A group of students at the University of Utah have started an online petition to have the graphic novel Fun Home removed from the curriculum of an English class.
“The issue is exposing people to pornography,” says Thomas Alvord, with a group called “No More Pornography.”
Drawings depicting sex acts are included in the 230 page novel. A student in the class was offended and approached the group “No More Pornography,” which made headlines earlier this year when it staged a successful protest of music videos shown a gym in Provo. The group has started an online petition in protest of the book.
Alvord says, “It’s like they’re turning their back and pretending graphics, depiction of oral sex, are not an issue.”
Vincent Pecora, the chair of the English Department at the U says, “If we try to only choose only the novels that have a moral point of view that we agree with, we might not have a whole lot of literature to teach.”
Pecora is defending the book and the professor teaching the course. Among his reasons, the University’s accommodation policy, which allows a student to get an alternate assignment or leave the course without penalty. Four other classes fulfill the requirement.
“I think it’s really an obligation to teach this kind of literature. It’s new, it’s interesting, it’s inventive,” Pecora said.
The story has generated almost 200 heated comments as of 10:30 a.m. PT today.
March 28th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Not that I consider this graphic novel to be “porn,” but what the hell kind of college student is offended by it? Jeez… When I was school, sex is pretty much all I thought about — and tried to get — aside from drinking, smoking weed (sometimes all of that was part of the same package) and occasionally studying for exams.
Besides, how many “regular” novels have graphic, detailed descriptions of sex?
Sounds like Mr. Thomas Alvord needs a little more action in his own life. And I don’t mean Action Comics.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Social conservatism? Today? Inconceivable!
March 28th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
LOL, Matt! Kids today…
Back in my day, you couldn’t wait to leave home, see naked people, and get some oral sex. And you liked it! In fact, you loved it!
Apologies to Dana Carvey and his Grumpy Old Man character.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
I don’t know, it sounds reasonable to remove the book to me. I’m as liberal as they come, but I can totally understand how a college student in an English class could be offended by graphic pictures of a sexual act. It’s not a human sexuality class – are you telling me they couldn’t come up with an alternate, worthy graphic novel that does not include depictions of sexual acts?
To reduce the students’ complaints down to kneejerk conservatism, censorship, or a need for “action” is doing them a disservice in this case. This is not simply a case where the “religious right” is complaining about something on TV that can be solved by changing the channel.
March 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Sure it is, Joseph… Take the class or don’t. Someone taking a college English course should be aware that chosen title might have swear words, or describe sexual acts. In the case of a gaphic novel, it might picture said acts.
I don’t know enough about the book in question to know what the instructor’s purpose was in including the book in the course being taught. But the instructor had a reason. Trying to get him to remove the book is censorship IMO, and that’s just wrong. It’s also crazy to bow to the whims of one student, or a group of fundamentalists who want to police what the rest of us read. As the chair of the department said, you start doing that and pretty soon there’s not much left to teach.
Sex is a part of life, and it’s going to be depcited in literature. If you don’t like it, go to your professor and discuss your concerns. Ask to do an alternate project, read an alternate title, or try come to some sort of compromise. God forbid (pun intended) the student simply read the book, challenge his notions, and try to open his mind a bit. Isn’t that a big part of what college is supposed to be?
Cripes, I had to read plenty of books in high school and college that I didn’t care for. I never tried to boycott any of them. For any reason.
And yes, I think that student needs to go out, live a little, and get some “action.” For many it’s truly the last chance to be a free spirit before “real life” sets in.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Shaun – well, I disagree. Unless the course description indicated there may be material containing nudity/sexual situations, I think the students have a right to complain. And considering neither of us know the student(s) in question, automatically labelling them as “fundamentalists” is unfair. I knew plenty of people in college who were not religious and partied as much as the rest of us who would have had an issue with the book. The idea of “going out” and “living life” doesn’t necessarily have to include banging anything that walks, or reading “adult” material, does it? Again, to assume this student is some uptight twit with no sense of humor and no girl/boyfriend is unfair.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with it and I wouldn’t have a problem if my daughter was in that class. But I can also understand that not everyone has the same values or upbringing I had and, in this case, have a right to take an English class without having to worry about being exposed to graphic sexual depictions. I dont see they’re trying to boycott anything; they’re not burning the book or demanding it be removed from the bookstore.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Those scenes in Fun Home are not pornography. Sex, yes – pornography, no.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
I don’t have a problem with students taking offense to the material and not wanting to read it. The problem is that they are trying to get it banned from the curriculum. As the professor who introduced the material already said, the University has an accommodation policy and the students were free to get an alternate assignment or leave the class entirely without penalty. Because they are striving to have it banned from the school makes it sound like they’re just looking for a cause. It sounds like they’re pushing an agenda in the name of morality.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Joshua –
Maybe. Or maybe they love the class and the professor and like everything about the class but are offended by graphic depictions of sex. They’re not trying to have it banned from the school (are they?) just to have it removed as a course requirement.
I don’t know. I’m not even sure why I’m defending them. I went to UCSB in the late 80s; there was a protest or petition about something every day, and my reaction to them generally ranged from annoyed tolerance to apopalyptic fury. Maybe I’m just getting old. I see so many young people lacking even the most basic common courtesy and tolerance I hate to see what may a couple of earnest college students automatically painted as prudes or fundamentalists because they are speaking out against something that truly offended them.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
1. Who else is happy they don’t live in Utah?
2. Anyone else wonder if it’s really the depiction of homosexuality, rather than the extremely weak charges of pornography, that’s driving this whole thing? Especially in light of Joshua’s comment above?
