JOSEPH N. BELL -- The Bell Curve

I do poorly at keeping resolutions. The spirit has always been

willing, but the flesh . . . well, you know. My record is so bad that I

quit making resolutions some years ago. Except for one. The only

resolution I can remember keeping is to avoid writing about Wendy Leece.

I haven’t done that for many months, partly because she was too easy a

target, partly because other people were dealing quite effectively with

her proposals, and partly because she is a decent and earnest human

being.

But the last few weeks were finally too much when she hit us with the

double whammy of creationism and book-banning. I let the creationism

issue pass because it was so well exploded by letters in the Daily Pilot

from Eleanor Egan and mathematician David Rector, as well as by columnist

Gay Geiser-Sandoval, that there was little I could add except a sigh.

A sigh -- and two quick points. First, it is always possible to find a

few credentialed scientists willing to support almost any

pseudoscientific concept such as creationism. If the creationists want to

play that game, then their arguments must be judged directly against the

stature and overwhelming number of scientists on the other side.

And, second, at the root of creationist efforts is the powerful need

of its proponents to intellectualize faith, to give it a veneer of

academic respectability. In short, to have it both ways. I spent a good

many years of my life trying to do this, and it doesn’t work. Physical

science and religious faith aren’t branches of the same tree, and efforts

to cross-pollinate them lead to hybrids of confusion and, sometimes,

absurdity. I’m not putting down faith at all. Just urging that it be

embraced where it belongs.

Censoring books, however, is an entirely different matter. It comes

very close to the skin -- and Leece, in her latest effort, has apparently

found another supporter on the school board.

For me, there’s a very simple bottom line. I don’t want anyone to tell

my children or grandchildren or anyone else’s children or grandchildren

what they can or cannot read. And, especially, I don’t want Wendy Leece

doing it, as I’m very sure she wouldn’t want me setting up a reading

program for her children.

The Newport-Mesa public schools have created a foolproof system for

parents to protect their children from exposure to books or films the

parents consider inappropriate. It’s called “positive permission slips,”

and it requires parents to return a form giving permission for their

children to study specific controversial material.

This makes it possible for children of parents without Leece’s fears

or concerns to be exposed to a breadth of creative work.

Censoring books deemed appropriate by the professionals who staff our

public schools would deny that opportunity to the great majority of

students. This right to read needs to be protected every bit as strongly

as the right of parents to deny such exposure to their own children.

I’ve read “Snow Falling on Cedars,” and it is beautifully crafted,

deeply felt writing that merits all of the awards it has received. To

nit-pick a piece of literature such as this on the basis of a few scenes

that make one segment of our society uncomfortable is to deny our

students exposure to fine writing for all the wrong reasons. I haven’t

read the Allende book, but both its pedigree and its critical accolades

are impressive.

People who read only the allegedly salacious passages and not the book

itself have no right to take a position. This is a work of creative art

that needs to be looked at whole and not in selected pieces. Objecting on

such grounds is rather like protecting children from viewing

Michelangelo’s David because of his exposed genitals. Or saying that

surely some other work of art could fill the same role without such

graphic depictions.

It puzzles and fascinates me that so-called conservatives, who pride

themselves on leading the fight against government interference in our

private lives, are at the forefront in telling us what we should allow

our children to read. The argument that they can go to a library and

check out these forbidden books simply ignores the fact that they are an

integrated part of a curriculum carefully crafted by their teachers.

We are dealing with two risks here: One, that students will be

arbitrarily exposed to books or films inappropriate to their age level;

or, two, that students will be denied exposure to fine creative work

because it is disturbing to an adult group with fears other adults don’t

share. The latter course denies this work to all students. The first

course denies it only to those students whose parents choose to opt out

for their children.

It seems to me the time has come for a little outrage on the part of

parents who strongly object to their children being deprived of fine

literature in the classroom by the aggressive action of religious

conservatives. For many years, they have had a corner on outrage -- and

they aren’t going to go away. So maybe the time has arrived for those who

are not afraid of creative breadth for their children to say: “Enough.”

Two of my children have enjoyed that creative breadth and outstanding

teachers at Newport Harbor High School. They have gone on to graduate

from fine universities. But even more importantly, they have embraced

good literature as a deep and satisfying part of their daily lives. It

would sadden and anger me to see today’s students denied that same

opportunity.

* JOSEPH N. BELL is a resident of Santa Ana Heights. His column

appears Thursdays.