Muskogee, Oklahoma, 2001

One of the earliest twenty-first century challenges to Lee’s novel came during the summer of 2001 in the northeastern Oklahoma community of Muskogee. The community of nearly 40,000 residents is home to four institutions of higher education and two public school districts. Mockingbird came under scrutiny in one of the public school districts during its annual high school curriculum revision. During that process, a committee determined that the novel was unsuitable for the required reading list for freshman high school students. According to members of the committee, the book was not actually being banned per se, but was instead being delisted from the curriculum.

According to Muskogee High School principal Terry Saul, a panel of “teachers and administrators made the decision because the book contained derogatory and racist language that could offend African-Americans” (“High School Yanks” n.p.). Saul reported that the high school had a “59 percent African-American population” and when a school has a population that diverse it has “to be sensitive” to issues of race. (“High School Yanks” n.p.). Saul went on to say that the school wished “to develop a climate of mutual respect among all kids” and that the administrators “didn’t want a book that would make students feel uncomfortable” (“High School Yanks” n.p.).

Reaction to the novel being removed from the required reading list was swift. Michael Camfield, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union chapter in Oklahoma, argued that “‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ is about as overtly anti-racist as you can get in a novel.” He went on to say that he thought “the anti-racist message would be apparent to any reasonable reader” (“High School Yanks” n.p.). Joann Bell, director of the Oklahoma chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the ban “ludicrous” and said “If you want to look for racism, you can find it anywhere” (“Novel Removed” n.p.). The American Library Association also chimed in when the director of their office for intellectual freedom, Judith Krug, said the book “is material that I believe can well be read in high school and what better place to talk about these kinds of issues” (“Novel Removed”).

Unlike most instances when a book is challenged, in Muskogee the novel was not actually banned or even removed from the high school library. Principal Saul noted that the decision was not based upon student or parental complaints but had instead been made solely by the committee that sets curriculum for Muskogee High School students. Saul made it clear that the book was freely available to those students wanting to read it (“High School Yanks”). Despite that fact, by October of 2001 the school board voted to reverse its decision to remove Mockingbird from the required reading list. Commenting on the reversal, assistant principal Dan Hattaway said, “If you threw out everything that was objectionable to people, we’d be using a watered-down version or we’d all be reading Dr. Seuss” (“School Board Reinstates” 2A)

Glynn County, Georgia, 2001

The second challenge in 2001 came later in the year from the coastal area surrounding Jekyll Island in Georgia. This time the challenge did not begin with Mockingbird but instead originated from parental complaints about J. D. Salinger’s novel The Catcher in the Rye. After hearing complaints from parents, the Glynn County School Board decided to expand the ban beyond Catcher and began “considering a comprehensive anti-profanity policy that would ban any books, programs and activities that contain bad words” (“Glynn Board Upset” F6). That move immediately brought Mockingbird into the fold.

According to an Associated Press report in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, board member Pat Ulmer was the first to consider removing Salinger’s acclaimed novel from Glynn County schools. The article also noted that the novel was to be excluded from the high school curriculum because it “contains multiple uses of profanity and references to homosexuality and drinking alcohol” (“Glynn Board Upset” F6). Still others found the 1951 novel “offensive because of the narrator’s use of profanity and his cynical, rebellious attitude” (“Barnes Dislikes” C5).

As a result of the comprehensive antiprofanity policy, Mockingbird soon became a part of the discussion. The blanket policy quickly drew sharp opposition. Associated Press reports from the time indicated that “150 parents, teachers and students crowded into a school board meeting” to complain about the plan (“Glynn Board Upset” F6). Many local high school teachers chimed in, asking questions such as “Who can judge what is profanity?” and “Who will decide and how will they decide?” Ingrid Metz, a Brunswick High School teacher, noted that “The Bible, Shakespeare and the dictionary all have profanity. Are we going to ban them?” Ulmer, the board member who initiated the challenge, said “such material conflicts with the state’s mandated character education program, which states that ‘… profanity will not be used in any instructional program or activity’” (“Glynn Board Upset” F6). According to one report, however, eventually “no action was taken, and the book was retained” (Sova 277). Incidentally, this was not the first time the Glynn County Board of Education had dealt with a request to remove materials from the required reading list. In 1997, a student complained that Catcher in the Rye contained “690 cuss words” and said she believed she was “as qualified as anyone to judge the quality” of high school reading materials (qtd. in Cragin 7).

