Book Banning Threatens Free Speech Examples of Book Banning

Transcription

Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center -- Viewpoint Display
Page 1 of 5
Helena High School
Basic Search: "Censorship"
Mark this document
Search by Subject
_______ Document 4 of 88 _______
Book Banning Threatens Free Speech
American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a national organization dedicated to protecting
Americans' constitutional liberties.
Table of Contents: Further Readings | Source Citation
"I'm completely appalled at the excerpts. I feel that this is a degradation of the
human race."
--September 1998 statement by Prince William School Board member John
Harper Jr., discussing parents' complaints about the books Nightjohn, Go Tell
It on the Mountain, and Slaughterhouse Five on school summer reading lists.
Banned Books Week [September 26-October 3, 1998] is a time to celebrate literature and
examine the roots of intolerance and ignorance that fuel efforts to censor the arts and free
expression. Book censorship is neither infrequent nor an issue of the past. Books with clear
artistic and cultural merit are still challenged frequently by those who want to control what
others read.
But ... is book banning really still an issue? Read on ...
Examples of Book Banning
In 1998, school officials in Prince William County, Maryland said they would review three
books on the school system's summer reading list after a parent complained that the books
contain profanity and explicit sex scenes. The books in question were Nightjohn by Gary
Paulsen, which was on a seventh-grade reading list; Go Tell It on the Mountain, by James
Baldwin, on a ninth-grade list; and Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut Jr., on an 11th
grade list.
Two of the three books are no strangers to challenge. During the 1995-96 school year,
complaints about Go Tell It on the Mountain prompted the removal of the book from a
freshman curriculum in Hudson Falls, New York. And Slaughterhouse Five has been
http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC?slb=SU&locID=hele63904&srchtp=basic&c=... 12/8/2003
Page 2 of 5
challenged three times between 1995 and 1998. In two cases, it remained on school reading
lists, but in Littlefork, Minnesota in 1997, it was removed from a 12th-grade curriculum.
In other recent cases, Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was removed from a
ninth-grade English curriculum in Anne Arundel County, Maryland in 1997, then put back on
the condition that teachers warn parents of its content.
Censorship of Gay and Lesbian Issues
A particular target for censorship are books on gay and lesbian issues. In June 1997, a
Republican state legislator introduced a "no promo homo" bill that would make it a felony for
any person to provide a minor with material that "condones or advocates ... alternate
lifestyles" without the child's parent first giving consent. The proposed bill would require any
group or individual to obtain written parental permission before "disseminating" such
information. The bill's sponsor did not explain what he meant by "alternate lifestyles," although
a parent testifying in favor of the bill said he was alarmed that books such as Leslea
Newman's Heather Has Two Mommies are available at local libraries.
In December 1997, answering a show of strong support from students, a Jefferson County,
Kentucky school district committee rejected some parents' requests that the district ban three
novels by a prominent gay author. "I just don't think we can have a controlled, censored
classroom," said Manual High student Stacy Riger, 17, one of about two dozen people who
spoke at the meeting. "We definitely can't hide these different lifestyles from our young people
by pretending they don't exist."
The books in question are titled Invisible Life, Just As I Am and This Too Shall Pass. The
novels by E. Lynn Harris are part of Central High School English teacher Dee Hawkins'
classroom collection that her students, in grades 9-12, are allowed to check out to fulfill class
reading requirements. Hawkins said she explained to her students that the books have
realistic language and mature scenes.
In 1997, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent out an open records request
to all Texas school districts to learn which books were challenged or banned between August
1995 and March 1997. From 875 school districts that responded, the ACLU found that more
than 220 titles by 142 authors were challenged, including the classic My Friend Flicka.
A total of 73 titles were removed from libraries in 30 school districts. One of the books--We All
Fall Down by Robert Cormier--was removed from two libraries, while some school libraries
banned more than one book, according to the ACLU.
In addition to the books removed from library shelves, 11 titles were removed from the
curriculum in 10 school districts. Reasons for challenges included "objectionable language"
and "descriptions of abuse." The most commonly challenged authors were Judy Blume,
Robert Cormier, Christopher Pike and R.L. Stine.
Censorship in Bookstores
Libraries and schools are not the only places where censorship can be found. In 1998, an
Alabama grand jury indicted Barnes & Noble's bookstore for selling Radiant Identities by Jock
Sturges and Age of Innocence by David Hamilton, both targets of a national censorship
campaign by conservative groups.
Earlier in 1998, officials in Tennessee indicted a Barnes & Noble bookstore on similar charges
over Sturges and Hamilton art books. The store fought the ban but later agreed to display the
books wrapped in plastic and available only on bookshelves higher than five feet. The
Alabama case is now pending in the courts.
Attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, and a district attorney in Pennsylvania, have all
declined to press charges over the sale of Sturges' and Hamilton's books, saying they did not
find the photographs obscene.
Page 3 of 5
Setting the Stage for Further Attacks
The ACLU opposes all forms of censorship. For more than 200 years the right to choose what
we see and hear and read has been one of our most cherished freedoms. Permitting restraints
on literature sets the stage for attacks on all expression that is artistically or politically
controversial or that portrays unpleasant realities of life.
Censorship today comes in many forms, from challenges to school reading lists to emerging
issues of library filtering and blocking of the Internet. Whenever a school board or any other
government entity limits your right to decide what you want to see, hear or read, that is
censorship.
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Richard L. Abel. Speaking Respect: Respecting Speech. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1998.
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Must We Defend Nazis? Hate Speech,
Pornography, and the New First Amendment. New York: New York University Press,
1997.
Richard Dooling. Blue Streak: Swearing, Free Speech, and Sexual Harassment. New
York: Random House, 1996.
Andrea Dworkin. Life and Death: Unapologetic Writings on the Continuing War Against
Women. New York: Free Press, 1997.
Stanley Eugene Fish. There's No Such Thing as Free Speech, and It's a Good Thing,
Too. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Owen M. Fiss. The Irony of Free Speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Owen M. Fiss. Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State
Power. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
Henry Louis Gates et al. Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties. New York: New York University Press, 1995.
Robert Justin Goldstein. Burning the Flag: The Great 1989--1990 American Flag
Desecration Controversy. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996.
Kent Greenawalt. Fighting Words: Individuals, Communities, and Liberties of Speech.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
Rochelle Gurstein. The Repeal of Reticence: A History of America's Cultural and Legal
Studies over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation and Modern Art. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1996.
Milton Heumann, Thomas W. Church, and David P. Redlawsk, eds. Hate Speech on
Campus: Cases, Case Studies, and Commentary. Boston: Northeastern University
Press, 1997.
Steven J. Heyman, ed. Hate Speech and the Constitution. New York: Garland, 1996.
Alan Charles Kors. The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's
Campuses, New York: Free Press, 1998.
Garza LaMarche, ed. Speech & Equality: Do We Really Have to Choose? New York:
New York University Press, 1996.
Laura J. Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds. The Price We Pay: The Case Against
Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.
Laurence R. Marcus. Fighting Words: The Politics of Hateful Speech. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 1996.
Wendy McElroy. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1995.
Timothy C. Shiell. Campus Hate Speech on Trial. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas, 1998.
Nadine Strossen. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 5
Women's Rights. New York: Scribner, 1995.
Samuel Walker. Hate Speech: The History of an American Controversy. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1994.
Rita Kirk Whillock and David Slayden, eds. Hate Speech. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1995.
Nicholas Wolfson. Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1997.
R. George Wright. Selling Words: Free Speech in a Commercial Culture. New York:
Periodicals
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Floyd Abrams. "Campaign Finance Restrictions Violate the Constitution," Wall Street
Journal, April 9, 1998.
Floyd Abrams. "Look Who's Trashing the First Amendment," Columbia Journalism
Review, November/December 1997.
American Legion. Special section on flag desecration Amendment, July 1998.
Russ Baker. "The Squeeze," Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 1997.
Sam Brownback. "The Melodies of Mayhem," Policy Review, November/December
1998.
Amitai Etzioni. "ACLU Favors Porn over Parents," Wall Street Journal, October 14,
1998.
Thor L. Halvorssen. "Burning Issues on Campus," Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1997.
Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa. "Chilling the Internet? Lessons from FCC
Regulation of Radio Broadcasting," Cato Policy Analysis No. 270, March 19, 1997.
Available from 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Charles F. Hinkle. "Can Campaign Finance Reform Coexist with the First
Amendment?" Human Rights, Winter 1998.
Issues and Controversies on File. "Pornography," September 25, 1998.
E. Michael Jones. "What's the Difference Between a Public Library and an X-rated
Bookstore?" Culture Wars, July/August 1997. Available from 206 Marquette Ave.,
South Bend, IN 46617.
Wendy Kaminer. "The Rise of 'Respectable' Censorship," Intellectual Capital.com,
August 14, 1997. On-line. Internet. Available at www.intellectualcapital.com.
Virginia Lam. "Illiberal Arts: Campus Censorship," World & I, January 1998. Available
from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002.
Wendy McElroy. "A Feminist Defense of Pornography" Free Inquiry, Fall 1997.
Barbara Miner. "Reading, Writing, and Censorship," Rethinking Schools, Spring 1998.
Available from 1001 E. Keefe Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53212.
Nation. "Speech & Power," July 21, 1997.
Charles Oliver. "The Tin Drum Meets the Tin Badge," Reason, October 1997.
Susan Philips. "Student Journalism," CQ Researcher, June 5, 1998. Available from
1414 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Norman Podhoretz. "'Lolita,' My Mother-in-Law, the Marquis de Sade, and Larry Flynt,"
Commentary, April 1997.
Cristopher Rapp. "Chocoholic," National Review, July 20, 1998.
David G. Savage. "First Amendment in Your Face," ABA Journal, April 1997.
Randall E. Stross. "The Cyber Vice Squad," U.S. News & World Report, March 17,
1997.
Nadine Strossen. "Regulating Cyberspace" Vital Speeches of the Day, December 15,
1997.
Eugene Volokh. "How Free Is Speech When the Government Pays?" Wall Street
Journal, June 29, 1998.
Jesse Walker. "Rebel Radio," New Republic, March 9, 1998.
Shyla Welch. "Should the Internet Be Regulated?" World & I, February 1998.
Judy Wilkins. "Protecting Our Children from Internet Smut: Moral Duty or Moral
z
z
Page 5 of 5
Panic?" Humanist, September/October 1997.
Elizabeth Wright. "The First Amendment Means Exactly What It Says," Issues &
Views, Fall 1997. Available from PO Box 467, New York, NY 10025.
