Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy

Gather round, kiddies, it's Sunday, and we all know what that means--it's time for our weekly dose of Katherine Kersten's Extra Strength Idiocy. This week, Kersten tells us what our childrens should be learning in school and thinks that the only literature that schoolchildren should be reading is "classic" literature. As a writer, I have nothing but contempt for this sentiment; the notion that the only books worth reading were published before the twentieth century is entirely reductive and, frankly, ignorant. To say that there are no contemporary titles that are worthwhile is to make clear that one has not read very many contemporary titles.

I don't think Katherine Kersten has read very many recently published books--in fact, I don't think she's read very much at all. It also seems that she didn't really read the article she refers to in her column. The original New York Times piece, "The Future of Reading-'Reading Workshop' Lets Students Pick the Books'", gave this example of a student who chose a book based on pop culture and went on to read more challenging books:

"Many students began the year choosing books [teacher Ms. McNeill] regarded as too simple, and she prodded them to a higher level. After Khristian Howard, an earnest seventh grader, read “Chaka! Through the Fire,” a memoir by the R&B star Chaka Khan, Ms. McNeill suggested that she try Maya Angelou’s autobiography, “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings.”
Khristian, who found the book tough at first, ended up writing an enthusiastic six-page entry in her journal. Ms. McNeill went on to suggest “The Bell Jar” by Sylvia Plath and “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” by Betty Smith, a book, Khristian wrote, that she “really didn’t want to come to an end.“"

Kersten twists the above passage thusly: "McNeill no longer teaches 'To Kill a Mockingbird' or 'Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl'. Instead, her students are reading chick-lit books, the Captain Underpants comic-book-style novels, or pop literature such as 'Chaka! Through the Fire,' a memoir by R&B star Chaka Khan. Though some students have chosen more challenging books, all are contemporary titles."

So, there's something wrong with "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn", even though it was published in 1943, four years before "The Diary of Anne Frank"? "To Kill a Mockingbird" was published in 1960--merely three years before "The Bell Jar", and nine before "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings". Why is “To Kill a Mockingbird” any less “contemporary” than two books that were published in the same decade? And why does Kersten bemoan the fact that McNeill no longer teaches “To Kill a Mockingbird”? Kersten makes it pretty clear that we should only read “classic” titles, like “The Iliad” (which she doesn’t refer to by name) or “Oliver Twist”. Charles Dickens and Harper Lee didn’t exactly meet for coffee at Homer’s house, so I can’t decide whether Kersten is being inconsistent or can’t be bothered to check copyright dates.

The most infuriating thing in this article, though, is Kersten’s dismissal of books from the canon of African American literature, namely, “The Color Purple”. She writes: “In the 1960s, the cry for ‘relevance’ led some to trade Hamlet for the adolescent angst of Holden Caulfield in ‘The Cather in the Rye’. Later, obsessions with multiculturalism, racism and sexism made politically correct books like Alice Walker’s ‘The Color Purple’ de rigueur.”

What she’s saying here is that the only reason a teacher would choose a book written by a non-white author is to indoctrinate students against racism, sexism or ethnocentrism. This statement implies that books written by non-white authors can’t be great literature, they can only be chosen for their “political correctness”.

I don’t think Kersten has read “The Color Purple,” and I don’t think she realizes that Alice Walker won a Pulitzer for it. I’m sure Kersten would accuse the Pulitzer Prize committee for being politically correct when they chose the book, but she would be wrong. “The Color Purple” is an amazing book, and I’m not just saying that because Alice Walker and I share an alma mater. “The Color Purple” is as beautifully written as it is innovative, and is decidedly not politically correct—“The Color Purple” is number 17 on American Library Association’s list of the 100 Most Frequently Challenged Books. Do you know what else is on that list? There it is, at number 40: “To Kill a Mockingbird”.