Normal, Illinois, 2003

Mockingbird landed on another list of so-called undesirable novels in 2003, this time in the Unit 5 school district of Normal, Illinois. Besides Mockingbird, the list of novels considered for removal from sophomore literature classes included John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and Lorraine Hansberry’s Raisin in the Sun. The objections to the novels arose based upon the number of racial slurs they contained. One complainant, Normal resident Jerry James, said, “There needs to be a lot more discussion and there needs to be different opinions discussed.” James went on to say, “Nobody is willing to deal with the deep psychological issues” the books might arouse. Rozalind Hopgood, the parent of a Normal student, noted that the concerned parents had “never asked that these books be banned” but instead “asked that they be removed from the required reading list” (Loda, “Turning” A8).

The initial board meeting to discuss removal of the novels focused mostly on Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, with the majority of speakers indicating they wanted the novel removed from the sophomore literature class. One parent initially complained that “it contains racial slurs, profanity and violence” and that it “does not represent traditional values, is culturally insensitive and conflicts with a board policy regarding educational materials.” (Loda, “Book Battle” A1). The daughter of that parent told reporter Rebecca Loda of the Pantagraph that “she felt degraded by the novel and spent several weeks in the library while it was being studied in class” (Loda, “Book Battle” A1). While the majority of speakers at the board meeting opposed the novels, three Normal Community High School students spoke up in support, with one student saying “the language made her angry and is meant to be analyzed,” and that “the language promotes change” (Loda, “Book Battle” A14).

In response to the parental complaints, the district formed the Unit 5 Diversity Advisory Committee. Made up of parents and community members, the committee provided alternative reading titles for students who were offended by novels such as Mockingbird or Of Mice and Men. At the same time, the committee also recommended removing certain titles from the required reading list for sophomore-level literature classes taught in the district. Of the initial list of titles, the advisory committee voted to retain Mockingbird, A Raisin in the Sun, and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. For the books not recommended for retention, the group suggested alternative books be selected instead.

The district’s executive director of secondary education, Bruce Boswell, said the district planned to purchase all of the recommended alternative books but that they intended to discuss the other committee recommendations. One thing everyone agreed upon was the diversity committee’s recommendation that “teachers learn about diversity and sensitivity in the classroom” and that “read-along guides should be sent home while a book is being studied” (Loda, “Turning” A8).

Columbus, Indiana, 2003

A different type of challenge to Mockingbird came in late 2003 when a high school stage production of the novel was canceled on account of complaints. At issue was Lee’s use of a racial slur, which led Columbus East High School to cancel a scheduled three-day run of the play. Oddly, the novel had been part of the school’s curriculum for many years prior to the play’s cancellation, as it was part of the ninth-grade required reading list. However, the Columbus-Bartholomew Chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) opposed it on the ground that it contained offensive racial slurs.

According to reporting by Peter Szatmary in the Indianapolis Star, the play director at Columbus East consulted with Gwen Higgins, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, who was “at first warily supportive” but “ultimately opposed it because of the racial slur against blacks” (Szatmary, “Reading” E1). Szatmary reported that it was unclear whether Higgins “spoke on the chapter’s behalf or gave her private opinion.” The NAACP had at one point “recommended modifying or eliminating the word” as administrators at Columbus East worked with them and the parents of students who would be offended by the racial epithet (Szatmary, “Reading” E1).