Barry Yeoman. "Art & States' Rights," Nation, June 29, 1998.
Source Citation: "Book Banning Threatens Free Speech" by American Civil Liberties Union.
Free Speech. Scott Barbour, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2000.
Reprinted, with permission, from the American Civil Liberties Union online publication Banned
Books Week, September 26-October 3, 1998, at
www.aclu.org/issues/freespeech/bbwind.html.
Reproduced in Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Gale Group.
2003. http://galenet.galegroup.com/servlet/OVRC
Document Number: X3010046209
Top of Page
Home | Advanced Search | Help | Search Tips | Gale Databases | Dictionary | Research Guide | Toolbox | List of Sources |
Contact Gale | Results List | Search History
Copyright and Terms of Use
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Search by Subject
_______ Document 75 of 88 _______
Mark this document
The Right Is Censoring Educational
Materials
Barbara Spindel and Deanna Duby
Barbara Spindel is supervising researcher for Attacks on the Freedom to
Learn, an annual report on censorship in public schools published by People
For the American Way, an anticensorship organization created by television
producer Norman Lear. Deanna Duby is director of education policy for People
For the American Way. In the following viewpoint, Spindel and Duby contend
that attempts at censorship by the religious right in the public schools are
increasing. They describe efforts to remove and restrict classroom and library
materials, to censor student newspapers and plays, and to influence various
school reform measures.
As you read, consider the following questions:
z
z
z
What has been the traditionally accepted view of education, according to Spindel and
Duby?
What school reforms do the authors say have been challenged by the religious right?
In what ways are clashes over school prayer similar to debates over the censorship of
educational materials, according to the authors?
Each year since 1982, People For the American Way has published a report on challenges to
educational materials and programs in the public schools, Attacks on the Freedom to Learn.
The successive editions of the report have documented a steady rise in censorship activity
that reflects an ongoing struggle to redefine education in America. The findings of 1994's
Attacks on the Freedom to Learn demonstrate that the censorship strategy continues to play a
central role in the larger effort to undermine public education. The losers in the battles this
effort engenders are three: parents, whose children are denied access to ideas and materials
because of the ideological and sectarian controversies being generated; teachers, who,
increasingly subjected to intimidation and harassment, second-guess themselves and cleanse
their classrooms of anything that might be considered controversial; and most important, the
Page 2 of 7
schoolchildren themselves, whose access to quality education is invariably diminished by
these ideological and sectarian demands. Students are being denied the resources to develop
the critical thinking skills necessary to participate and to succeed in an increasingly complex
society.
It is well within parents' rights to request an alternative assignment or "opt out" for their child
when they find material objectionable. School officials respond positively to such requests
when they are reasonable. Requests to remove or restrict materials for all students, however-such as Attacks on the Freedom to Learn documents--go beyond parental involvement to an
infringement on other parents' rights.
In the main, the conflicts taking shape in the public schools today mirror larger societal
conflicts. Abortion, gay and lesbian rights, television violence, and funding for the arts are all
issues that have lately been played out in the courts, in the media, and at the ballot box. The
concerns to which these conflicts speak are some of the most elemental in this nation's
history: the scope of free expression, the place of religion in public life, and the extent to which
American culture should foster--or at least acknowledge--diversity. The vital role the public
schools will play in determining the future direction of these debates makes them a central
target.
The Role of Public Schools
To date, the generally accepted view of education has been that young people should be
challenged intellectually in school, that they should be taught to think critically, to solve
problems, and to use their judgment and imagination. Concomitant to this is the belief that as
these skills are developed, a respect for the opinions of others should also be fostered.
Many individuals who seek to censor educational materials and programs view public
education quite differently--they see it as a vehicle for ensuring ideological conformity. This
perspective favors a sectarian and reactionary schooling over one that is based on
imagination, critical thinking, and recognition of pluralism. Its proponents want students to be
"protected" from books and theories that may challenge a particular set of beliefs and
assumptions. In short, they believe that children should be told what to think rather than how
to think.
As People For the American Way's report illustrates, objectors--who often are connected to or
inspired by one or more religious right political groups--are casting a wider net than ever
before in their efforts to redefine public education. While censorship has, over the years,
proven to be an effective strategy toward this end, more and more objectors are exploring
additional means of accomplishing their goals. Research is turning up increasing numbers of
incidents that, while not outright censorship, share the aim of imposing a measure of religious
or political orthodoxy on the classroom--incidents such as the creation of a policy requiring
teachers to list all "profane words" that appear in required reading materials, and campaigns
to inject organized school prayer into the classroom.
The Scope of Challenges
The battle to define American education is comprehensive and multifaceted. People For the
American Way researchers uncovered 462 challenges to educational materials or programs in
the 1993-94 school year--375 cases of attempted censorship and 87 broad-based challenges
to public education. Efforts to undermine the public schools are taking place in every region of
the country, in cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Attacks on the Freedom to Learn documents
challenges in forty-six states and the District of Columbia. For the second year in a row,
California had the most incidents--forty-three. Texas followed, with thirty-two challenges;
Florida was third, with twenty-two.
No educational materials were safe from controversy in 1993-94. Attempts were made to
censor literature anthologies, biology textbooks, novels, and films used in the classroom;
books and magazines available in libraries; material on optional, supplemental, and summer
reading lists; school newspapers and literary magazines; self-esteem curricula; studentperformed plays; and health and sexuality education curricula. And would-be censors met with
Page 3 of 7
remarkable success: in 42 percent of the incidents, books and other materials were removed
or restricted.
In addition, challengers at the state and local levels took aim at school reform initiatives,
assessment tests, graduation service requirements, and optional counseling services. Many
of these groups pressed for school prayer; school choice vouchers, designed to divert public
school monies to private education; and fear-based, abstinence-only sexuality education
programs.
Direct Challenges to Students
Challenges to school newspapers and the students who staff them are on the rise, with
objectors attempting to prevent them from covering controversial issues and school officials
frequently trying to soften their criticisms of schools or school policies. School officials have
based their authority largely on the Supreme Court's 1988 decision Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier,
which permitted a high school principal to ban articles on divorce and teenage pregnancy from
the student newspaper. Five states--California, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, and Massachusetts-have passed student freedom of expression bills, giving students broader rights than the
Hazelwood decision allowed them. But some school officials have interpreted Hazelwood as
granting them broad, even unchecked, authority. In some cases, student journalists who have
balked at the censorship of the school-sanctioned newspapers have started their own
"underground" newspapers, only to find those censored, as well.
Challenges to student theatrical productions met with an alarming measure of success in
1993-94. Objectors challenged seven student productions and succeeded in having three
canceled (a student lip sync show, Peter Pan, and Bats in the Belfry) and one edited (The
Robber Bridegroom). Challenges to productions of Annie Get Your Gun, Damn Yankees, and
Agatha Christie Made Me Do It were unsuccessful.
Corollaries and "Alternatives" to
Censorship
An alarming new trend emerged in 1992-93: across the country, educators were harassed
and in some cases terminated in the wake of challenges to educational materials. In 1993-94,
that trend escalated. In more and more cases, activists requesting the removal of materials
added a second demand: remove the teacher, as well. For the most part, school officials and
school boards stood by their staffs. In some instances, however, teachers became convenient
scapegoats and were sacrificed in the face of potent pressure tactics. For example, in
Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania, an anonymous complaint calling the claymation film The Amazing
Mr. Bickford "pornographic" ultimately led to a high school English teacher's suspension
without pay.
Another disturbing trend that has taken shape over the last few years involves responding to
complaints about library materials by reclassifying books into different sections of the
collection--to professional shelves, reserved sections, or otherwise less accessible areas.
Often, the books are transferred to sections that are obscure, or less likely to be freely
accessed by students. In Laurens, South Carolina, for instance, following complaints that the
book Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark has a "devil's theme," the title was removed from the
general collection of an elementary school library and placed on a reserve shelf for teachers
only. Such reclassifications signal a reluctance on the part of the schools to take a strong and
vocal stand against censorship. Often, this reluctance is the result of increased pressure
tactics.
The number of broad-based challenges, in which organizations or individuals applied
ideological or sectarian-based pressure on the public schools without necessarily calling for
the removal of specific curricular materials, roughly doubled in 1993-94, to eighty-seven. Also
remarkable--and, indeed, unprecedented--is the range of materials and activities that came
under scrutiny: among other activities, groups mounted campaigns against school reform,
attacked state assessment tests, and helped lead an energized school prayer movement.
Page 4 of 7
The Attack on School Reform
Most religious right political groups continue to challenge a wide array of educational reforms,
including Goals 2000 and outcome-based education. Redesigning education around high
standards for student performance is at the heart of school reform, and it has been endorsed
by such prominent groups as the Business Roundtable, the National Governors' Association,
and the Education Commission of the States. However, outcome-based education has
encountered organized and bitter opposition from a number of state and national political
organizations. Activists representing these groups travel across the country as part of an
intense campaign to thwart adoption of this school reform. In doing so, they use an array of
vague charges and distortions while advancing a series of conspiracy theories.
The battle over outcome-based education has expanded to include federal legislation
establishing the Goals 2000 program, which sets national voluntary standards and
encourages local districts to involve parents and the community, including businesses, in the
development of standards for local schools.
Religious right political leaders have widely mischaracterized Goals 2000, omitting important
information and exploiting parents' anxieties about their children's future. Religious right
political groups have used the hot-button phrase "outcome-based education" as an organizing
and fund-raising tool in their broader campaign to take control of America's public schools.
They have been so successful that the debate on outcome-based education has yet to focus
on outcome-based education; it has instead focused on opponents' erroneous descriptions of
outcome-based education. The facts have been lost in the rhetoric.
Statewide Testing
Another area of broad-based challenges involves organized efforts to scuttle California's new
statewide testing system. After the Traditional Values Coalition, a California-based religious
right political group, complained that Alice Walker's short story "Roselily" was "antireligious,"
state education officials removed the story from a pool of literature available for use in the
1994 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS), a statewide achievement examination
to be administered to tenth graders. Also pulled, in a separate decision by the state board of
education, were Walker's "Am I Blue?," which challengers had labeled "anti-meat-eating," and
an excerpt from Annie Dillard's An American Childhood, for a depiction of a snowball fight
challengers saw as "violent."
Controversy over the stories, which were ultimately reinstated, turned out to be only the first
step in a well-organized campaign against the test--a campaign that employed the rhetoric
and strategies used to cripple other education reform initiatives. Although the test was upheld
in court, a number of districts voted not to administer CLAS because of the controversy.
