Just read the article and listened to a fairly lengthy interview (by today's standards) of the student by Biana Golodrega (sp?). The student is very articlulate and quite open-minded holding discussions with a new friend who is Buddhist and bi-sexual. His objection to the book was not the themes it contained but the pornographic depiction of sex. That is what he objects to.

 

If the book didn't depict lesbians having oral sex and other such things, he would read the book. He also indicated that if the book mentioned lesbians were having sex but didn't provide a detailed description of that sex he would read the book. The viewing of pornography is rampant among young people (and not-so-young people) to the point where many of them are addicted to it. It carries with it many of the social ills associated with other addictions.

 

Again, this kid has some sense. Someone needs to call out our prurient culture and say enough is enough.

After learning it was more of less a "comic book" type book with graphic cartoon sexual images...my opinion starts to lean towards the kid. Why in the world would something like that me on a college reading list?

After learning it was more of less a "comic book" type book with graphic cartoon sexual images...my opinion starts to lean towards the kid. Why in the world would something like that me on a college reading list?

 

Because they are children anymore and don't need to be treated as such. If it is recommended and not required then all he has to do is not read it. Much ado about nothing IMO and just one more thing for folks to whine about.

 

Just skip the book, kiddo. There, problem solved.

Because they are children anymore and don't need to be treated as such. If it is recommended and not required then all he has to do is not read it. Much ado about nothing IMO and just one more thing for folks to whine about.

 

Just skip the book, kiddo. There, problem solved.

 

True...BUT, I think he brings about a point that not only is it something he isn't all in a hurray to read, it's also a very controversial book to be ON the reading list to start with. I have to be honest, I didn't think something like this would be on a reading list from Duke. And not just on some individual super liberal professor's list for their specific class, but on a list recommending ALL incoming freshman to read. If they want students to read about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, I'm quite sure there are many other reading choices than a graphic adult comic book.

True...BUT, I think he brings about a point that not only is it something he isn't all in a hurray to read, it's also a very controversial book to be ON the reading list to start with. I have to be honest, I didn't think something like this would be on a reading list from Duke. And not just on some individual super liberal professor's list for their specific class, but on a list recommending ALL incoming freshman to read. If they want students to read about the gay/lesbian lifestyle, I'm quite sure there are many other reading choices than a graphic adult comic book.

 

Is the book only on Duke's recommended reading list or is this a book on a lot of university's recommended reading list?

Is the book only on Duke's recommended reading list or is this a book on a lot of university's recommended reading list?

 

Now that I don't know. I had never even heard of the book till this article.

Because they are children anymore and don't need to be treated as such. If it is recommended and not required then all he has to do is not read it. Much ado about nothing IMO and just one more thing for folks to whine about.

 

Just skip the book, kiddo. There, problem solved.

 

Apparently the professor thinks they are children and need to have a book in the format of a comic book to keep their interest.

 

Listen, there is a difference between human sexuality and pornographic depictions of human sexuality. It is ridiculous that a professor trying to educate students would stoop to the level of promoting pornography. Pornography is not adult literature. It is for very immature people who view women as objects and play toys and are not interested in forming relationships based on mutual respect.

 

If you want to educate people and to raise mature adults, using pornography as a platform to discuss "adult" issues is not the way to go about it.

 

Are we really defending the professor and the book when the book under question is a comic book that depicts pornographic sex?! This genre of literature, basically a pornographic comic book, is immature and NOT adult. Listen to the interview. That kid is quite mature for an incoming freshman.

Apparently the professor thinks they are children and need to have a book in the format of a comic book to keep their interest.

 

Listen, there is a difference between human sexuality and pornographic depictions of human sexuality. It is ridiculous that a professor trying to educate students would stoop to the level of promoting pornography. Pornography is not adult literature. It is for very immature people who view women as objects and play toys and are not interested in forming relationships based on mutual respect.

 

If you want to educate people and to raise mature adults, using pornography as a platform to discuss "adult" issues is not the way to go about it.

 

Are we really defending the professor and the book when the book under question is a comic book that depicts pornographic sex?! This genre of literature, basically a pornographic comic book, is immature and NOT adult. Listen to the interview. That kid is quite mature for an incoming freshman.

 

 

I get all of that. I'm simply saying that if he isn't going to get graded on the book or fail a class because of a book then what is the big deal? Don't read it. I'm fairly sure he can find a book to read that suits his values and likings instead of telling the world he doesn't like this one book on the recommended reading list.

He is entitled to his opinion and to express it. It only became known because someone heard that he "refused" to read a book about homosexuality. This was going to be a story about a homophobic Christian student being too closed-minded to even consider the perspective of a homosexual. Good for bashing conservative Christian values. That's the only reason this story became news.

 

Now that the spotlight has been shined on this student and he is interviewed do we learn that he was objecting to the pornographic nature of the "literature" not its theme.

 

Hmmm... Perhaps the alumni would be interested to know that pornographic comic books pass for academically challenging material at Duke. The Board of Trustees might be interested to know that they hired a professor who thinks this kind of book is considered quality educational material.

 

I would want to know that if I was a supporter of Duke or if my child was thinking about attending Duke in the future. I want to exchange my hard-earned cash for a quality education.

 

This speaks poorly of the professor and the university.