In an attempt to avoid canceling the play, the director of the Columbus East production initially held rehearsals without using the slur (Szatmary, “School Theater” A1). In fact, the director planned to have “onstage disclaimers, post-show discussions and classroom follow-ups,” but upon requesting the change from Dramatic Publishing, the company that owned the rights to the play, their request was denied. The play’s publishers, according to the Star, cited censorship and violation of copyright laws as reasons for their denial (Szatmary, “Reading” E5). Assistant principal Gary Goshorn, who asked the publisher for the change, said, “It would have been easy to just” put on the play as planned, “and we’ve found [that] some communities have” done so, but he questioned “what message that would send to the kids” (Szatmary, “Reading” E5).

After weeks of work preparing for the play, especially in building the stage, the unexpected cancellation left the Columbus East theater department scrambling to find an alternative work to perform. However, members of the local community banded together to hold a stage reading of Mockingbird at the Crump Theater. The group, calling themselves The Show Must Go On Productions, created the stage reading to “ensure that the individual patron of the arts has the choice to decide whether or not a play is offensive,” arguing that Mockingbird “tackles themes of racial tolerance, gender identity, gun control and racial profiling” (Szatmary, “Reading” E5). The reading, which included black cast members, was staged on multiple nights.

Brentwood, Tennessee, 2006

In Brentwood, Tennessee, a communications glitch in early 2006 would result in an anonymous effort to remove Mockingbird from Williamson County Schools. The glitch in question prevented Brentwood Middle School principal Kay Kendrick from receiving an e-mail from the parent of an eighth-grade student. According to Kendrick, neither she nor the student’s teacher received the e-mail expressing the parent’s desire that the student not read Mockingbird. The principal later stated that had either of them received the e-mail they “would have instantly pulled that student from the classroom” (Booth, “Brentwood” 7). However, because neither responded to the initial e-mail, the parent anonymously mailed a paper petition to parents asking for their support to ban the book from all Williamson County Schools.

The petition, which went out to the parents of nearly 900 students, claimed Mockingbird “‘promotes racial hatred, racial division, racial separation and promotes white supremacy,’ due to its use of racial slurs” (Booth, “Brentwood” 7). The writer of the petition also contacted the Tennessean with yet another anonymous statement, this time to ask why a school board would let black children read a book that the writer claimed would harm them. According to reporter Charles Booth, the statement’s writer asked, “What is the motive for having an African American child read this book? Is the Board or is America trying to secretly destroy the self image, self confidence and self worth of African American children?” Furthermore, the writer alleged that “To Kill a Mockingbird can be seen as an instruction manual on racism—all in the name of ‘classical literature’ and it has no place in the public schools of America” (Booth, “‘Mockingbird’ Debate” 7).

Reaction to the petition, and especially to the anonymity of the writer, was mixed. Most disagreed with the attempt to ban the novel, and many took offense at the unsigned petition. Booth reported that “Brentwood Middle parent Jeri Daniels said what struck her about the petition was that it was unsigned,” and that she thought that was “kind of chicken” (Booth, “Petition” B1). Brentwood resident Edythe Nash noted the book “could be interpreted” as racist, but she argued that its purpose was to depict a father who “is trying to teach his children that racism and discrimination and hatred is not a way that he wants them to act” (Booth, “Brentwood” 7).

This was not the first instance of a challenge to an award-winning novel dealt with by the Williamson County School Board. Just five years earlier, there had been a challenge to Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s National Book Award winner, Slaughterhouse-Five (Booth, “Brentwood” 7). In that case, the board voted to retain the novel with a 5-to-3 vote, just as it would later vote to retain Mockingbird in 2006. Thanks to the board’s decision to retain Mockingbird, the Williamson County Board of Education would go on to win the SLATE Intellectual Freedom Award, which was presented by the National Council of Teachers of English, for taking a “stand in favor of classic American literature” (Giordano U3).

Cherry Hill, New Jersey, 2007

A little-reported incident that resulted in a unanimous resolution to keep Mockingbird in the Cherry Hill High School English curriculum occurred in the 2007 academic year when an attempt to ban Mockingbird came before the local board of education. According to reporter Barbara S. Rothschild of the Camden, New Jersey, Courier-Post, a local resident “objected to the novel’s depiction of how blacks are treated by members of a racist white community” and “feared the book would upset black children reading it” (Rothschild, “Cherry Hill” 18B).