With the legal and organizing assistance of prominent religious right groups, the school prayer
movement made a comeback across the nation during the 1993-94 school year. The issue
was ignited in part by the suspension of a Jackson, Mississippi, high school principal who
disregarded school district counsel's legal advice and allowed a student to read a prayer over
the school's public address system.
Much of the pressure for organized school prayer has been focused at the local level, on
school board members and superintendents. By distorting court rulings, religious right groups
have sought to pressure school districts into adopting policies that are at odds with the
Constitution. On the legislative front, meanwhile, school prayer bills made progress in ten
states and the District of Columbia in 1993-94. In addition, the U.S. Congress grappled with
the issue as debate over two major education bills was sidetracked by prayer amendments
proposed by Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-NC).
The clashes over prayer in the schools involve many of the same issues as attacks on library
and classroom materials. In both cases, religious and ideological pressures are brought to
bear on school systems, diverting them from their primary tasks of educating children. Often,
those who oppose school prayer, like those who support challenged books, are falsely
accused of being antireligious or atheistic. Yet, mainstream clergy are attempting to shift the
Page 5 of 7
focus of this debate, mounting an increasingly vocal effort to keep organized prayer out of the
schools. Their perspective is that government officials should not be editing or approving the
content of prayers and that children should not be pressured to participate in religious
observances at odds with their own faith.
The Lesson of Censorship
Denying students the educational tools they need to think about and to deal with the
complexity of today's society does them an extreme disservice. Perhaps the greater
disservice, however, involves the message such action sends to students about their own
freedoms. As books and curricula are removed and restricted throughout the nation's schools,
children lose the opportunity to learn important lessons. However, the one lesson they do
learn--the unfortunate lesson--is that censorship is an appropriate response to controversial
ideas.
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy. In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action.
New York: William Morrow, 1991.
Stephen Bates. Battleground: One Mother's Crusade, the Religious Right, and the
Struggle for Control of Our Classrooms. New York: Poseidon Press, 1993.
George Beahm, ed. War of Words: The Censorship Debate. Kansas City, MO:
Andrews and McMeel, 1993.
Francis J. Beckwith and Michael E. Bauman, eds. Are You Politically Correct?
Debating America's Cultural Standards. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1993.
Mary Caputi. Voluptuous Yearnings: A Feminist Theory of the Obscene. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1994.
J.M. Coetzee. Giving Offense: Essays on Censorship. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996.
Ronald K.L. Collins. The Death of Discourse. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
Cynthia DiLaura Devore. Kids and Media Influence. Minneapolis: Rockbottom Books,
1994.
Jonathan W. Emord. Freedom, Technology, and the First Amendment. San Francisco:
Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1991.
Patrick Garry. An American Paradox: Censorship in a Nation of Free Speech.
Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993.
Franklyn S. Haiman. "Speech Acts" and the First Amendment. Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1993.
Marjorie Heins. Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to America's Censorship Wars.
New York: New Press, 1993.
Nat Hentoff. Free Speech for Me--but Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right
Relentlessly Censor Each Other. New York: HarperPerennial, 1993.
Edward S. Herman. Beyond Hypocrisy: Decoding the News in an Age of Propaganda.
Boston: South End Press, 1992.
Carl Jensen and Project Censored. Censored: The News That Didn't Make the News
and Why. New York: Seven Stories Press, 1996.
Claudia Johnson. Stifled Laughter: One Woman's Story About Fighting Censorship.
Golden, CO: Fulcrum, 1994.
Robert Wheeler Lane. Beyond the Schoolhouse Gate: Free Speech and the
Inculcation of Values. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
Walter Laqueur. Breaking the Silence. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England,
1994.
Val E. Limburg. Electronic Media Ethics. Boston: Focal Press, 1994.
Martin London and Barbara Dill. At What Price? Libel Law and Freedom of the Press.
New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1993.
Catharine A. MacKinnon. Only Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
1993.
Wendy McElroy. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1995.
Media Institute. Speaking Freely: The Public Interest in Unfettered Speech.
Washington, DC: Media Institute, 1995.
Arthur J. Mielke. Christians, Feminists, and the Culture of Pornography. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America, 1995.
Newton N. Minow and Craig L. LaMay. Abandoned in the Wasteland: Children,
Television, and the First Amendment. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.
Paul Monette. The Politics of Silence. Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 1993.
Marcia Pally. Sex and Sensibility: Reflections on Forbidden Mirrors and the Will to
Censor. Hopewell, NJ: Ecco Press, 1994.
Richard Peck. The Last Safe Place on Earth. New York: Delacorte Press, 1995.
Lucas Powe Jr. The Fourth Estate and the Constitution: Freedom of the Press in
America. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991.
Jonathan Rauch. Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Henry Reichman. Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools.
Chicago: American Library Association, 1993.
Casey Ripley Jr., ed. The Media and the Public. New York: H.W. Wilson, 1994.
Barry Sanders. A Is for Ox: Violence, Electronic Media, and the Silencing of the
Written Word. New York: Pantheon Books, 1994.
Lynne Segal and Mary McIntosh, eds. Sex Exposed: Sexuality and the Pornography
Debate. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1993.
Jefferson P. Smith. Ambition, Discrimination, and Censorship in Libraries. Jefferson,
NC: McFarland, 1993.
Rodney A. Smolla. Free Speech in an Open Society. New York: Knopf, 1992.
Adele M. Stan, ed. Debating Sexual Correctness: Pornography, Sexual Harassment,
Date Rape, and the Politics of Sexual Equality. New York: Delta, 1995.
Cass R. Sunstein. Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech. New York: Free
Press, 1993.
Periodicals
z
z
z
z
z
z
Jonathan Chait. "Backfire on Campus," American Prospect, Summer 1995. Available
from PO Box 383080, Cambridge, MA 02138-3080.
Richard Delgado. "Hateful Speech, Loving Communities: Why Our Notion of 'a Just
Balance' Changes So Slowly," California Law Review, July 1994.
Bonnie Dricson. "Banned in U.S.A.: Reference Guide to Book Censorship in Schools
and Public Libraries," English Journal, January 1996. Available from NCTE, 1111
Kenyon Rd., Urbana, IL 61801.
Dave Gentry. "Full Circle for the Berkeley Free Speech Movement," New York Times,
December 2, 1994.
Scott Gottlieb. "There's No Such Thing as Justice on Campus," USA Today, March
1995.
Debra Gersh Hernandez. "Censorship in the Schools," Editor and Publisher,
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 7 of 7
September 16, 1995. Available from 11 W. 19th St., New York, NY 10011.
Franklyn G. Jenifer. "Hate Speech Is Still Free Speech," New York Times, May 13,
1994.
Michael J. Laird. "The Constitutionality of Political Correctness," Communications and
the Law, September 1994.
John Leo. "Campus Affirmatively Favors Censorship," Conservative Chronicle,
January 1, 1996. Available from PO Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441.
James L. Payne. "Education Versus the American Way," National Review, September
25, 1995.
Joannie M. Schrof. "The Costly Price of Free Speech," U.S. News & World Report,
May 16, 1994.
Harvey A. Silvergate. "P. C. Gags Fair Harvard," National Law Journal, January 8,
1996.
Source Citation: "The Right Is Censoring Educational Materials" by Barbara Spindel and
Deanna Duby. Censorship. Byron L. Stay, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven
Press, 1997. Barbara Spindel and Deanna Duby, "Attacks on the Freedom to Learn: People
for the American Way's Report on School Censorship," 1994. Reprinted by permission of
People for the American Way, Washington, D.C.
Top of Page
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Search by Subject
_______ Document 5 of 88 _______
Mark this document
Books Are Being Banned
Michael Granberry
In the following viewpoint, Michael Granberry argues that books are
increasingly being banned from schools and libraries by both liberals and
conservatives. According to Granberry, conservatives wishing to ban books
that are sexually explicit have now been joined by liberals attempting to
exclude books characterized by ageism, sexism, and racism. Granberry is a
staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.
z
z
z
According to Granberry, why did Kathy McNamara agree to remove Maya Angelou's I
Know Why the Caged Bird Sings from her school's reading list?
Why are those who support censorship often more successful than those who oppose
censorship, according to the author?
What new trend, reported by Granberry, did the People For the American Way survey
detect in 1991-1992?
Through no desire of her own, Kathy McNamara came to be known as "the book banner from
Banning." Colleagues kidded her about it, but most of the time, she bristled at the joke. It just
wasn't funny. Censorship and the death of a friend never are. Against her better judgment,
McNamara, the principal at Susan B. Coombs Middle School, had removed Maya Angelou's
autobiography, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, from a required reading list.
Parents of students in the eighth-grade class where the book was introduced by teacher
Deborah Bennett became so incensed over sexual references in Angelou's stirring story of
heartache and triumph that they demanded the book be banned.
McNamara still seethes at the memory of how she grudgingly complied--largely because she
feared that stress brought on by the controversy was causing Bennett's fragile health to
worsen. She believes that the nastiness of the affair hastened her friend's death. Within
Page 2 of 7
months of being confronted by outraged parents, Bennett, 44, died of lung and breast cancer.
"I swore that after that last piece of dirt was thrown on her casket, I would never again let
happen to another teacher what happened to Deborah," McNamara said. "Because of those
parents, she went through hell."
Teachers and administrators in Banning, California, are hardly alone in facing the wrath of an
increasingly vocal breed of activist parent who objects to the books children are exposed to in
classrooms and school libraries. And the war on books is extending well beyond the realms of
schools.
Library officials say the wave of book bannings and restrictions has never been higher and
that books are merely the latest in a long line of targets that include controversial artworks
funded with public money and music with provocative lyrics. People for the American Way, a
political action group formed by television producer Norman Lear (All in the Family), monitors
book bannings from its Santa Monica headquarters. Spokesman Michael Hudson said the
statistics are troubling and getting worse.
Reports of censorship in public schools increased 50% in 1992, Hudson said, noting that the
number of incidents was the highest since the group began its annual survey in 1982.
Whether the issue is a photograph by the late Robert Mapplethorpe, a song called "Cop Killer"
or Madonna's picture book called, simply, Sex, critics and wanna-be censors have ceased to
be shy. Some targets are as seemingly innocent as readers for first-graders.
"They always say the same thing," McNamara said. "'I don't want my tax dollars paying for
that trash.' Well, the rest of us had better wake up and realize that we have tax dollars, too.
Isn't a free country worth paying for?"
