Florida principal resigns after parents complain about Michelangelo’s ‘David’ statue

[Dr. Who]

Believe this particular story may have been sensationalized and distorted a bit in the telling.

Here is a link to an interview with the Chair of the school's board that pushed for the resignation. The details of the event are a little more involved than what has been claimed.

https://slate.com/human-interest/202...id-statue.html

Perhaps, but the Chair of the school board only alluded to there being other possible reasons and didn't say that this incident had nothing to do with the principal's forced resignation. At any rate, choosing to force out the principal at the same time as this issue came up is bound to give the impression that it was implicated in the decision.

[Dr. Who]

Attacks on censorship only apply in one direction. Lets get mad at trying to censor six hundred year old art (and why is it art for David to be naked anyway?) but censoring Scott Adams, Dr. Suess, Mark Twain and many others is acceptable?

Did anyone lose their job as a result of that censorship? I don't support the censorship of old literature. I think it's up to teachers to explain the shortcomings exemplified in such works, but not to ban them.

[Tahuyaman]

Yeah, because seeing Michelangelo’s David robs you of your childhood. Those damn liberal statues pushing their perverted agendas.

Obviously depictions of Jesus in a loincloth graphically impaled on the cross, is perfectly acceptable for children. But the masterpiece David is just too much.

You don’t get it because you don’t want to get it. That’s too bad.

[DGUtley]

Michelangelo's David is a "liberal statue"?

[Tahuyaman]

Michelangelo's David is a "liberal statue"?

Someone who would say that completely misses the point. It’s my position that the statue is neither a liberal or conservative piece of art.

It is however a piece of art which is something young children are not yet mature enough to examine and learn about what and who it represents.

Actually I’m mildly surprised no one raised any “church and state” issues pertaining to this statue. I’m certain many people believe David is a mythical figure who never did exist.

[DGUtley]

I don't know at what age David would be appropriate, although, there are many stained glass windows that some might deem inappropriate in churches. 5th or 6th maybe. If it was my children, I probably wouldn't cover it up or remove it. It's life, it's not pornographic it is art.

I think that parents complaining about Michelangeo's David complaining it is some sort of woke indoctrination are silly. It is art. It is classical art. If you don't want your child to see it, ask that your child be sent to the library. It would've let my two daughters see it. Then again, my two daughters went to Catholic school for K-8 where sculptures were nothing new - books and in buildings.

[Collateral Damage]

Age appropriate is a wide open discussion. You'd be hard pressed to collectively define appropriate ages for such things between even as few as a dozen people.

As with most things, maturity differs, that's common knowledge. That's when erring to the conversative side in school, leaves the path open for parents to address it at home if the need or question arises.

Leaving the judgement in the hands of educators, who cannot possibly know the degree of maturity in each child on every subject, is a opening a door best left closed.

[Collateral Damage]

AFIK, they begin teaching sex ed in the 5th and 6th grades, so kids should know about human physiology by then, even if they have been protected from seeing a naked body of the opposite sex up until that point.

5th and 6th grade, depending on your definition of 'sex ed' makes the kids 9 or 10 years old. We got the 'mystery movies' (menstruation and morning erection) in 6th grade, because some kids were already experiencing the onset of puberty. We didn't have 'sex ed', where actual 'sex' was discussed, along with reproduction technical aspects, until we were 12-13. Even then, some kids weren't ready for it.

This is where the parents should be making some decisions for their children, I don't agree with schools making all decisions that can affect kids perspective.

[invictus]

Someone who would say that completely misses the point. It’s my position that the statue is neither a liberal or conservative piece of art.

It is however a piece of art which is something young children are not yet mature enough to examine and learn about what and who it represents.

Actually I’m mildly surprised no one raised any “church and state” issues pertaining to this statue. I’m certain many people believe David is a mythical figure who never did exist.

I don't want to look back through the thread but these were 6th graders right? Don't you think that by that time they are fully aware about the sexual nature of life?

This takes me back to some time ago when a lot of folks complained that schools were giving away condoms to teenagers... But the reality is that teenagers are having sex and there is nothing you can do to stop it. What you can do is encourage them to have sex responsibly... So I think the same concept should apply here. 6th graders are no uninformed as much as some folks believe here. Especially in todays world where no amount of parental control is going to stop them from peeking and probably masturbating to porn that that age...

[Dr. Who]

5th and 6th grade, depending on your definition of 'sex ed' makes the kids 9 or 10 years old. We got the 'mystery movies' (menstruation and morning erection) in 6th grade, because some kids were already experiencing the onset of puberty. We didn't have 'sex ed', where actual 'sex' was discussed, along with reproduction technical aspects, until we were 12-13. Even then, some kids weren't ready for it.

This is where the parents should be making some decisions for their children, I don't agree with schools making all decisions that can affect kids perspective.

This was a class in Renaissance art. The statue of David was a little controversial in its time, but I think that in 2023 there are so many worse things that children are seeing than a statue of a nude male. Why are we so disturbed by the sight of our own anatomy that we think it would be harmful to children?

I understand ensuring that children are not growing up too fast, but anatomy is not sex.