In response to the resident’s complaint, the school board formed a committee that included two board members, a teacher, an assistant principal, the director of curriculum at Cherry Hill, the assistant superintendent, and the superintendent. The committee found that Mockingbird should remain in the curriculum and as a result the board voted 8 to 0 to retain the novel. However, the board took additional steps to ensure it was being taught in a sensitive manner. According to Rothschild, “all high school English teachers will undergo in-service training focused on the book, emphasizing sensitivity when addressing racism of any kind and better awareness of student reactions to such material” (Rothschild, “Cherry Hill” 18B).

This was not the first instance of objections to literature taught at Cherry Hill. In 1996, local residents objected to the content in Huckleberry Finn and the “way it was being taught in the high schools.” Danny Elmore, a member of the Cherry Hill African American Civic Association, was quoted by Rothschild as saying, “we dealt with the Huck Finn issue and thought it was over. It wasn’t. Students are still suffering” (Rothschild, “Cherry Hill” 18B).

Brampton, Ontario, 2009

Students attending St. Edmund Campion School in Brampton, Ontario, found themselves at the center of another attempt to ban Mockingbird, as principal Kevin McGuire pulled the novel from their reading list in 2009 because one parent had personally complained to him. As is often the case with Lee’s novel, this attempt to ban it was based upon Lee’s use of a particular racial slur. The book, which was part of the Grade 10 reading list, was removed as a result of a single complaint. Ironically, Ontario education minister Kathleen Wynne saw the removal as “a great opportunity to find a Canadian novel to put on that course’s reading list” (“Open Books”).

Response to the Brampton ban was not much different from most attempts. One editorial writer noted “the ludicrous scenario of protecting 15-year-old Grade 10 students from a naughty word in a book when, long before they reached high school, they were well-versed in all the naughty words English has to offer” (“Open Books” n.p.). Still others reacted to the ban in a positive manner, with one person calling principal McGuire “enlightened.” That person went on to say that Mockingbird and similar books “are outdated, racist and do not belong in school” (Keith, “Racist Reading” n.p.). Journalist Natalie Alcoba reported that “proponents [of the novel] agree it is sensitive material that requires thoughtful discussion and analysis, but not censorship, while critics say the solution is not to ban, but rather to widen the lens through which a seminal moment in civil rights history is understood” (“To Ban” n.p.).

Interestingly enough, principal McGuire banned Mockingbird without having the parent file a written complaint. Instead, he banned the novel based upon a single verbal objection from the parent, although the parent did indicate an intention to file a written complaint in the fall. Such a complaint would have triggered a review by the Challenged Materials Review Committee. According to the Brampton Guardian, that review would typically involve additional “input from board librarians, religious coordinators, trustees, and local superintendent and parents” (Belgrave, “Wrong” n.p.).

Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 2013

Unlike other bans and challenges mentioned in this chapter, the events that took place in Plaquemines Parish warrant discussion because a ban of Mockingbird was reversed after twelve years. Interestingly, members of the Plaquemines Parish School Board did not know that a ban was in place and only became aware of it when it was brought to their attention that local teachers were reading the novel to their students in violation of the 2001 edict.

Upon learning of the ban, copies of Mockingbird were quickly removed by the district while administrators sorted matters out. Learning of this action, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana demanded the novel be returned to the classroom. According to reporting by news station WAFB, Marjorie Esman, the executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said the ban had “been there for quite some time” and “never should have been implemented in the first place” (“12-Year Ban” n.p.). District officials noted they “took the initial action after they received complaints from some parents who believed the material, which deals with rape and racial prejudice, was inappropriate.” After looking into the matter, they said that while the book was “deemed unsuitable” in 2001, the “ban had largely gone unenforced in recent years” (“School Board Lifts Ban” n.p.). They then held a special meeting that resulted in the immediate reinstatement of Mockingbird. Superintendent Denis Rousselle also recommended that the board remove “any limitations on instructional materials” and implement reviews of policies and procedures for school texts and literature (“School Board Lifts Ban” n.p.)