Many fear that when it comes to books, librarians and school officials often do not muster the
same backbone as record executives or the heads of art institutions. The result seems to be
that censors often succeed in their efforts to yank a book from a shelf.
"Problem No. 1 is that librarians and school officials aren't pulling down the same salary as
the head of General Motors," said Judith F. Krug, director of the Office of Intellectual Freedom
for the American Library Assn. "Problem No. 2 is that people who find themselves against the
wall often perceive the fight in terms of security. And any time you pit security against
freedom, security wins hands down."
The storm in Banning arose after a boy in Bennett's class showed his mother passages from
Angelou's book regarding child molestation and rape. His mother, a member of a
fundamentalist religious sect in rural Cabazon, showed another parent, who showed another
and so forth.
Before long, Bennett and McNamara were at the center of a full-blown debate over books and
the 1st Amendment. In the end, McNamara, who preferred to continue the fight, gave in,
fearing a downturn in Bennett's condition.
For Angelou, the writer who composed an inauguration poem for President Clinton, the
incident was just the latest in many similar cases. Her first and most popular work has been
banned in classrooms and libraries throughout the country.
In Raleigh, N.C.; Bremerton, Wash.; Lafayette, La.; and Strong, Me., the complaint was much
the same. The book, critics say, contains "explicit passages" and has no place in a school
curriculum. The story is based on a sexual assault perpetrated against Angelou as a child,
which rendered her mute for almost a decade.
"If you read parts of it out of context, it can cause great concern," said Banning's acting school
superintendent, Larry Phelps. "We don't want to have any material that's offensive to people.
So we held it out."
Page 3 of 7
Offensive Material
Material that's offensive to people seems to be the common refrain heard from officials
explaining why they restricted access to books, ranging from classics by John Steinbeck,
William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway to Dr. Seuss and even the Bible.
The American Library Assn. recorded more than 653 "incidents of attempted censorship" in
1992, but only 15% of such efforts ever "see the light of day, meaning they're reported to us or
they're covered by the media," Krug said.
Krug's office recorded a 28% increase in attempted censorship between 1991 and 1992. She
expects 1993 statistics to be higher, with most complaints coming from fundamentalist
religious groups.
But book banning is hardly the province of right-wing extremists. Never before have groups as
dissimilar as the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People and the Rev. Pat
Robertson's Christian Coalition lobbied so fiercely for changes to school curricula or the
membership of library boards, or tried so aggressively to make outlaws out of books.
The practice is as old as words on paper. The American Library Assn. has compiled a list of
books banned from 387 B.C. to the present and notes the following objections: J.D. Salinger's
Catcher in the Rye (excess vulgar language), Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn (racist), Charles Dickens' Oliver Twist (full of religious bias), Faulkner's As I Lay Dying
(offensive and obscene passages referring to abortion) and Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath
(full of sacrilege).
Where's Waldo?
Recent entries include one book in the popular Where's Waldo? series and even Snow White,
which can be read in Jacksonville, Fla., public schools only with parental permission. The
school superintendent agreed with a committee of parents and teachers that the classic fairy
tale is "violent."
"If Snow White can be restricted, nothing is beyond reach," said Robert O'Neil of the Thomas
Jefferson Center for Protection of Free Expression at the University of Virginia.
Where's Waldo? was banned from a Long Island school library because hidden among the
hundreds of tiny figures crammed onto the "beach page" is a woman with a breast partially
exposed. The breast is about the size of the lead tip of a pencil.
And in Erie, Pa., the mother of a ninth-grader protested after teachers used black felt-tip
markers to delete passages about apes' mating habits from naturalist Dian Fossey's book
Gorillas in the Mist. The school's principal said he permitted teachers to black out the
passages, anticipating parents' concerns.
The reasons for banning books often defy belief. The Alabama State Textbook Committee
once called for the rejection of The Diary of Anne Frank, a young girl's story of the horror of
the Holocaust, because, in its words, "it is a real downer."
But there are some success stories when it comes to warding off would-be censors. In
Cumberland County, N.C., fundamentalist groups demanded that two books about
homosexual lifestyles be ousted from the shelves of the local library. Despite threats to defeat
a library's bond measure, the head librarian stood his ground--and the measure passed.
In Colorado Springs, Colo., after the head of the library canceled the order for Madonna's Sex
book, voters defeated his library bond measure....
Just about everywhere, the figures of such incidents are climbing.
Page 4 of 7
In the People for the American Way's survey of attempted book censorship in schools for
1991-1992, the Midwest region recorded the highest number--119 cases. The Northeast had
the fewest of any region, 59. Florida, with 34 incidents, reported more than any other state.
California and Texas were next with 27 each.
But 1991-92 also produced what Hudson called a "new and far more disturbing trend": almost
an equal number of challenges to books in libraries, which before have often eluded the
censors' grasps.
"We're talking books no one was made to read," he said. "Textbooks usually are required
reading. We think it's bad and getting worse, and anyone who cares about democracy ought
to wake up and do something about it."
But caring about democracy and doing something about it is precisely their intent, say the
groups trying to control the content of public education and stem the tide of popular culture,
much of which they find offensive.
"There is a place for censorship ... for security reasons, or because something is
inappropriate," said Robert Simonds of the National Assn. of Christian Educators, based in
Santa Ana.
"There was a time when censorship was used to protect the public good," said John
Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a Christian legal foundation. "Today, certain
groups are using (the charge of censorship) as a way to beat back decent people who want to
see some sort of moral standards in the classroom." ...
Although liberal groups are becoming increasingly vocal, many cite the religious right and
three groups with California ties--James Dobson's Focus on the Family, which began in
Pomona but is now stationed in Colorado; the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon's Traditional Values
Coalition, based in Anaheim; and Simonds' Christian education movement--for waging a war
on books.
The three organizations gained national attention by opposing the "Impressions Series,"
reading books that were challenged in schools nationwide--but particularly in California--in
1991.
A nationwide preemptive effort is being waged against two books that conservative groups
say promote homosexual lifestyles and are inappropriate for public schools.
Heather Has Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate feature illustrations of gay couples and
are listed among hundreds of books on a suggested multicultural bibliography for New York
City public schoolteachers. So far, no teacher has used the books, but that did not stop the
issue of restricting classroom discussion of homosexuality from becoming a factor in 1993's
hotly contested New York school board elections. Sheldon said that in his eyes Heather Has
Two Mommies and Daddy's Roommate are to "public education what gays in the military will
be to Mr. Clinton. They bring God-fearing people together in a noble crusade."
Paul L. Hetrick, spokesman for Focus on the Family, said many parents have a feeling of
"being utterly fed up with the mess in our public schools." Books, he said, are "just one of the
tools" in an ongoing "civil war."
The growth of fundamentalist challenges to books and curricula are "rooted in a tug of war for
the mind of the child--the child in America," Hetrick said, a view many seem eager to endorse.
A radical change occurred about 15 years ago when complaints took on an added texture: the
isms. Ageism, sexism, racism. Those concerns were voiced largely by liberals, who began to
question some classics, including The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, as being out of step
with contemporary mores. The pendulum began to swing back during the early years of
Ronald Reagan's presidency. Almost immediately after 1980, the American Library Assn.
recorded a fivefold increase in demands for censorship.
Page 5 of 7
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Press, 1996.
1994.
1994.
1993.
Press, 1995.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
Press, 1993.
Periodicals
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
December 2, 1994.
1995.
1994.
25, 1995.
May 16, 1994.
1996.
Page 7 of 7
Source Citation: "Books Are Being Banned" by Michael Granberry. Censorship. Byron L.
Stay, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1997. Abridged from Michael
Granberry, "Besieged by Book Banners," Los Angeles Times, May 10, 1993. Copyright 1993,
Los Angeles Times. Reprinted with permission.
Top of Page
Page 1 of 5
Helena High School
Search by Subject
_______ Document 6 of 88 _______
Mark this document
Books Are Not Being Banned
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell, an economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is a
nationally syndicated columnist. In the following viewpoint, he maintains that
charges of book banning and censorship in schools and libraries are false. He
contends that school and library officials must make judgments about which
books to purchase, and their decision not to buy a particular book does not
constitute banning or censorship.
z
z
z
How are the terms "banned" and "censorship" being misused, in the author's opinion?
According to Sowell, what types of books have been declared "banned"?
What role should parents play in selecting books for schools, according to the author?
Book Banning is Happening Now!! That is what the sign said in the midst of a big display in
the bookstore window. As it turned out, book banning was not happening. Hogwash was
happening.
The books in the display were not banned. You can get them at bookstores from sea to
shining sea. The government itself buys some of them. Many of these books are circulating in
the tens of thousands, and some in the millions.
A poster in the display proclaimed [the week of October 3, 1994] to be "Banned Books Week."
The kind of shameless propaganda that has become commonplace in false charges of
"censorship" or "book banning" has apparently now been institutionalized with a week of its
own.
False Charges
Page 2 of 5
Someone called the 1930s a "low, dishonest decade." The 1990s are a serious competitor for
that title. False charges of banning or censorship are so common that they are seldom
challenged for evidence or even for a definition.
To call a book "banned" because someone decided that it was unsuitable for their particular
students or clientele would be to make at least 99 percent of all books "banned." Few
individuals or institutions can afford to buy even 1 percent of the vast number of books that
are published annually. They must exercise judgment and that judgment is necessarily in the
negative most of the time.
If we are not going to call every book that is not purchased by an institution "banned," then
how will we define this nebulous but emotional word?
Usually some school or library officials decide to buy a particular book and then some parents
or others object that it is either unsuitable for children or unsuitable in general, for any of a
number of reasons. Then the cry of "censorship" goes up, even if the book is still being sold
openly all over town.
If the criterion of censorship is that the objection comes from the general public, rather than
from people who run schools and libraries, then that is saying the parents and taxpayers have
no right to a say about what is done with their own children or their own money.
This is a pretty raw assertion of pre-emptive superiority--and while many of the self-anointed
may think this way, few are bold enough to come right out and say it. Fraudulent words like
"censorship" and "banned" enable them to avoid saying it.
Some of the books shown seemed pretty innocuous to me--but there is no more reason why
my opinion should prevail than the opinion of someone else, especially when that someone
else is a parent or taxpayer. However, other books in the display were pure propaganda for
avant-garde notions that are being foisted onto vulnerable and unsuspecting children in the
name of "education."
Parental Rights
Parents have not only a right but a duty to object when their children are being used as
objects for other people's ideological crusades, especially when brainwashing replaces
education in the public schools. Let the ideologues argue their ideas openly with adults in the
marketplace of ideas, not take cowardly advantage of children behind their parents' backs.
