A Southern California school district has removed the Merriam Webster 10th Edition from classrooms because the little urchins might find a word describing "oral sex" within the multitude of words contained therein. (Link)

The odd thing is, the parent who claimed they discovered the term in that dictionary could not have done so. According to a later update, that edition did not have the word in the complaint, even though the parent said that's where she found it. Looks VERY suspicious to me. Is there some hidden agenda at play here?

Equally amazing, the school superintendent admitted the word was not in that edition but still pulled the dictionary becasue there might be other equally offensive words inside (even though the original term did not exist there) and submitted it to a committee for further study.

I agree. We need to be watchful.

I recall that, in my schooldays, we studied a book called "The Bible" in which all kinds of unsavoury sexual practices - prostitution, adultery, bestiality - to name but three, were all subject to mention. It is obviously quite wrong that innocent children should be subjected to such filth and I suggest that this book be banned forthwith

Wow. When the day comes that we remove dictionaries from school, it's time to throw in the proverbial towel.

I can't imagine a hidden agenda, proof, but it must be something like that.

You are correct, Richard.

And, by the way, that first comment under the article says, "I hate the boomer generation. Truly I do." Well, this respondent "seriously" doesn't have an understanding of the boomer generation. This generation (and I am one of them) grew up in some very liberal times...much more liberal than these times. Also, with these being elementary kids, I "seriously" doubt that these were boomers who did this.

Ken at Popehat.com mentioned that this wasn't the only case of a school district censoring a book.

Today it’s Culpeper, Virginia. School authorities there pulled the full version of the Diary of Anne Frank, apparently with the intent to replace it with the bowdlerized version that Otto Frank originally published in 1947. The school had been using the definitive, complete version released upon the fiftieth anniversary of Frank’s death in a concentration camp.

So — why did they pull it? Were there grim stories of Nazi atrocities? Vivid descriptions of heaps of dead spied out of the garret window? Horrific but apt speculations about the millions of Jews who were not hidden?

Nope. Anne mentioned her Bad Bad Place in a context other than identifying it as a font of pure evil, and a parent was offended.

Go to the site to read his entire column.

quote:

Nope. Anne mentioned her Bad Bad Place in a context other than identifying it as a font of pure evil, and a parent was offended

How did this person manage to become a parent without the active involvement of this very place?

Virgin birth

From The Washington Post:

quote:

The passage in question is one where Frank talks about her vagina, and this is the most commonly cited passage in the book:

"There are little folds of skin all over the place, you can hardly find it. The little hole underneath is so terribly small that I simply can't imagine how a man can get in there, let alone how a whole baby can get out!"