Whether or not local teachers knew of the ban remains unclear. Some reports stated they did not know, while other reporting indicated that they were surreptitiously sidestepping the ban by quietly teaching the novel (Rawley n.p.). Esman, speaking for the ACLU, said, “obviously the teachers didn’t agree with [the ban] and they’ve been teaching the book anyway” (“12-year Ban” n.p.).

Accomack County, Virginia, 2016

In Accomack County, Virginia, an attempt to ban both Mockingbird and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn came after a parental complaint that a racial slur appears 48 times in Mockingbird and 219 times in Huck Finn. As a result, and in accordance with the Accomack Public Schools policy manual, both titles were temporarily suspended from use in classrooms and libraries throughout the county school district. According to superintendent Chris Holland, a committee was formed to look into the complaint prior to any action being taken. That committee consisted of “the principal, the library media specialist, the classroom teacher (if involved), a parent and/or student, and the complainant” (Chesson, “Parent” A3).

Marie Rothstein-Williams, the white parent of a biracial child, initiated the complaint, saying, “there is so much racial slurs in there and offensive wording that you can’t get past that.” She also stated that she understood the books are literary classics, but that “at some point I feel the children will not or do not truly get the classic part” (Chesson, “Accomack” A5). A number of students and parents disagreed with her assessment of the novels and protested outside the local courthouse during a rally in support of both books. The students also gathered signatures for two separate petitions—one to reinstate both books and the other seeking a referendum to have school board officials elected rather than appointed.

The Accomack County School Board ultimately voted to return both titles to classrooms and libraries. While agreeing “that some of the language is offensive and hurtful,” chairman Ronnie E. Holden went on to say that the county’s “excellent teachers and media center specialists have a wonderful talent for conveying the bigger meanings and messages of literature.” As a result of the challenge, Holden initiated a new process where the superintendent would have discretion to keep challenged materials in the schools until the review process was completed (Chesson, “Accomack” A5).

Biloxi, Mississippi, 2017

Without so much as a vote by the local school board, Mockingbird was pulled from eighth-grade English language arts classes after complaints about its language. Kenny Holloway, vice president of the Biloxi School Board, noted the decision to pull the book was the result of an “administrative and departmental decision” and “not something that the school board voted on.” However, the board would soon become heavily involved as the school district became the focus of a national outcry over the decision to ban the award-winning novel.

According to Holloway, there were multiple complaints about the language used by Lee in Mockingbird. Noting there is “some language in the book that makes people uncomfortable,” Holloway said the school district can “teach the same lesson with other books.” While assuring people the book would remain in the library, he indicated that the school would indeed use another book for the course. While not mentioning Mockingbird by name, and seemingly sidestepping the controversial decision, superintendent Arthur McMillan also indicated that there “are many resources and materials that are available to teach state academic standards to our students.” Many were not happy with the decision to pull the novel, with readers telling the Biloxi Sun Herald that the decision was made “mid-lesson plan, the students will not be allowed to finish the reading of ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ … due to the use of the ‘N’ word” (Nelson, “Biloxi School District” n.p.)

It took only a matter of weeks for school officials to reverse course and reinstate the book, though with added oversight and curricular changes. Students were still able to read the novel but only after first asking to participate and with a permission slip signed by a parent. Parents were also informed that Mockingbird would not be on the required reading list for students but would instead be part of “an in-depth book study of the novel during regularly scheduled classes as well as the optional after school sessions.” Moreover, while the intensive book study would not take place every day, principal Scott Powell indicated it would be completed in less than two months (“Mississippi School District” n.p.).