There is no point arguing about whether this book or that book should or should not have
been taken off the shelves. There would not be an issue in the first place if different people did
not have different opinions on that point. The question is why some people's opinions are
called "censorship" and other people's opinions are not.
Elite Intelligentsia
No one calls it censorship when the old McGuffey's Readers are no longer purchased by the
public schools (though they are still available and are actually being used in some private
schools). No one calls it censorship if the collected works of Rush Limbaugh are not put into
libraries and schools in every town, hamlet and middlesex village.
It is only when the books approved by the elite intelligentsia are objected to by others that it is
called censorship. Apparently we are not to talk back to our betters.
All this is just one more skirmish in the cultural wars of our time. In war, someone pointed out
long ago, truth is the first casualty. Those who are spreading hysteria about book banning and
censorship know that they are in a war, but too many of those who thoughtlessly repeat their
rhetoric do not.
Page 3 of 5
It is not enough to see through fraudulent rhetoric in a particular case if you continue to listen
gullibly to those who have used such rhetoric to muddy the waters.
There should have been a sign in that bookstore window saying "Hogwash is happening."
That's what really rates two exclamation points--and perhaps a National Hogwash Week.
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Press, 1996.
1994.
1994.
1993.
Press, 1995.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 5
Press, 1993.
Periodicals
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
December 2, 1994.
1995.
1994.
25, 1995.
z
z
Page 5 of 5
May 16, 1994.
1996.
Source Citation: "Books Are Not Being Banned" by Thomas Sowell. Censorship. Byron L.
Stay, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1997. Thomas Sowell,
"Hogwash Is Happening," Washington Times, October 3, 1994. Reprinted by permission of
Thomas Sowell and Creators Syndicate.
Top of Page
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Search by Subject
Mark this document
_______ Document 13 of 88 _______
Censorship Can Be Beneficial
Thomas Storck
In the following viewpoint, Thomas Storck examines various arguments
against censorship and finds them to be unpersuasive. Storck argues that
some ideas lead to harmful actions, and that the government should censor
such ideas in order to protect the community. Storck, a librarian in Washington,
D.C., insists that censorship can both prevent harmful acts and facilitate
society's intellectual pursuit of truth.
z
z
z
How does the author define censorship?
What evil acts does the author believe can be prevented by censorship?
According to Storck, why will censorship not hinder the search for truth?
Anyone currently undertaking to defend censorship has to reckon not only with considerable
abhorrence of the practice, but even with distaste for the word itself. It seems that even those
who would like to restrict publications, broadcasts, or films shy away from the term
"censorship." They are at pains to distinguish what they would do from what censors do.
When the head of the National Coalition on Television Violence testified before Congress in
December 1992 and presented a "10-point plan to sweep violence off TV and off our streets,"
it is interesting that the first point in the plan was "no censorship." No one wants to own up to
being a would-be censor, and thus very few are willing to stand up and openly defend this
venerable practice. But I am happy to do so, for censorship has long seemed to me a
necessary, if regrettable, part of practical political wisdom and an opportunity for the judicious
exercise of human intelligence. For, human nature being what it is, it is naive to think we can
freely read and view things that promote or portray evil deeds without sometimes feeling
encouraged to commit such deeds. And if this is the case, then censorship can sometimes be
a necessity.
Page 2 of 7
Defining Censorship
But before defending censorship I need to define it. And I define censorship simply as the
restriction, absolute or merely to some part of the population (e.g., to the unlearned or to
children), by the proper political authorities, of intellectual, literary, or artistic material in any
format. I want to note two things especially about this definition. First, I am not talking simply
about censoring pornography. I also include censorship of works that are expressions of
erroneous ideas, a position which I realize is extremely unpopular today, even more hated
than the banning of obscene works. Secondly, I am concerned only with censorship by
governments. The determination of intellectual or cultural matters for the sake of the common
good, such as what books and other things the nation may read or view, is not properly the
work of private pressure groups or crusading individuals though their work may sometimes be
necessary when the state does not carry out its proper functions in this area. But the state
alone has general care of the temporal common good, and censorship is one of the most
important ways of safeguarding that good.
I am concerned here only with censorship in the abstract. That is, I am not defending or
advocating any particular act of censorship in the past, present, or future, or in any particular
country or legal system, though I do need to offer some hypothetical examples. I am simply
arguing that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with censoring. All I hope to achieve is to make
a compelling case that censorship as such is an appropriate exercise of governmental power
and that the practical difficulties necessarily involved, while great, are not overwhelming.
Since I am speaking of censorship in the abstract, considerations based on the First
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or on decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are not
relevant to my argument. Whatever restrictions the American Constitution wisely or unwisely
imposes on governmental power with respect to freedom of expression do not apply to
governments in general.
Protecting the Community
What then is the case that can be made for censorship? It can be stated in the following
simple thesis: Ideas lead to actions, and bad ideas often lead to bad acts, bringing harm to
individuals and possible ruin to societies. Just as the state has the right to restrict and direct a
person's actions when he is a physical threat to the community, so also in the matter of
intellectual or cultural threats, the authorities have duties to protect the community.
It is obviously necessary for me to explain and defend these assertions, and the place to
begin is with a discussion of the question of whether we can actually identify good and evil. I
said above that "bad ideas often lead to bad acts," but if we cannot identify what is the bad,
then clearly we cannot know either bad ideas or bad acts. One problem in discussions of
whether we can know good and evil is the assumption that we either know all good and evil or
we know none. It seems sometimes to be assumed that proponents of censorship are
claiming to know good and evil exhaustively, that they know the moral status of everything
that exists. But this is not the case. If we knew with certainty that, say, only one thing was evil,
and if that evil were great enough and threatened society enough, then we might well decide
to censor expressions and advocacy of that one thing, regardless of how ignorant we were
about other moral questions.
Can we actually know any evils? I think each reader already knows or thinks he knows many
more than one. So I will select an instance of evil--rape. I suspect that all readers would
readily say that rape is clearly an evil. And an evil not because they think so, but an evil in and
of itself. Not an evil because most people or most thinkers condemn it, but an evil
independently of what other people might believe. If this is the case, then human beings can
know with certainty at least one example of evil.
Encouraging Evil
Now here is an example of something I think most people would agree was not only evil, but
likely to encourage evil conduct. I have read that at some time during the 1970s there were
Page 3 of 7
billboards in Los Angeles and perhaps elsewhere advertising a Rolling Stones album which
showed a pretty woman with bruises--black and blue marks--with the legend, "I'm black and
blue from the Rolling Stones and I love it." Abuse of women is an evil, and the not too subtle
encouragement given to the practice, by insinuating that women really want to be abused,
seems to me an almost textbook example of the need for censorship.
To return to my first example, suppose someone wrote a book arguing that women really want
to be raped, that they enjoy it, and that men do them a favor by raping them. Suppose, in
addition, the book maintained that rape is the best sex going and the best way to prove one's
masculinity--including, by way of an appendix, statistics on how few rapists get caught and the
light sentences often given. Now rape, I think we agreed above, is clearly an evil. Would
anyone argue that such a book would not promote rapes? Even if it were true that many men
would not be affected by such a book, nevertheless can we confidently say that such a book
would not be responsible for rapes? Do we want to remove whatever inhibitions there may be
that restrain even one potential rapist?
Now if we can identify certain evils, and if advocacy of those evils seems likely to encourage
people to commit them, then why should we not take the next and logical step and prohibit
such advocacy? If to commit certain evils is harmful to others and a crime, then why should
advocating and encouraging such evils be perfectly lawful? Must a community be unable to
protect itself? Must the authorities be helpless to restrain the source of the evil?
This constitutes the best case that can be made for censorship. But in most people's minds
the case against censorship looms much larger than any assent to this argument. It looms so
much larger that in effect the real case for censorship is largely the removal of people's
overwhelming fears of censorship. Most people's objections to censorship are based on fear.
So with this in mind, I will discuss the chief objections to censorship.
The most fundamental objection, already touched on above, is to deny that we know with
certainty any goods or any evils. If this were true, then in practicing censorship we would be
just as likely to restrain some newfound truth as to protect society from some dangerous evil.
And though this professed ignorance of good and evil is popular today, the only people who
can consistently make such an argument are those who are not advocates of anything at all. I
have never met any of them. Many may profess moral skepticism in a broad philosophical
sense, but they are often the most passionate defenders of this or that cause or opinion. How
they reconcile this with their supposed skepticism, if they even try, I do not know.
The argument from skepticism is put very forcefully by John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. But those
who hold this opinion, and who argue most passionately against censorship on the grounds of
our lack of certainty of good and evil, must face the fact that every time society makes a law it
is making a judgment of good and evil. If some street thug had stolen Mill's hat, and when he
demanded it back the policeman and magistrate replied that for all they knew private property
might be immoral and therefore they could not compel the thief to return the hat, Mill might
have been more than a little annoyed. Yet to support the punishment of thieves while allowing
the publication of books advocating theft--on the ground that we do not know whether theft is
right or wrong--seems a trifle inconsistent and even hypocritical.
Bad Ideas Lead to Bad Action
Another objection is to deny that there is a connection between advocacy of evil and any
actual instances of evil. But even among those who tend to oppose censorship, there is a
recognition that ideas lead to action and bad ideas lead to bad action. For example, many
liberally-minded people attempt to prevent their children, and everyone else's too, from
reading books that perpetuate what they consider sexual stereotypes. They believe they have
identified an instance of evil, "sexual stereotyping," and that reading books that promote it or
take it for granted will tend to form "sexist" individuals who in turn will commit "sexist" acts.
Regardless of whether one regards "sexual stereotypes" as evil, and regardless of whether
one regards such liberally-minded people as in fact illiberal, this position is certainly a
coherent one. It is easy to understand why such people do not want children reading books
that contain what they consider to be evil. They have made the obvious judgment that writings
tend to influence action, and almost all of us would understand such a judgment, even if we
disagree with their application of that judgment in this particular case.
Page 4 of 7
Take a couple different examples: How many of us would think that it would be of no
consequence were the Ku Klux Klan or the neo-Nazis to own half the newspapers and
television networks in the country? Or how many of us wouldn't mind if our children were
regularly taught by outspoken racists in the schools? Indeed, if ideas expressed in written or
spoken word do not lead men to act, then why does every political, religious, philosophical, or
cultural group or movement attempt to persuade us by the written and spoken word how to
live and act? And why are millions of dollars spent on commercial advertising?
