Killing mockingbirds
Parent, NAACP say racially insensitive language in Harper Lee’s ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ sends the wrong message to today’s children
By Kevin Uhrich 03/16/2006
See below for letters related to this story.
A racially charged situation that crosses lines of private education, free speech and equal rights is brewing in a Pasadena school where kids are being taught from the book “To Kill a Mockingbird” as part of their English lessons.
In 1960, Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel provided a clarion voice for supporters of civil rights and equal justice. Utilizing language common at the time of its setting in the Deep South of the 1930s, Lee’s book is peppered with racial epithets regarding African Americans.
The novel was turned into an Academy Award-winning film in 1962 starring the late actors Brock Peters and Gregory Peck. Peck played the book’s main character, Atticus Finch, whom the movie industry Web site www.imdb.com described as “a lawyer in the Depression-era South [who] defends a black man [Peters] against an undeserved rape charge and his kids against prejudice.”
Despite the book’s good intentions, however, NAACP Pasadena Branch President Joe Brown and Chandler parent Jim Morris want it taken out of the school’s English curriculum.
Neither Brown nor Morris want to take it out of the library. But using the book and its questionable language to teach young children lessons in English runs the risk of “sending the wrong message” to children.
Other parents, however, disagree. Nancy McSween, former owner of The Bakery, said children are exposed to that offensive word, along with other words that degrade women, every time they listen to popular music.
“Our kids are now being exposed to things so much earlier than they used to be,” said McSween, who once worked as an investigator of child and elderly abuse for the state Attorney General’s Office.
With rap, she said, “not only do [artists] use the ‘N’ word on a regular basis, but they call women bitches and whores on a regular basis. Therefore, our kids, no matter what school they are going to and no matter how much they go to church, are being exposed to the same things.”
Head of the school John Finch said he has met with parents and civil rights advocates several times over this issue since November. A committee of African-American families (there are presently 30 African-American families enrolled at Chandler, and eight of 61 eighth graders are African-American) was formed to study the issue.
One of the solutions that the committee came up with was eliminating the word “nigger,” which appears in the novel more than 300 times, from discussions. Lee’s book has been part of the school’s English curriculum for the past 15 years.
Then Finch said the school brought in an African-American poet to explain the power of words to the kids. Finch later personally spoke to the children to reiterate the school’s position that the use of that word would not be tolerated and would likely result in suspension or detention, as it did for one student who called another student that word four years ago. Then Finch followed up the talk with a letter to parents, stating much the same positions.
“We took a lot of additional steps, but we did not remove the book. But this apparently was not good enough for Mr. Morris. He wants the book removed from the curriculum, but we are simply not going to do that. But I respect his point of view,” Finch said.
Finch said a friend who heads another school recently remarked that “Atticus Finch would be rolling in his grave if he knew John Finch was removing this book from the curriculum.”
Even with all the additional steps to ensure that cultural and racial sensitivities are observed by teachers and students, Brown said the private school’s decision to keep teaching the book remains insensitive.
“There are numerous pages that contain the word ‘nigger.’ We are trying to get our youngsters to stop using such insensitive words,” Brown said. “If [children] learn those words by age 13, it won’t be long before that is imbedded in them. Not the word, but the use of the word.”
In a letter to Finch, Brown also objected to a recently held eighth-grade discussion on slavery in which the children were asked to describe what benefits there might have been of the institution of slavery for the South prior to the Civil War.
Brown said he was “deeply saddened” by the school’s decision to ignore his suggestions of having the book available in the library and to show the film, which minimizes the use of the word “nigger.”
“It is outrageous that something like this could happen under the guise of education in 2006. What insensitivity,” Brown wrote.
In his letter to parents, Morris, whose son attends eighth grade at Chandler, wrote that he felt the book was not suited for children that age. Further, Morris said that the child who used the offensive word a few years ago may not have been punished severely enough to prevent such a thing from occurring again. That child only received a lunchtime detention.
