When both the right and left criticize parts of any agreement, negotiators know they’ve found the sweet spot. “To Kill a Mockingbird,” the Harper Lee classic set in fictional 1930s Maycomb, Alabama, has found that sweet spot 63 years after it was written.
The book is now the target of both the right and left claiming it’s not suitable for young readers even though it’s been a staple in ninth and tenth grade literature classes for years. I taught “To Kill a Mockingbird” for 11 years.
It’s a coming-of-age novel. The narrator is Scout, telling the story about life with her widowed father, Atticus, and her brother, Jem.
Two plots drive powerful themes. One focuses on the trial of Tom Robinson, a Black man wrongfully accused of raping a white woman. Atticus is his appointed attorney. He proves Tom is innocent, but he is convicted. The other is about Scout, Jem, and a friend named Dill trying to lure a recluse from his home.
The right’s effort to ban the book is nothing new. The argument is it sends the message that all white people are racist villains. The newer version of the argument in Iowa claims topics like racism and rape are not “age appropriate.”
But now, some on the left have chimed in.
A recent discussion on a progressive Facebook group focused on the language of the book as being outdated, provocative, causing discomfort among minority students. The “n word” is frequently used by the southern whites and liberals say that causes needless discomfort for students of color.
Beginning in 2021 and culminating this year, four teachers in liberal Mukilteo School District in Washington state challenged “To Kill a Mockingbird,” as required reading.
They wrote, “The book centers on whiteness. It presents a barrier to understanding and celebrating an authentic Black point of view in the civil rights era literature and should be removed.” The school board removed it from required ninth grade reading.
Others on the Left claim Atticus represents a “white savior,” and it sends the wrong message to minority students.
The objections from both sides are misguided. First, even though fiction, the book teaches unvarnished history. It allows classrooms to discuss how the civil rights movement was born because of injustices like Tom’s trial.
Discomfort is why the book is required reading. Think back to the times when you walked away from class still thinking about a discussion. It was because that discussion provoked critical thinking.
One of the major themes of the book is treating everyone with dignity and respect regardless of race or status. That’s a theme we want adolescents to remember.
Whitewashing novels, or history to make kids and adults comfortable isn’t the answer. The answer is exploring themes like racism in the classroom, so students are prepared to deal with it.
Let’s not let either side keep our kids from experiencing uncomfortable conversations leading to real understanding.
Bruce Lear lives in Sioux City and has been connected to public schools for 38 years. He taught for 11 years and represented educators as an Iowa State Education Association Regional Director for 27 years until retiring. BruceLear2419@gmail.com
Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com
You must be logged in to post a comment Login