Censorship in Practice
Perhaps few will now be bold--or illogical--enough to attack censorship on either of the above
grounds. But there are two other arguments against censorship. The first is that whatever the
formal case in favor of censorship, in actual practice censors have always stifled creativity and
hindered the discovery of truth, so that whatever danger there is to society from the advocacy
of evil, much more harm will result from the always stupid--and in some cases malicious-actions of the censors themselves.
Strictly speaking, this argument is not opposed to the state's right to censor. It simply says
that since we will always or nearly always do it unintelligently, it would be much better not to
do it at all. Some of those who would argue thus might even admit the (purely theoretical)
point that were there someone endowed with superhuman intelligence, knowledge, wisdom,
and probity, it might be safe to allow him to be the censor. But never anyone else. Although I
am arguing for censorship in the abstract, I am thinking of the world as it actually is. And
though I willingly admit that many instances of censorship by individuals and pressure groups
have been stupid or perverse, still I believe that in a society fully committed to its practice,
censorship can be carried on no more foolishly than we manage the rest of human affairs.
Restrictions on books, films, or broadcasts always carry some danger. To give fallible men the
power to decide what we can read or view or hear will surely sometimes allow excesses and
even outrages. But so does giving some men the power to arrest or to punish. The question
is: Is an activity necessary enough that we will accept inevitable abuses for the sake of the
good that needs to be done? We make some men policemen and give them guns and the
right to arrest others and even in some cases the right to use deadly force. Obviously there
have been and will be abuses. But most of us do not advocate doing away with the police,
even though they sometimes shoot and kill innocent people. Instead, things such as more and
better education for policemen and more and clearer guidelines for use of force or of arrest
are usually suggested. I would say similar things about censors. The ideal censor is not some
ill-educated, parochial bigot, but someone of liberal education and continued wide reading,
someone with a grasp of first principles and enough experience and wisdom to see how they
should be put into practice. Of course, even then our censors will make mistakes. As in all
legal matters, there must be room for reconsideration and appeal. But if we know that
something is evil, and see that its advocacy is likely to bring about or increase actual evil acts,
then to do nothing because we anticipate that censors will sometimes err is not a responsible
position to take. Those who think that, with censorship, literature and creativity will dry up,
forget that most of the great works of the past, up to and in some cases beyond the 19th
century, were produced under government or ecclesiastical censorship. When we think of a
society in which censorship is practiced, we should think of the one that produced
Shakespeare's plays or Cervantes's Don Quixote, not of the Bible Belt's narrow provincialism
or the tyrannies of Hitler or Stalin. Censors need not be ignorant fanatics.
Suppressing Error
The other argument commonly made against censorship is this: That in the free play of ideas,
truth will ultimately and necessarily triumph. Censorship, therefore, is at best unnecessary and
at worst a hindrance to the discovery of truth. Strictly speaking, this argument is really not
against censorship, and when examined carefully will actually be found to support it. For even
if it is the case that truth will always emerge from the give and take of free debate (a
questionable proposition), how can the suppression of evident error harm that process? If a
number of assertions are competing for acceptance, and (let us say) we know that two of
them are false, how can removing those two from the debate make it harder for the truth to be
discerned among the rest? Surely by narrowing the field and leaving us more time to examine
those theories that might be true, we have made it even more likely that the truth will be found
in our free examination of conflicting ideas. Moreover, most of those who make the claim that
truth will always emerge from totally free debate are not really interested in discovering truths.
Page 5 of 7
They simply use this argument to foster a climate in which relativism flourishes and mankind
is perpetually in doubt about truth and error, right and wrong.
A final point that must be noted is the connection between anti-censorship arguments and the
free market. Both glorify individualism at the expense of the common good, and the rich at the
expense of the poor. It is primarily the rich who promote and subsidize ideas and art that
undermine traditional ways of life, and it is primarily the poor who suffer on that account.
Society exists to protect and promote the welfare of all, but especially of the poor and the
workingman. To exalt the free and irresponsible expression of the individual is to take up a
position contrary to the community's duty of protecting the poor. Only those with sufficient
money and ennui have the time or resources to produce ideas or art that corrupt or debase.
Censorship is a protection of the poor from the acting out of the perverted fantasies of the
rich, from the Marquis de Sade to Leopold and Loeb. Who benefits today from the continuing
corruption of the public by movies, television, and music filled with sex and violence? Studio
owners, directors, actors, and suchlike. Like unfettered capitalism, complete freedom of
expression is simply a means by which those with money and influence remake society at the
expense of those without these things.
This, I think, is what can be said on behalf of censorship. Our opposition to it is largely based
on fear and the emotional effects of slogans. If we could free our minds, we might be able to
consider the case for censorship and see that it has merit. That there is no consensus today
about what is right and wrong does not disprove what I have said. For though now we could
never actually produce a censorship code that commanded a consensus of support, yet we
can still recognize in the abstract that censorship is a legitimate practice. It never hurts to
order our thoughts correctly, even if we cannot just now put them into practice.
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Press, 1996.
1994.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
1994.
1993.
Press, 1995.
Press, 1993.
Periodicals
z
z
Larry Alexander. "Free Speech and Speaker's Intent," Constitutional Commentary,
Spring 1995.
Molefi Kete Asante. "Unraveling the Edges of Free Speech," National Forum, Spring
1995. Available from PO Box 16000, Baton Rouge, LA 70893-1410.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 7 of 7
Winton M. Blount. "Don't Privatize Art," New York Times, March 27, 1995.
Stanley C. Brubaker. "In Praise of Censorship," Public Interest, Winter 1994.
Samuel Francis. "What's at Issue Is Not Really 'Free Speech,'" Conservative
Chronicle, May 8, 1996. Available from PO Box 29, Hampton, IA 50441-0029.
Steven Hill. "Speech May Be Free, but It Sure Isn't Cheap," Humanist, May/June
1994.
Robert Hughes. "The Case for Elitist Do-Gooders," New Yorker, May 27, 1996.
Paul K. McMasters. "Teach Kids the Value of Free Expression," American Journalism
Review, January/February 1994. Available from 8701 Adelphi Rd., Adelphi, MD
20783-1716.
Annabel Patterson. "More Speech on Free Speech," Modern Language Quarterly,
March 1993. Available from 4045 Brooklyn Ave. NE, Seattle, WA 98105.
Steven D. Smith. "Radically Subversive Speech and the Authority of Law," Michigan
Law Review, November 1995.
Mark Tushnet. "New Meaning for the First Amendment: Free Speech May Be Seen as
a Tool for Protecting Those in Power," ABA Journal, November 1995.
Gene Edward Veith. "The National Endowment for the Arts: Liberator or Warden?
Current, November 1995.
Source Citation: "Censorship Can Be Beneficial" by Thomas Storck. Censorship. Byron L.
Stay, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1997. Thomas Storck, "A Case
for Censorship," New Oxford Review, May 1996. Copyright ©1996 New Oxford Review.
Reprinted with permission from the author and New Oxford Review (1069 Kains Ave.,
Berkeley, CA 94706).
Top of Page
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Search by Subject
Mark this document
_______ Document 15 of 88 _______
Censorship Is Constitutional
The wording of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is deceptively simple. At first
glance, it would appear to suggest that the right to free speech is absolute. Many people read
it that way. Luther Campbell, leader of the controversial rap group 2 Live Crew, is one of those
who does. In an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times while Campbell and the other
members of 2 Live Crew were awaiting trial on obscenity charges, Campbell wrote:
The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the
freedom of speech...." In other words, the government has no power to restrict
expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.
So what's the problem?1
The problem is that the First Amendment does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a free-standing
monument to an ideal, but a pillar in the temple of social order, resting on a foundation of laws
that preceded it and connected to laws that stand beside it. As Justice Felix Frankfurter put it
in Dennis v. United States (1951), "The language of the First Amendment is to be read not as
barren words found in a dictionary but as symbols of historic experience." Frankfurter
cautioned against taking the words of the First Amendment at face value. "Such literalness
treats the words of the Constitution as though they were found on a piece of out-worn
parchment instead of being words that have called into being a nation with a past to be
preserved for the future."2
The British Tradition
Like all American law, the First Amendment stands on centuries of British law. "The law is
perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as
the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but
simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English
ancestors," stated the Supreme Court in Robertson v. Baldwin (1897). Writing for the majority,
Justice Henry Billings Brown explained that the guarantees incorporated in the Bill of Rights
were never absolute but "had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized
exceptions."3
Page 2 of 7
Rights in Conflict
The First Amendment cannot be taken literally because it not only conflicts with tradition, it
even conflicts with itself. One part of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" and another part states that Congress shall not
abridge "freedom of speech." In practice, the prohibition against the establishment of religion
always curtails speech, because a religion cannot be established apart from speech. For
example, in Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that "state officials may not
compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State
at the beginning of each school day--even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils
who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being
recited."4 Since prayer is speech, the ban on school prayer abridges speech. Still, this strict
limit on expression, which affects millions of people, is constitutional.
Censoring Content
Free speech advocates often argue that speech cannot be curtailed because of its content,
but the school prayer ruling refutes this notion as well. School prayers were not banned
because they lasted too long, were too loud, or brought about disorder. They were banned for
their content. On its surface, the pledge of allegiance to the flag resembles a prayer: It is
spoken aloud in unison by a group. Schools are allowed to begin the day with the pledge of
allegiance, however, because its content does not establish a religion.
Similarly, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit in 1993 to force Roy S. Moore, a
circuit judge in Etowah County, Alabama, to remove a plaque of the Ten Commandments
from his courtroom. The ACLU argued that the plaque violated the separation of church and
state. No one can argue that a plaque inscribed with words is not expression, and thus
protected by the First Amendment, yet a district court judge agreed with the ACLU that the
plaque must come down, because of the clause of the First Amendment dealing with religion.
The First Amendment clashes with other parts of the Constitution as well. The Sixth
Amendment, for example, guarantees that those accused of breaking the law "shall enjoy the
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State."5 Too much publicity can
make it very hard for the court to find jurors who have not formed an opinion about a particular
case, so in some cases judges have ordered news organizations not to report on pretrial
proceedings. Such "gag rules" clearly infringe on the First Amendment's guarantee of a free
press, yet they are necessary to preserve the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial.
The Supreme Court
The framers of the Constitution foresaw that conflicts would arise involving the various rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. Such disputes, they reasoned, should be decided by a panel
of judges. Article 3 of the Constitution states,
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,
and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and
establish.... The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,
arising under this Constitution.6
According to Article 3, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of disputes that arise over
conflicting rights guaranteed by the Constitution. "It is emphatically the province and duty of
the judicial department to say what the law is,"7 wrote John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of
the Supreme Court, in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Everyone is free to have an opinion about
the meaning of the First Amendment, but only the Supreme Court can decide its legal
meaning.