This list isn’t the only thing these novels have in common. They both take place in the South, they both feature racism as a common theme, they’re both “coming of age” stories”, and they both include rape in their plots. What they don’t have in common is the race of the protagonists--and authors. In other words, a book that features a white girl and her white father as crusaders against racism is heroic, while a book that features a young black woman who survives incest, domestic violence and racism is “politically correct”.

Well, here’s a bit of political incorrectness for you: Fuck you, Katherine Kersten. Your racism is so thinly veiled it’s pathetic, and what’s equally pathetic is your inconsistency. Instead of perpetuating a list of books you think people should read, you ought to let other people make a reading list for you…and you should start with “The Color Purple”.

Katherine Kersten in the Sierra Maestra

Katherine Kersten doesn't like the way the mainstream media are nice to Obama. In her September 13th column, she complains that the "mainstream media" like Obama too much. She mentions the "mainstream media" three times: "The mainstream media seem dumbfounded that any thinking person could object to President Obama's speech to schoolchildren on Sept. 8...why are the mainstream media so clueless about the anger and disillusionment growing among independents and conservatives...today, average Americans are beginning to see something in Obama the mainstream media can't." Apparently, Kersten thinks she writes for Citypages. Well, I have a little message for her:

Hey, Lady, you write for the Minneapolis Star Tribune--that's a newspaper that serves a major metropolitan area, and it's not one of those alternative media papers that they give away for free in gas stations and gay bars. You, Katherine Kersten, are a part of the mainstream media.

This reminds me of my second year in college, when, in my International Law lecture, a student was making derisive remarks about "elites" when the professor broke in and said, "Excuse me, but you're at the most expensive college in the country. You're all elites."

Kersten conviniently forgets that there are plenty of people who are "disillusioned" with Obama who also are major players within the mainstream media. Fox News averages 3.3 million viewers daily--it's not some piddly little station that only comes in when you constantly tweak the antannae while standing on tin foil. Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, even Tom Bernard--these are all people who don't have a lot of good things to say about Obama, and they are all part of the mainstream media.

Kersten writes as if she, Bernard, O'Reilly and Limbaugh were a band of rebels in the mountains, like Che and Fidel in the Sierra Maestra. They aren't, though, and Fox News isn't Radio Venceremos (that's a reference to El Salvador, not Cuba, just FYI). Frankly, if Katherine Kersten hates the mainstream media so much, she really ought to stop writing for them.

Instead, she should buy a ham radio and a turtle.

Get a clue, Katherine!

I sent this in as a letter to the editor. They didn't publish my letter, but they did publish a letter from another reader who schooled Katherine on the necessity of date-rape lectures on college campuses. I took issue with another part of her article:

Katherine Kersten’s August 30, 2009 article, titled “A Counter to the Empty Lure of Promiscuity” is a complete joke. She and Cassy Hough, founder of the Elizabeth Ascombe Society both bemoan the so-called hook-up culture on college campuses. They both fail to see that they are incredibly out of touch and could both use a good chiropractor who could help with the strain on their necks that must come from craning to see the rosiness of the Fifties.

I started college in 2002, one year before Hough. Sure, there were a lot of kids who were hooking up. There were also a lot of kids who weren’t. It was a choice we made for ourselves. It’s sad, really, when someone is so insecure about the choices she makes that she has to create a society around it and give interviews to pearl-clutching newspaper columnists.

Perhaps the reason for Hough’s disappointment is the fact that finding a husband at college is a laughable goal. Kersten claims that “Eighty-three percent of college women say that marriage is an important life goal for them and two-thirds would like to find a spouse at college, according to a survey done several years ago.” Several years ago, as in 1950? These data are meaningless. Here’s some real data: the average age for a man getting married in 2003 was 27.1 according the US Census. That explains why Hough had a hard time finding a man with his sights set on marriage while she was in college.

If you want to get married at age 20, that’s your choice to make. But college is not a place to find a mate. It’s a place to study and earn a degree. If what you really want out of college is an engagement ring, skip college altogether, create a Match.com profile, and give your spot at college to someone who wants to learn.