A teacher in WA state has caused quite a controversy by writing an editorial in which he urges that "Huck Finn", "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" be removed from the classroom and replaced with more contemporary novels.
In an editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer teacher and author John Foley writes:
The time has arrived to update the literature we use in high school classrooms. Barack Obama is president-elect of the United States, and novels that use the "N-word" repeatedly need to go.
To a certain extent, this saddens me, because I love "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Of Mice and Men" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." All are American classics, and my students read them as part of approved sophomore and junior units, as do millions of students across the nation.
They all must go.
I hope they go to private and public libraries and remain in high school classrooms. I would keep copies in my own classroom and encourage students to read them. But they don’t belong on the curriculum. Not anymore. Those books are old, and we’re ready for new.
This is an interesting argument which relies on the age of the novels and their appeal to students today vs. the inherent "racism" in each. The dates of publication for each novel is as follows:
To Kill a Mockingbird - 1960
Of Mice and Men - 1936
Huck Finn - 1884
When I see these dates lined up I start to question the "contemporary" issue Foley raises in his opinion piece. I wasn't born until the 1970s but I don't consider a novel written in 1960 to be "outdated." I was fortunate enough to attend a high school where my assigned literature was globally-based and included Nigerian author Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart," which was written in 1958 and which I recently read again - and it seemed as relevant as it did when I first read it.
Reading further in Foley's piece he takes a different tack, arguing that while "Of Mice and Men" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" aren't that old they are outdated in their treatment of black men.
John Steinbeck’s "Mice" and Harper Lee’s "Mockingbird" don’t belong on the curriculum, either. Atticus Finch, the heroic attorney in Lee’s novel, tells his daughter not to use the N-word because it’s "common." That might’ve been an enlightened attitude for a Southerner during the Great Depression, but is hopelessly dated now.
Perhaps that's true but do these books serve as interesting and effective jumping-off points for discussions about modern ideas of race or are they just "hopelessly dated now?" I remember having great discussions in high school around Steinbeck's "Grapes of Wrath" as well as Harper's "To Kill a Mockingbird." Have things changed so much these books no longer serve that purpose?
And what would Foley like to replace these books with?
What books should replace these classics? The easiest call is for "Mockingbird." David Guterson’s fine "Snow Falling on Cedars" has similar themes and many parallels, and since the novel is set in the San Juan Islands, it would hold more interest for Washington students than the Alabama setting of Lee’s novel.
I think a good substitute for "Mice" would be Tim O’Brien’s Vietnam novel "Going After Cacciato." Like George and Lennie in Steinbeck’s novel, Cacciato dreams of peace and a better world. And the Vietnam War is a more recent — and arguably more painful — era in American history than the Depression, and one of more interest to teens.
"Huck Finn" is the toughest book to replace; it’s so utterly original. The best choice, in my view, would be Larry McMurtry’s "Lonesome Dove."
"Snow Falling on Cedars" is an excellent and evocative novel but Foley makes a mistake in recommending it based on its setting. It is actually based on Bainbridge Island, which lies across Puget Sound from Seattle, not the San Juan Islands (a small point but an important one when recommending replacing a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel with one that while honored and inspired by "To Kill a Mockingbird" is not held in the same high regard.)
When Foley recommends "Going after Cacciato" as a replacement for "Of Mice and Men" on the basis that Vietnam is "a more recent and arguably more painful era in American history than the Depression" I have to ask whether that is really true. Sure Vietnam is more recent but more painful? I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. I also haven't read "Going after Cacciato" or "Lonesome Dove" so I can't comment on them in the same way that I can on "Snow Falling on Cedars."
In closing Foley writes:
Some might call this apostasy; I call it common sense. Obama’s victory signals that Americans are ready for change. Let’s follow his lead and make a change that removes the N-word from the high school curriculum.
What do you think?