“This letter should not be construed as an attempt at censorship; rather, it is simply an instance whereby the teaching of a novel, despite its journalistic excellence, will serve to do more harm than good,” Morris continued. “There is no doubt in my mind that any text which contains an excess of 300 racial slurs, whether they be ‘kike,’ ‘chink,’ ‘cracker,’ or, in this instance, ‘nigger’ (the ‘N’ word), would be objected to in any context that was specific to the education of young children.”
Finch, however, said the school will continue using the book in its English classes, and added that the school teaches “core values that center around equality, justice and diversity, and we have gone through a lengthy process in which we’ve talked to parents about the presence of the ‘N’ word. … We want to make sure children learn about justice and injustice, and one way to show that is to show negative and positive examples.” For those reasons, he said, “‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is an important book.”
McSween’s husband, Daniel, was a member of the parents’ committee that worked on ways to lessen the negative impacts of the book. “And I would have to say,” said Daniel McSween, “my impression of the meeting was there was no full consensus of opinion that the book should not be taught.”
For the couple’s eighth-grade daughter, Ariel, the issue is a tempest in a teapot.
“God, this is so stupid,” Ariel McSween said, adding that she knows of four or five kids who have race-related problems reading the book in class. “In the seventh grade we read a book that had parts about masturbation,” she recalled. “Now we have one that has the ‘N’ word. And now there is a big controversy?”
Said Nancy McSween, “If I thought ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ would hurt my child or cripple my child, I would be picketing.”
March 3, 2006
The Eighth Grade Parents of The Chandler School
Dear Parents:
I am writing this letter in response to the correspondence dated January 31, 2006, mailed to the families of The Chandler School, regarding the decision to teach the book, To Kill a Mockingbird. On November 29, 2005, the African-American families, including myself, were invited to a meeting at which many of us objected to this book being taught, on the grounds of its negative representation of African-Americans. Although I have an understanding of the historical context of this story, I feel this selection is a poor choice to relay the climate of the time period to junior high school students and also insulting and demeaning to African-Americans.
In addition, most eighth grade children simply do not have the intellectual and emotional maturity to effectively process and understand the story in such a way as to enable them to separate the historical content from the requisite racial sensitivity we face in present day America. Just a few years ago, Ted and Stacy Milner’s daughter was called a “nigger” following the reading of this text. The responsible student’s punishment was a lunch detention. Thus, there will most certainly be one or more racially charged incidents that occur as a result of, yet again, introducing this book to our children. Furthermore, I am not so sure that the disciplinary measures taken in the past are enough to discourage the children from using a term they are approved to read over 300 times in the classroom.
This letter should not be construed as an attempt at censorship; rather, it is simply an instance whereby the teaching of a novel, despite its journalistic excellence, will serve to do more harm than good. There is no doubt in my mind that any text which contains an excess of 300 racial slurs, whether they be “kike,” “chink,” “cracker,” or in this instance, “nigger” (the “N” word), would be objected to in any context that was specific to the education of young children. A similar situation would not be tolerated, yet alone discussed if the ethnicity of the effected community was anything other than African-American. One of the Board Members present at the meeting in November admitted that in a similar situation, he would object to his child reading a novel which referred to Jews as “kikes.”
The decision to use the “N” word instead of the word “nigger,” as suggested by Mr. Finch, is no less demeaning for our children than the actual word itself. This word is used, not exclusively, as an abusive term of the past as Mr. Finch states, but is quite commonly used among racists of today. When asked as to whether another text could serve the same objective as To Kill a Mockingbird, Marie Kidd answered that there was in fact other texts which could be used in its place. Yet neither of those was selected, despite the unrest that has followed this literary choice. One could think we could progress beyond this book and identity another text which could serve in its place.
Per your assembling a Diversity Committee to discuss this issue, I am concerned that those chosen for this committee did not represent the vast and various opinions of Chandler’s African-American community. Furthermore, it would have been more appropriate to welcome all of the eighth grade parents, if not the entire Chandler community, to this discussion.
