Sue everyone.
Burn it all down.
Has anyone here seen this version? Does graphic novelization mean it’s graphic as in nsfw? The unedited diary does have a lot of sexual content. If it’s just a different version of the book though, that’s way overreacting.
I found a pdf online. This is the most graphic part of the book. This is what scares Texans.
She is fairly scientific in her descriptions. Doesn’t seem like a problem to me. Any health class should be covering this anyways.
You know they’re not in Texas…
Does graphic novelization mean it’s graphic as in nsfw?
As far as I understand it, no.
Okay, just as in a graphic novel, with graphics in it. Yeah an overreaction then.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I know Texas is backwards and regressive, but this headline is kinda clickbait.
A Texas middle school teacher has been fired after assigning an unapproved illustrated version of Anne Frank’s Diary to her eighth grade reading class.
…While district officials claim the adaptation of Anne Frank’s Diary was not approved, it was included on a reading list sent to parents at the start of the school year, KFDM reports. The investigation will determine if the teacher pivoted from the original approved curriculum or if administrators were aware of the book being part of the class.
She wasn’t fired for reading Anne Frank, but for using a graphic novelization of it.
deleted by creator
The people responding to you are missing the point you’re trying to make, which is that the title of the article is clickbait.
Texas teacher fired for reading Diary of Anne Frank to class.
This headline is false, if not in the exact words then certainly by the implication. Anyone reading this headline would believe that the teacher was fired for reading The Diary of Anne Frank.
Texas teacher fired for reading Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation to class.
This headline is true. Notice how it is different.
Are either of these headlines good? Obviously not. Is it better to be fired for one than the other? Obviously not, and that is beside the point. Misinformation is a cancer and there doesn’t need to be an agenda behind identifying and calling it out.
edit: and if you (reader) look at the second headline and think to yourself “why are you trying to downplay Texas’ actions by making it sound less bad?” You need to point that question inwards - why do you think the second headline sounds better? And if a more factually correct headline changes your emotional reaction to the story, don’t you think that’s an important reason to advocate for accuracy?
Hang on what? So it was unapproved, but simultaneously suggested reading?
I really wish we could give teachers some semblance of independence back in their classrooms. Firing her just for using an unapproved version of an approved novel is ridiculous.
Is that something to get fired over though? There’s still context missing here - assigning a non-approved book alone seems like something you reprimand someone over, not fire them. Was there something particularly egregious about that particular version of the book?
I’m not sure if you’ve ever read her diary, or the ORIGINAL diary, but the original non-edited version, she goes into detail about her sexuality and specifically about another girl. Her father basically ripped out/omitted pages out of shame.
Since the version the school approved was the same version just graphic novellized, you can bet a Texas school did NOT approve the original version.
Texas is a failure to their students.
the teacher was sent home on Wednesday after reading a passage from Anne Frank’s Diary: The Graphic Adaptation in which Frank wrote about male and female genitalia.
I don’t remember reading anything about male and female genitalia in Ann Frank’s diary…😕
It’s been released with several edits over the years. The recently released version added back several passages that were scrubbed from the ones most of us read growing up.
Anne Frank wrote a diary. It’s a personal diary. It wasn’t written to be published.
New pages found writing dirty jokes and about sex: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/16/anne-franks-hidden-diary-pages-risque-jokes-and-sex-education/
On one hand, the “sanitized” versions give the historical context without the personal, sometimes very personal, items that Anne Frank intended to be private. On the other hand, including all of her real thoughts makes it clear that she was a normal, young, very human girl.
I think the full version should be available to anyone and everyone, but I also understand if the school curriculum needs to focus on the historical aspects and thus uses one of the older releases editions. But to be honest, it seems like the people who would have a problem with this have a problem with all sexuality, and they hate anything that destroys the narrative that people can shut off that part of themselves.
I think having the less sanitized version being taught is potentially more valuable. Part of the value of the diary is providing someone to have empathy with, not to just read a history book about a character. Showing that she was a real person and had similar thoughts to all the other children in the class can help them understand she was real and this could happen to anyone, including themselves. It helps us treat history not just as something that happened but something that is happening.
Yep, most versions of her diary are censored. She discusses her first period amongst other topics
Of course. How can you raise a new generation of Nazis if you teach them to be horrified by the actions of the last?
To be fair, it wasn’t because she wrote about being hunted down by Nazis for being Jewish. It’s because she wrote about growing
publicpubic hair.Oh, the poor children. I’m sure they’re traumatized after learning that - checks notes - humans have body hair. Don’t even get me started on Santa.
Nah that’s just their excuse. It’s 100% the nazi thing. It’s hardly the only book that they’re banning on the subject.