Free Speech Is Not Absolute
Page 3 of 7
The Supreme Court has considered the argument that the First Amendment is absolute in its
protection of free speech, but it has never accepted it. "Speech is not an absolute, above and
beyond the control of the legislature," wrote Chief Justice Frederick Vinson for the majority in
Dennis v. United States (1951). "The societal value of speech must, on occasion, be
subordinated to other values and considerations."8 Vinson based his opinion on many
precedents, including Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), in which a unanimous Court
stated:
Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth
Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute
at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and
narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which
have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem.9
The Court went on to list the types of speech exempt from First Amendment protection:
"These include the lewd and obscene, ... the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words."10
The Court may one day reverse itself on these matters, but it has not done so yet. These
exceptions have been challenged many times since Chaplinsky, and they have always been
upheld. Censorship--the suppression of expression deemed harmful to individuals or society
as a whole--remains the law of the land.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1. Luther Campbell, "Today They're Trying to Censor Rap, Tomorrow ...," Los Angeles Times,
November 5, 1990, p. F-3.
2. U.S. Supreme Court. Dennis v. United States (1951), opinion text.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/341/ 494.html.
3. U.S. Supreme Court, Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), opinion text.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/165/275. html.
4. U.S. Supreme Court, Engel v. Vitale (1962), opinion text.
5. Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
amendment06/.
6. U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/
article03/.
7. U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison (1803), opinion text. http://laws.findlaw,
com/us/5/l37.html.
8. U.S. Supreme Court, Dennis v. United States.
9. U.S. Supreme Court, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), opinion text.
10. U.S. Supreme Court, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.
Further Readings
z
z
J. Edward Evans, Freedom of Speech. Minneapolis: Lerner, 1990. This book offers
middle-grade readers a survey of free speech throughout history, including clear and
concise explanations of landmark free speech decisions by the Supreme Court.
J. Edward Evans, Freedom of the Press. Minneapolis: Lerner, 1990. Written for
middle-grade readers, this book offers a brief history of censorship of the press then
delves into contemporary free press issues such as the right to criticize the
government, libel, and limits on student newspapers.
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 7
John Frohnmayer, Out of Tune: Listening to the First Amendment. Golden, CO:
Fulcrum, 1995. The former chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts presents
provocative essays and discussion questions for young adults that address issues
such as prayer in school and censorship of books and art.
J. Anthony Miller, Texas v. Johnson: The Flag Burning Case. Springfield, NJ: Enslow,
1997. A detailed and well-written account not only of the landmark case at the core of
the book but also of the entire history of flag-related legislation and Supreme Court
decisions about freedom of expression.
Elaine Pascoe, Freedom of Expression: The Right to Speak Out in America.
Brookfield, CT: Millbrook Press, 1992. Though strongly biased in favor of free speech,
Pascoe presents a lively survey of censorship for young adults.
Bradley Steffens, Censorship. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1996. This book for young
adults surveys censorship from antiquity to the present with special emphasis on
landmark U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
Works Consulted
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy, In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action.
New York: Avon Books, 1991. The authors explore the history and meaning of each of
the first ten amendments to the Constitution then offer examples of how these
protections have touched the lives of various citizens.
Scott Barbour, ed., Free Speech. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2000. An anthology
of essays on free speech, mostly in pro/con format.
William S. Barbour, ed., Mass Media. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1994. This
anthology of essays on the media includes a chapter on censorship.
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England. 2nd rev. ed. London:
T. Cooley, 1872. Lawyers practicing in America relied heavily on this legal text for a
century after it was published.
Richard J. Conviser et al., California II Bar/Bri Bar Review. San Diego: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1988. A professional manual for attorneys that explains the law using
citations from precedent-setting cases.
William Dudley and Stacey L. Trip, eds., Iraq. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1991.
An anthology of pro/con essays on Iraq, including media coverage of military activities
in the region.
Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom. New York: Delacorte Press, 1988. Freely quoting
from Supreme Court decisions and dissents, the well-known columnist for The Village
Voice offers a civil libertarian's account of freedom of expression from the sixteenth
century to the present.
Nat Hentoff, Free Speech for Me--but Not for Thee. New York: HarperCollins, 1992. A
strong opponent of censorship in any form, Hentoff intersperses anecdotes and legal
commentary to criticize traditional censorship as well as more recent restraints on
speech created by college speech codes, sexual harassment laws, and feminist
attacks on pornography.
Ben Jacobs and Helena Hjalmarsson, The Quotable Book Lover. New York: Lyons
Press, 1999. A small collection of selected quotes by authors, publishers, and readers
that explore the creation, enjoyment, impact, and even the censorship of books.
Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Library of Congress,
1904. The debates and proceedings in the Congress of the United States compiled
from authentic materials.
Bruno Leone, ed., Free Speech. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1994. An anthology
of articles, mostly in pro/con format.
Duane Lockard and Walter E Murphy, Basic Cases in Constitutional Law. Washington,
DC: CQ Press, 1992. This selection of judicial opinions in landmark Supreme Court
cases is arranged in eight chapters, each of which contains a brief introduction. Some
Court opinions are abridged to make them more readable.
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty. Ed. and introduction by Currin V. Shields. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996. First published in 1912, this small book brings together
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 5 of 7
three essays written in the second half of Mill's life. The brief introduction, written less
than forty years after Mill's death, describes the "living interest" in Mill's thoughts,
especially as they pertained to women's suffrage and the Irish Home rule.
John Milton, Areopagitica and Other Prose Works; introduction by K.M. Burton.
Philadelphia: A. Saifer, 1972. Editor Kathleen Burton brings together seven of Milton's
essays as well as selected autobiographical writings with a brief introduction that
examines the development of Milton's ideas about liberty, self-discipline, and the role
of social institutions such as the Church and Parliament.
Harry Nickelson, Vietnam. San Diego: Lucent Books, 1989. Written for young adults,
the book presents a concise account of American involvement in Vietnam from 1950
to 1975.
Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual. Chicago: ALA Editions,
2000. This volume details the American Library Association's positions on library
censorship.
Terry O'Neill, ed., Censorship. St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1985. This anthology
presents pairs of opposing viewpoints on various topics related to censorship.
Lisa Orr, ed., Censorship. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1990. An updated version of
Greenhaven's 1985 Opposing Viewpoints volume by the same name.
Tamara L. Roleff, ed., Civil Liberties. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1999. An
anthology of previously published essays about free speech, privacy, separation of
church and state, and the impact of the Internet on civil liberties.
Byron L. Stay, ed., Censorship. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1997. A collection of
articles and essays in a pro/con format that explores a range of censorship issues
including flag burning, government funding of the arts, school and library censorship,
and antipornography laws.
Periodicals and Websites
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
American Library Association, "Challenged and Banned Books."
www.ala.org/bbooks/challeng.html.
American Library Association, "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A."
www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/intellectualfreedomandcensorship. html.
American Library. Association, Library Bill of Rights.
www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html.
American Library Association, "Why Banned Books Week?"
www.ala.org/bbooks/index.html.
American Library Association and Association of American Publishers, "The Freedom
to Read Statement." www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freeread.html.
David S. Barry, "Growing Up Violent: Decades of Research Link Screen Mayhem with
Increase in Aggressive Behavior," Media & Values, Summer 1993.
Steve Brennan, "Springer Warns About Censorship," San Diego Union-Tribune, May
2, 2000.
David S. Broder, "The Grave Danger in Press Ban," San Diego Tribune, November 11,
1984.
Luther Campbell, "Today They're Trying to Censor Rap, Tomorrow ...," Los Angeles
Times, November 5, 1990.
Stephen Chapman, "V-Chip Asks Washington to Do the Thinking for Us,"
Conservative Chronicle, July 26, 1995.
Jane Clifford, "Mom Is Sole Watchdog Needed for TV Violence," San Diego UnionTribune, February 19, 1994.
The Committee on Civil Rights, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York,
"Military Restrictions on Press Coverage: The Unacceptability of the Pentagon's
Policies During the Persian Gulf Conflict," Record of the Association of the Bar of the
City of New York, vol. 46, no. 8, December 1991.
Bruce J. Ennis, "ALA Intellectual Freedom Policies and the First Amendment."
www.ftrf.org/ennis.html.
FindLaw Internet Legal Resources, "Freedom of Expression--Speech and Press,
Adoption and the Common Law Background."
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06. html.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
Nancy Gibbs and Timothy Roche, "The Columbine Tapes," Time, December 20, 1999.
Frank Green and Robert J. Hawkins, "2 Artists Put Focus on Black Rappers," San
Diego Union-Tribune, June 20, 1992.
Leah Halper, "Prior to 1735, the Origins of Free Speech on U.S. Soil or, Convergence
of Historical Forces," 1999. www.jacconline.org/libelthedevil/ libel01.html.
J. Harry Jones, "Police to Investigate Ruling of Child Porn in S.D.'s Library," San
Diego Union-Tribune, April 19, 2000.
Martin Kent, "Enough Already--It's Time to Chill Out Over Ice-T," Los Angeles Times,
July 13, 1992.
Knight-Ridder News Service, "2 Live Crew Acquitted on Obscenity Charges," San
Diego Union-Tribune, October 21, 1990.
Lynn Marie Latham, "All Stories Send Out Messages, Intended or Not," Los Angeles
Times, August 25, 1992.
Los Angeles Times, "Morning Report: Anti-Violence Campaign," March 9, 1993.
Los Angeles Times, "TV That's Bad for Your Health," May 30, 1993.
James Madison, Federalist No. 41. www.mcs.net/ knautzr/fed/fed41.htm.
Patrick D. Maines, "Beware the Real Evil of Violence Warnings," Los Angeles Times,
August 2, 1993.
Ronald W. McGranahan, The American Revolution Home Page.
www.dell.homestead.com/revwar/files/ADAMS.HTM.
John C. Merrill, "Needed: An Ethical Press," World & I, February 1988.
Dong-Phuong Nguyen and J. Harry Jones, "S.D. Library to Review Books After Porn
Ruling," San Diego Union-Tribune, April 20, 2000.
Karl Tage Olson, "The Constitutionality of Department of Defense Press Restrictions
on Wartime Correspondents Covering the Persian Gulf War," Drake Law Review,
1992.
