you need an answer to that, you're probably to dumb to understand it.

Anonymous said...

"...you're probably to dumb to understand it."

Oh the irony.

ad9aggie said...

It's not like they can't go to dictionary.com

Anonymous said...

Amiable dispatch and this enter helped me alot in my college assignement. Say thank you you on your information.

Anonymous said...

Easily I agree but I about the list inform should have more info then it has.