Despite the feeling of some parents, administrators and teachers within the Chandler community that the school would be better served by fewer African-American families, if any at all, I am absolutely certain that many more of those same representative groups are supportive of working toward and maintaining a diverse community. In our meeting on November 29, 2005, Mr. Finch stated that those families that did not like or agree with the administration’s decision regarding this issue, should find another school. That statement is not what I consider to be that of an individual or educational institution who is compassionate and has the level of sensitivity that is indicative of values grounded within cultural diversity and inclusion.
As always, I am open to discussion about this issue or any other that many enlighten and grow Chandler into an institution of academic challenge, wealth and security to all of its attendants.
Sincerely,
Jim Morris
cc: John Finch, Marie Kidd, The Chandler Board of Directors
Pasadena NAACP
595 Lincoln Avenue, Suite 103
Pasadena, California 91103
(626) 793-1293
Fax (626) 793-1555
March 9, 2006
Mr. John Finch, Principal
Chandler School
1005 Armada Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91103
This is a follow up to our meeting at my office on March 8, 2006. The package outlining Chandler School’s Mission, Goals and Principles of Good Practice and Community will be shared with others to peruse.
While I agree that Chandler is a prestigious school, there are many things we disagree on; (1) To require students to write paragraphs on DEFENDING SLAVERY is culturally demeaning, and (2) the requirement of the book “To Kill A Mockingbird” as a mandatory instructional tool for learning.
In December 2005, the 8th grade history class was given a homework assignment to write a paragraph defending slavery. The next day, the substitute teacher referred to the black slaves as Horses, Used Cars, and Dogs several times. At that point, one of the African-American students asked her to stop referring to them in that way. She then informed the student “Well, that’s how they saw them back then.” She also had the children read their homework assignment aloud in class. Answers like, “slavery was good for the economy and because of slavery, blacks had food and shelter; and they took care of the slaves.” As per our discussion in my office, this can not be considered as anything but demeaning and insensitive to the African-American students.
Later that same period, the sub teacher asked one of the kids to read what the slaves taught their children. The text read, “Not to talk back to whites and obey their masters.” The substitute teacher then motioned toward this African-American student’s desk and said, “and to be obedient in class and to control their temper.”
Sometimes during the next week, several parents met with you to express their concerns and to discuss the book. You at that time apologized on behalf of the school and the sub teacher. As told to me in our meeting, you were very emphatic that the book would not be dropped from the required reading lest at Chandler.
As an additional point of information, a former student, who is now a senior at Mayfield High School, was called a Nigger by one of her 7th grade classmates after the reading of the book. It is my understanding that after several parents voiced their concerns, the book was then made a reading requirement for the 8th grade.
Although this book is considered a classic and can be referred to as a valuable instructional tool, the use of the racial epithet “Nigger” over 300 times leaves much to be questioned. The use of this word or the referencing of it as the “N” word is totally unacceptable. Especially, when most African-Americans are attempting to REMOVE the word from their vocabulary. There is no proper context for use of this word.
We are deeply saddened that you would or did not consider several of the options suggested. One, having the book available in the library as suggested reading. And two, consider the option of viewing the film starring Gregory Peck in a classroom setting. This film provides visual representation of the book’s main points and diminishes its repetition of the offensive term “Nigger.”
It is outrageous that something like this could happen under the guise of education in 2006: what insensitivity. And now to allow this same volatile classic with the prevalent use of the “N” word to be taught again, reinforces the lingering attitudes that it’s OK to use such a word.
Would the use of the word “kike” be acceptable to the Jewish people in the education of their children or “honky” to White Americans?
I submit this letter as notification of our position on this subject with the hopes that you and your administration reconsider you stance and show the racial sensitivity. Social awareness can’t be a scapegoat to demoralize people of color. The “N” word is not one of endearment.
Cordially,
Joe Brown, President
DIGG | del.icio.us | REDDIT