Duluth, Minnesota, 2018

Another attempt to ban both Mockingbird and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn came after years of complaints about racial slurs, this time in Minnesota. According to reporting in the Appleton, Wisconsin, Post-Crescent, the concerns about language in both books had been raised by parents, students, and community groups. Duluth’s district director of curriculum and instruction Michael Cary reported that the “feedback that we’ve received is that it makes many students feel uncomfortable.” The move was also said to be “part of an effort to be considerate to all students, particularly students of color.” Cary also asserted that “Conversations about race are an important topic” and that the district wanted to make sure they “address those conversations in a way that works well for all of our students” (“Minnesota District” A9).

The attempt to ban Mockingbird at Duluth’s Denfeld High School was supported by at least one English teacher. Brian Jungman, who had used the novel in his classes for years, said that he understood “that other books might resonate more with today’s students.” Noting that Lee wrote Mockingbird to “explain racism to primarily a white audience,” Jungman went on to say that his school’s “African-American population doesn’t need to have racism explained to them.” Duluth’s NAACP chapter agreed with Jungman and said the curriculum change was “long overdue.” Others rose to the defense of Mockingbird, including the National Coalition Against Censorship, which called that book and other challenged titles “literary masterpieces” and suggested “We’re potentially treating students too delicately.” Former student Crystal Wirtz said that she didn’t “remember feeling uncomfortable while discussing the book as one of only a few African-American students in her classroom.” Wirtz went on to say that her teachers “were straightforward about the language” and “made clear that it’s not appropriate to use today” (Louwagie, “In Book Debate” A1).

Monona Grove, Wisconsin, 2018

Yet another challenge to Mockingbird would take place in 2018 as the Monona Grove School Board rejected a complaint brought by the parents of a ninth-grade student. Tujama and Jeanine Kameeta, parents of a Monona Grove High School freshman, said that Lee’s novel “provides no educational value” and is itself racist “due to how themes are presented and because of its use of racial slurs.” Though the Kameetas found the book suitable for library use, they deemed it inappropriate for the ninth-grade English curriculum (Rivedal, “Harper Lee” B2).

After the Kameetas filed their complaint in December of 2017, the Monona Grove School Board formed a committee to review the matter. Two months later, that committee voted 4 to 1 “to retain the novel with further examination by the English Department” (Wroge, “Board Votes” A12). After learning of the committee’s vote, the Kameetas appealed the decision to the full board. In April, six of the seven members of the board met and deadlocked in a 3 to 3 vote to uphold the committee’s decision. In a follow-up meeting in May, the board voted 6 to 1 to uphold the committee’s decision to retain Mockingbird. As part of that vote, the board also allowed “the English Department to further examine the novel, the context [in which] it is taught, other equivalent readings and other ways the book could be used in class” (Wroge, “Monona Board” A4).

As is often the case, supporters for and against retaining the novel provided input during the multiple board meetings. Jeremy Duss, a Monona Grove teacher, considered it “critical that the School Board and district administrators continue to trust the English Department,” arguing that their department should not be one “that bans books and avoids difficult topics.” Others argued that the “School Board represents minority students along with its teachers” and that they should “empathize with the experience of students of color” (Wroge, “Board Votes” A12). Board member and associate principal James Kamoku said that although Mockingbird is an “awesome read,” he would like to “see the number of books in the ninth grade English class that deal with issues of racism expanded” (Wroge, “Parents Appeal” B2.)

Conclusion

Challenges to Mockingbird have occurred regularly since shortly after its publication in 1960. Despite being hailed as one of the greatest works of twentieth-century literature, it has repeatedly been challenged, and sometimes banned, when it has been part of public school curricula. As the foregoing reports suggest, the novel has been the target of numerous challenges, mostly on account of its use of the N-word. However, its discussions of sexuality and rape have also resulted in challenges. Moreover, while many people see Mockingbird as an inherent indictment of racism, others argue it is racist itself, or even that it promotes racism. This argument is not all that surprising as the novel honestly and accurately portrays the ways racists typically speak. The problems Mockingbird raises exemplify the problems raised by many other classics of American literature.

Works Cited