I've never heard of the book until now, but from looking it up on Amazon it is highly rated and according to a post above an adaptation of it garnered a Tony. Here's the review of it I found on Amazon:

 

"That Alison Bechdel kept a childhood journal made Fun Home a perhaps more true-to-life project than it would have been if she'd relied on memory alone. A powerful graphic novel-memoir, Fun Home documents Bechdel's childhood experiences and coming-of-age as a woman and lesbian. At its center lies her heartbreaking relationship with her distant father, which produces emotionally complex and poignant reflections and clean, bitonal images. While detractors cited confusing chronology and repetition of events, literary buffs enjoyed the challenging references to Albert Camus, James Joyce, and classical mythology. In the end, Fun Home "is an engrossing memoir that does the graphic novel format proud" (New York Times)."

 

It certainly seems to have artistic merit and isn't simply smut because sex is depicted. Like it, don't like it, I don't care, but why are you going to college just to have your own beliefs affirmed? (And that goes way beyond this case.)

Habib, that is not what the young man did. Saying so begs the question. He is objecting to the pornographic images that he does not want to see. The content of the book could be conveyed without graphically depicting oral sex or any sex, for that matter. Sex may be referred to without being graphic. This is the issue the young man had.

 

Many objectionable things have been dubbed artistically worthy objects but that does not make them so. Usually there is a political agenda involved and this garners the leftist elite's approval. So awards do not mean it is not also pornographic.

 

Any scholar worth his salt should be able to find another way to expose his/her students to ideas without resorting to pornography.

I've never heard of the book until now, but from looking it up on Amazon it is highly rated and according to a post above an adaptation of it garnered a Tony. Here's the review of it I found on Amazon:

 

"That Alison Bechdel kept a childhood journal made Fun Home a perhaps more true-to-life project than it would have been if she'd relied on memory alone. A powerful graphic novel-memoir, Fun Home documents Bechdel's childhood experiences and coming-of-age as a woman and lesbian. At its center lies her heartbreaking relationship with her distant father, which produces emotionally complex and poignant reflections and clean, bitonal images. While detractors cited confusing chronology and repetition of events, literary buffs enjoyed the challenging references to Albert Camus, James Joyce, and classical mythology. In the end, Fun Home "is an engrossing memoir that does the graphic novel format proud" (New York Times)."

 

It certainly seems to have artistic merit and isn't simply smut because sex is depicted. Like it, don't like it, I don't care, but why are you going to college just to have your own beliefs affirmed? (And that goes way beyond this case.)

 

It's not the content necessarily he has an issue with, but how that content is presented.

 

I guess an analogy would be having a sex ed class. There are tons of reading material and video on the subject that would be appropriate for the subject matter, but instead of picking something educational, the teacher tells the students to go watch "Debbie Does Dallas" and "Deep Throat". While some I'm sure would have no issue with that, other would, and quite rightly so given the circumstances.

Habib, that is not what the young man did. Saying so begs the question. He is objecting to the pornographic images that he does not want to see. The content of the book could be conveyed without graphically depicting oral sex or any sex, for that matter. Sex may be referred to without being graphic. This is the issue the young man had.

 

Many objectionable things have been dubbed artistically worthy objects but that does not make them so. Usually there is a political agenda involved and this garners the leftist elite's approval. So awards do not mean it is not also pornographic.

 

Any scholar worth his salt should be able to find another way to expose his/her students to ideas without resorting to pornography.

 

It's not the content necessarily he has an issue with, but how that content is presented.

 

I guess an analogy would be having a sex ed class. There are tons of reading material and video on the subject that would be appropriate for the subject matter, but instead of picking something educational, the teacher tells the students to go watch "Debbie Does Dallas" and "Deep Throat". While some I'm sure would have no issue with that, other would, and quite rightly so given the circumstances.

 

But this is the issue. You are both saying "there is a range of things that I find acceptable to be studied and anything outside of that range should be disregarded." What if I wanted to study theology, but I said the Old Testament was homophobic and I shouldn't be forced to read it? That would make me a poor theologian wouldn't it? What if I went to law school to study criminal law, but I wouldn't sit in any classes that discussed rape because it was too traumatic for me? Would I be a good lawyer?

 

That's what I see here. "I want to get a degree from an esteemed university known for its diverse education, but I don't want to engage with things I don't like or if I have to I want them to be watered down for me." The whole point is to be exposed to a wide-range of perspectives and be forced to think through them. He can disagree with the message of the work all he wants, he can find the sex gratuitous or prurient, he can chalk it up to one of the many things he will see and read that will be garbage, but he can't do that if he wants to be coddled instead.

I've never understood society's, and more specifically the prudish religious right's, disdain and fear for sexuality. Anything that provides any kind of detail into sexual acts or sexuality is deemed explicit and taboo. Just doesn't make sense to me. They're adults, deal with it.

But this is the issue. You are both saying "there is a range of things that I find acceptable to be studied and anything outside of that range should be disregarded." What if I wanted to study theology, but I said the Old Testament was homophobic and I shouldn't be forced to read it? That would make me a poor theologian wouldn't it? What if I went to law school to study criminal law, but I wouldn't sit in any classes that discussed rape because it was too traumatic for me? Would I be a good lawyer?

 

That's what I see here. "I want to get a degree from an esteemed university known for its diverse education, but I don't want to engage with things I don't like or if I have to I want them to be watered down for me." The whole point is to be exposed to a wide-range of perspectives and be forced to think through them. He can disagree with the message of the work all he wants, he can find the sex gratuitous or prurient, he can chalk it up to one of the many things he will see and read that will be garbage, but he can't do that if he wants to be coddled instead.

 

 

So then when does it stop? When does t go to far? Bringing Dick Steele and Jenna Jamison in to perform a live sex act for the sex ed class? Or is that acceptable (and some would argue that it is acceptable I'm sure). There has to be a limit somewhere. Having a graphic comic book sex novel I think pretty much crosses that line for many, possibly most, when considering acceptable literature in this context.