March 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
According to the article:
The student(s)? (it’s unclear how many students are even involved) want the book removed from the curriculum. This could mean from the course, or from the school. It’s not clear. The petition is against the use of state tax dollars to teach pornography and also wants porn filters placed on university computers – so it sounds like they want the book banned out right.
The article also mentions the student has already completed the alternate assignment, so it really does sound like rabble rousing from an outside organization that wants to push an agenda (an organization the student most likely contacted – these sort of incidents crop up from time to time).
It’s ridiculous though – no court would uphold that Fun Home is pornography. This is just a group that wants to be in the news and attract some attention.
March 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
and by doing so, they end up actually wasting tax payers dollars (surprise surprise)
March 28th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Joseph-
Perhaps its because I don’t know the full details, but it doesn’t sound like a case where they really enjoyed the course and didn’t want to leave it; particularly since they could have asked for an alternate assignment. If not for that fact, I’d be far more inclined to agree with you, but why put up such a huge fight over such a small thing? It’s not like they were going to be failed for not wanting to complete the assignment. If these students succeed then they will have set a precedent that anytime someone is “offended” by something they can just have the material removed.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Read the article; the students who originated the protest first went to the group called “No More Pornography,” that has already publicly protested events on the campus. It seems more like a case of outside agitation rather than a group of students not liking the book. When students don’t like something, they generally go to the professor, but in this case they went to an outside organization to make a big fight. The particular group likes big, public fights and has already expanded the fight beyond Fun Home to demanding filters on the campus computers.
March 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“Vincent Pecora, the chair of the English Department at the U says, “If we try to only choose only the novels that have a moral point of view that we agree with, we might not have a whole lot of literature to teach.”
Wow, what an intelligent statement! He sounds like an insightful man to have working at that University.
So I guess he’ll be losing his job soon.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
i must be missing something in this society, but i REALLY can’t understand how can anyone be offended by “depictions of sex acts” (being those drawings, pics, videos or whatever)
i mean, what does them have that offend?
Muhammad cartoons can be offensive (if you lack any sense of humor and take things way to serious), because they depicts a whole religion as a bunch of terrorists.
“women in refrigerators” can be offensive (if you take things way to serious again) because it treats women as just a plot device to serve male characters stories.
even OMD can be offensive (iyttwts again again) because it shows a total lack of respect towards loyal fans.
but sex? why is sex offensive?
March 28th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
For the same reason cartoons of Mohammed are offensive to Muslims. It takes something they view as sacred and mocks it.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Good luck, Professor Pecora.
With the accommodation policy, these students shouldn’t have a leg to stand on. They’re not saying *they* don’t want to read it; they already have the option of another course or simply another assignment. They’re saying they don’t want anyone *else* to read it.
March 28th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Hi. As someone who lives in Utah and attends the University it doesn’t surprise me. Upsets me yes, but doesn’t surprise me. This was an excellent graphic novel and deserves to be used. But, this is the same school where a few years ago we had a theatre student sue the university over language in plays. She felt that language she found offensive should be edited from the plays no matter the playwrights intent in order to sevre her. This is actually a pretty typical reaction to something like this in Utah. After all we used to spend state funds on a state appointed porn czar!
March 28th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
And yet, according to many stats, Utah spends more money on porn than almost any state. Hypocrisy is awesome.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
How in the world is that hypocrisy? Ludicrous maybe, but not hypocritical.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
The issue shouldn’t be that its porn or lesbians… the problem with “Fun Home” is that it’s just bad.
It doesn’t even make use of sequential storytelling! The images are just kinda there like pictures you’d see in a kids-picture book. Not to mention the fact that its slow and the story doesn’t really go anywhere. There is no real structure, the pacing is completely out of whack… it’s just BAD.
March 28th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Even the anthology “True Porn” is not in fact, pornography. These students don’t seem to fully comprehend the word they’re using.
March 28th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Based on the comments on that thread over there, very few people have even looked at Fun Home. What “graphic depictions of sex” are they talking about? As far as I can remember, there’s one scene that implies oral sex and shows some pubic hair but doesn’t actually show anything. So what’s the thing that’s offensive? The pubic hair? The implication of the act? The homosexuality?
I’m not sure what they’re objecting to (even after reading their “position”). Their unclear, intolerant position offends me. So does that mean they aren’t allowed to offer it?
March 31st, 2008 at 8:32 am
Everytime we pay attention to fundamentalists, a demon gets it’s wings.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:33 am
I think the fact that they’re protesting the book’s inclusion proves that they stand to learn something from its contents. Sexuality, as much as some may try to deny it, is a major driving factor in all people for many life-shaping events. It’s an inescapable part of the human experience and honest depictions of it (unless designed purely for titilation) are certainly not pornography.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Hey everybody,
I’m actually in the class that is reading this book. I guess this issue has received quite a bit of media attention lately. If you are at all interested to know, there’s only one student in my class that is making a big deal of this. Nobody else really minds.
With regards to the book, it was amazing. The author wrote it really well and it was NOT pornographic. The photos given were in context, just as Michelangelo’s “David” statue in Italy can be seen in context. I think the real issue here is our society’s inability to speak about the subject of homosexuality without feeling embarrassed or laughing and giggling like high school students.
Pornography doesn’t exist in nature, it is something humans have put a label on. It’s only pornography if we chose to make it that. Think about it.
Oh, and how many people that have commented on this page have read the book…?