School is where we send our children not only to learn—reading, writing, arithemetic—but also, one would hope, to think. It’s hard to see how kids are supposed to do that, though, when they go to schools where the grown-ups appear incapable of engaging in any form of critical thought or useful decision-making.

Via InstaPundit comes today’s “zero-tolerance policy” nightmare. Glenn points to a New York Times story about Zachary Christie, a 6-year-old from Delaware who is facing 45 days in a school for juvenile delinquents because he brought a utensil to school that was an all-in-one fork, spoon, and ... knife. You can see from the picture that the knife is tiny and designed for use as a utensil. But the school called it a “weapon” and suspended him.

It’s a big “duh” that kids shouldn’t be bringing weapons to school. No switch blades, no hunting knives, heck, I can’t think of a reason to bring a steak knife. But there is a wide, comfy berth for common sense somewhere in between “dagger” and “Cub Scout utensil.” And in Delaware the state code that prohibits “deadly weapons” on school grounds also permits schools to “on a case by case basis, modify the terms of the expulsion or determine that expulsion is not appropriate.” In other words, for grown-ups who are still grasping at reading comprehension, it means a school can do the right thing and NOT suspend a first-grader who wears a suit and tie to school some days and who participates in the talent show and the science fair and Little League.

Tags: education, schools, zero-tolerance policy

Ever wonder who deserves the blame—or praise—for unleashing Gossip Girl upon the world? Next week’s issue of The New Yorker has the answer: Alloy Entertainment, the juggernaut of young adult fiction. Alloy’s not only responsible for the Gossip Girl series, but also its clones The A-List (Gossip Girl moves to Los Angeles), The Clique (Gossip Girl goes back in time and winds up in middle school), and The Insiders (Gossip Girl gets a sex change)—as well as series like The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the best-selling murder mysteries Pretty Little Liars.

Unless you’ve worked in YA publishing, you’ve probably never heard of Alloy. That’s because Alloy is a book packager: They conceive and execute book projects—from the text to the covers—and sell them to publishing houses like Random House or Simon & Schuster, who release them under their banner. Alloy is also heavily involved in film, web, and TV projects; every book they create is a platform for cross-media exploitation.

Rebecca Mead’s profile is a fascinating, how-the-sausage-gets-made look into how these books get written (produced?) by committee; it’s kind of like getting a peek into the Mad Men writers’ room. But though Mead nods to Gossip Girl writer Cicely Von Ziegesar’s “mixed feelings about her reputation as as an author of books that even girls who don't like to read like to read,” the article doesn’t really tackle the central cultural question here: Are these YA books—which are engineered to give young readers exactly what they crave—good because, hey, they’re getting kids to read? Or are they insidious because they’re stuffing them with the literary equivalent of Frankenfood?

I tend to fall in the good-for-you camp: I was a big fan of Sweet Valley High and other potentially brain-rotting serials as a kid, and they not only served as a gateway to other, more “nutritious” literary fare, but they also fostered a sense that pleasure—pure, sugar-rush pleasure—was part of the reading experience. If I were a parent, I’d want my kids to feel the same way. Plus, some of these books sound really fun: I'm intrigued by the upcoming Wish series and the Rushdie-eqsue Midnighters.

Any DoubleX readers fans—or detractors—of Alloy titles? Have you read any that were spectacular?

Tags: alloy, gossip girl, new yorker, rebecca mead, sisterhood of the traveling pants

There’s always been something a little obnoxious about French Vogue’s attention-pleading “artistic” endeavors. Two years ago, the September issue featured some devil-worshipping size zeros drawing blood crosses on goats and last April’s rebellious motherhood spread unsurprisingly had the mom-o-sphere’s collective panties in a bunch. So what was left on the roster to draw gasps this month? Blackface, obviously.

In the latest issue, Dutch (and very white) model Lara Stone is painted black for an extensive photo shoot styled by editor Carine Roitfeld. I can see how one might position the spread more as social commentary rather than blatant racism—as the spread progresses, more patches of Stone’s real skin color keep breaking through, highlighting the fact that the previous shots were just a construction, that race itself is just a construction. But then again, Vogue doesn’t operate in a post-racial vacuum, and that’s a pretty obvious—not to mention grade-school simplistic—piece of social commentary to point out, especially when it hinges on something so historically offensive. It seems more likely that the blackface bet was taken to ensure that the spread would become a sensationalistic talking point. It may not be offensive, exactly, but it’s definitely obnoxious.

What is offensive: hiring a white woman to pose as a black woman when it’s no secret that black models rarely get jobs in the fashion world. To make matters worse, Jezebel points out that not one actual black model was used in the ENTIRE issue, and New York magazine’s blog The Cut names them:"The roster — including Kate Moss, Kristen McMenamy, Yasmin Le Bon, Eva Herzigova, Claudia Schiffer, Anna Selezneva, Diane Kruger, Constance Jabloski, and Eniko Mihalik — is entirely white."

Tags: blackface, French Vogue, Lara Stone

The real root of the vampire trend, according to Stephen Marche at Esquire, is that straight women want to have sex with gay guys. It’s an interesting thesis, but I’m not buying it.

Marche argues that Twilight’s Bella falls for Edward because he’s “strange, beautiful, and seemingly repulsed by her”—just like why the straight girls at his high school lusted after gay dudes. But the common thread among the triumvirate of recent vampire hotties—Edward, True Blood’s Bill, and Buffy’s Angel—isn’t that they’re “strange, beautiful, and seemingly repulsed by” the nonvamp women who love them. What they share is being hot, strong, and supremely protective. They lurk in shadows, lending a slaying hand when Buffy is outnumbered; avenging Sookie’s childhood molestation; stopping the car on a collision course with Bella. That seems just about as heteronormative a fantasy as you can get.

Marche’s argument continues:

Vampire fiction for young women is the equivalent of lesbian porn for men: Both create an atmosphere of sexual abandon that is nonthreatening. That's what everybody wants, isn't it? Sex that's dangerous and safe at the same time, risky but comfortable, gooey and violent but also traditional and loving.

OK, I guess all of that sounds good. But how is having sex with someone who could kill you with a hickey “nonthreatening”? In most modern vampire dramas, the vamps are exerting tremendous, nonstop self-control to keep from chomping the woman they love. Having sex with them is the ultimate risk. As they usually tell their soon-to-be-lover in hushed undead pillow talk, they worry that once they let go a little, they’ll lose control entirely. And that’s not a groundless fear—look what happened to Angel.

Marche goes on to claim that True Blood “connects vampirism to homosexuality explicitly.” His proof: the roadside sign in the opening credits that says “God hates fangs” and general talk of “mainstreaming” vamps. Well, that points to the “vampires as social outcasts” theme. But it seems a big leap to get from that to “vampire craze as proof that all girls want to schtup gay guys.” I see the vampires' fight for equal rights in True Blood as similar to the struggles of mutants in X-Men. But in X-Men, that mutant/non-mutant tension seems more a stand-in for the relationship between blacks and whites (with Xavier as MLK and Magneto as Malcolm X) than a gay/straight thing. So, would Marche also says that X-Men comic books popular with nerdy boys because all nerdy boys want to have sex with black men? Or something?

Tags: gay rights, movies, Race, TV, vampires