Chuck Philips, "Back to the Battlefront," Los Angeles Times, March 21, 1993.
Chuck Philips, "Rap Defense Doesn't Stop Death Penalty," Los Angeles Times, July
15, 1993.
Chuck Philips, "Rap Protest Heats Up," Los Angeles Times, June 13, 1992.
Charles Edward Pogue, "Don't Tell Me What to Read, See, or Think," Los Angeles
Times, January 14, 1991.
Phyllis Schlafly, "Citizens' Bill of Rights About Schools and Libraries," Phyllis Schlafly
Report, February 1983.
Joseph C. Spear, "An Almost Absolute Right," World & I, February 1988.
Ann K. Symons, "A Challenged Modern Library." www.ala.org/bbooks/index.html.
Adam Thierer, "Enlisting Uncle Sam as a V-Chip Censor," Washington Times, July 30,
1995.
U.S. Supreme Court, Board of Eduction v. Pico (1982), opinion text.
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/457/853.html.
U.S. Supreme Court, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, City of Erie et al. v. Pap's A.M., tdba "KANDYLAND" (2000),
opinion text. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/98-1161.html.
U.S. Supreme Court, Dennis v. United States (1951), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Engel v. Vitale (1962), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Haig v. Agee (1981), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Interstate Circuit v. Dallas (1968), opinion text.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 7 of 7
U.S. Supreme Court, Legal Tender Cases (1870), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Miller v. California (1973), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Robertson v. Baldwin (1897), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Roth v. United States (1957), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Schenck v. United States (1919), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Smith v. California (1959), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson (1989), opinion text.
U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943),
opinion text. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624.html.
U.S. Supreme Court, Whitney v. People of State of California (1927), opinion text.
Marilynn Wheeler, "Violence Pervades Prime Time," Associated Press, December 18,
1993.
Pete Yost, "White House Contractor Alleges Threats," San Diego Union-Tribune,
March 11, 2000.
Mortimer B. Zukerman, "Forrest Gump vs. Ice-T," U.S. News & World Report, July 24,
1995.
Source Citation: "Censorship Is Constitutional." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints Digests
Top of Page
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Search by Subject
Mark this document
_______ Document 17 of 88 _______
Censorship Is Harmful to an Open Society
Information is the lifeblood of a democratic society, providing political, intellectual, and cultural
sustenance to every cell in the body politic. A free flow of information allows people to form,
update, refine, and verify their opinions. As a result, they are able to make informed choices
about their leaders, laws, and policies.
When the circulation of information is restricted, a kind of cultural gangrene sets in. Deprived
of new ideas and opinions, individuals stagnate. Their judgment becomes impaired. Their
decision-making ability falters. They make poor choices or succumb to apathy, both of which
weaken the entire society.
The free flow of information is so vital to an open society that its importance almost goes
without saying, yet many people fail to grasp its true value. They view free speech and a free
press as a kind of frill--something that is nice to have but ultimately expendable. Despite the
long tradition of free expression in American society, the number of those who would restrict
the free flow of information is large. A poll of 1,026 Americans taken by the Center for Survey
Research and Analysis between July 17 and August 1, 1997, found that 75 percent of those
surveyed believed that the government should be allowed to restrict some expression.
Dangerous Do-Gooders
Most of those who want to limit expression have good intentions. "The greatest danger to free
speech is posed by dogooders,"1 author Nat Hentoff once remarked. For example, some
people concerned about teen violence want to censor violence in television, movies, and
video games. People determined to end racism often seek to remove racist language from
books, classrooms, and the media. Many feminists want to censor pornography because it
portrays women as objects. "Deep down inside, everyone wants to ban something,"2
observed attorney and author Alan M. Dershowitz.
What the do-gooders fail to realize is that censorship poses a greater danger to society than
the worst speech possibly can. Their causes are just, but their remedy is evil. "Wherever they
burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings,"3 wrote German author Heinrich
Heine in 1823. A century later, his countrymen proved him right.
Page 2 of 7
What Heine knew and history has shown is that a society willing to suppress ideas in print and
other media is likely to censor those ideas wherever they appear, including speech. The only
way to censor speech, of course, is to silence the speaker through threats, imprisonment, or
even death. "Assassination is the extreme form of censorship,"4 observed playwright George
Bernard Shaw. Shaw was not exaggerating. Socrates was forced to drink hemlock, Jesus was
crucified, and Martin Luther King Jr. was gunned down because each challenged the status
quo through speech.
More Speech, Not Less
Not all speech is uplifting and enlightening. Coarse, degrading, and offensive speech does
exist. However, the best way to deal with evil speech is not to censor it but to counter it with
better speech. "The answer to vicious or wrongheaded speech is always more speech,
compelling speech, persuasive speech,"5 writes author John Frohnmayer.
Indeed, the only way to separate good ideas from bad ideas is to allow them to compete in a
free marketplace of ideas. Some good ideas, such as women's rights, were at first considered
by many to be bad. Some bad ideas, such as the right to practice human slavery, were at one
time accepted as good. Only through debate did the better ideas prevail and worse ones
disappear. As the English poet John Milton observed nearly four centuries ago, society has
nothing to fear from free speech, because good ideas eventually triumph over bad ones:
And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth, so
Truth be in the field, we do ... by licensing and prohibiting ... misdoubt her
strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worst
in a free and open encounter?6
A society that censors speech runs the danger of freezing all ideas--good and bad alike--in
place. How can even the best ideas emerge if there is no debate? How can evil ideas be
defeated if they cannot be challenged? History shows that no previous society has been
completely enlightened, so only hubris would suggest that the society we live in is. Only
through the free exchange of ideas will we be able to recognize the best and worst views of
our own time. "The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing
the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the
opinion, still more than those who hold it," wrote the British philosopher John Stuart Mill. "If the
opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong,
they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of
truth, produced by its collision with error."7
Who Will Decide?
Whatever attraction censorship may hold in theory disappears when it is put into practice,
because all censorship requires one person or group to impose its values on another. The
question always remains: Who is to decide which ideas are to be allowed and which are to be
censored?
No person or group of persons is qualified to decide what expression the rest of society
should be allowed to experience. The definition of good speech and evil speech is a personal
one; it cannot be formulated into law. Adults can decide for themselves what to read, listen to,
see, and hear. As the Irish poet William Butler Yeats put it, "I think you can leave the arts,
superior or inferior, to the conscience of mankind."8
Footnotes
Footnotes
1. Statement during panel discussion "But Do Some Lyrics Go Too Far?" at the Free Speech
Under Siege conference sponsored by the City Club of Cleveland and the Rock and Roll Hall
of Fame and Museum in Cleveland, OH, December 13, 1991.
Page 3 of 7
2. Quoted in Ben Jacobs and Helena Hjalmarsson, The Quotable Book Lover. New York:
Lyons Press, 1999, p. 145.
3. Quoted in Jacobs and Hjalmarsson, The Quotable Bank Lover, p. 145.
4. Quoted in Jacobs and Hjalmarsson, The Quotable Book Lover, p. 145.
5. John Frohnmayer, Out of Time: Listening to the First Amendments. Golden, CO: Fulcrum,
1995, p. 15.
6. John Milton,. Areopagitica. Philadelphia: A. Saifer, 1972, p. 34.
7. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, ed. and introduction by Currin V. Shields. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996, p. 127.
8. Speech before the Irish Senate, Dublin, Ireland, 1923.
Further Readings
z
z
z
z
z
z
Works Consulted
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 7
in the region.
to 1975.
censorship.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 5 of 7
2, 2000.
1984.
July 13, 1992.
August 2, 1993.
1992.
15, 1993.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
1995.
1993.
March 11, 2000.
1995.
Page 7 of 7
Source Citation: "Censorship Is Harmful to an Open Society." Censorship: Opposing
Viewpoints Digests
Top of Page
Page 1 of 5
Helena High School
Search by Subject
_______ Document 23 of 88 _______
Mark this document
Children's Access to Library Materials
Should Not Be Restricted
Robert Riehemann
Robert Riehemann is an adjunct faculty member in the mathematics department at Thomas
More College in Fort Mitchell, Kentucky.
Recall your childhood. Imagine trying to check out a book from your local library on the big
bang or evolution. Suppose that you were told that a parent would have to check it out for you
because it was from the adult section. (Say it was The Eyewitness Visual Dictionary of the
Universe by Dorling Kindersley Limited or Fossils Tell of Long Ago by Aliki.) It might even be
necessary to read from these books to complete a science homework assignment. Would
your rights as a child and library patron have been violated? Not according to the Attorney
General of the State of Alabama, Jimmy Evans. The forms that are used to permit such
restrictions in the White Smith Library of Alabama are before me. They were sent to me after I
attended the inaugural meeting for Family Friendly Libraries (FFL) in October 1995.
Excessive Restrictions
Ostensibly, this group is motivated by concerns over the sexual content of material available
to minors. In particular, President Karen Jo Gounaud has described material that is favorable
to homosexuals as philosophically radical and not family friendly. Since I know that my
extended family includes practicing homosexuals, I would like to see my children understand
something of this lifestyle to permit them to include and welcome these members into their
family. So I don't really see Gounaud's point. Yet the FFL inaugural meeting included a
speaker whose only topic was the infiltration of homosexuals into the card catalogue. Indeed,
now there are ways to obtain information about homosexuals without passing through the
evaluative comments of "sexual perversion" or "sexual deviation." What a broadside to
morality, the very fabric of the republic is thus torn!
This speaker even suggested during lunch that such problems arose because homosexuals
have occupied high places in the library power structure. I was left with the impression that
homosexuals should be barred from such positions. (And while we are making homosexuals
second-class citizens, perhaps we could do something about the Jews, atheists, and mentally
Page 2 of 5
impaired. I believe there is some historical precedent in Germany.)
It is certainly valid for any group of people to organize and approach their locally controlled
library with issues of concern. Yet there are limits to the restriction of the rights of others, even
if those others are your children. The belief that it should be possible to prevent a child from
reading science, medical information, or competing religious views is patently absurd. If a
parent wishes to thus restrict a child, handcuffing him or her to a bedpost will do as nicely.
Yet, during the meeting, it was pointed out that the kind of restrictions envisioned by FFL
could prevent a child's access to books by or about Bertrand Russell, Thomas Aquinas, Martin
Luther, and Muhammad or information about the big bang or evolution. This could be
motivated by the parent's religious views only. Gounaud remarked that such things are best
left to the discretion of parents. She emphasized after the meeting that "anything goes"
regarding restrictions by parents. Is this true?
As an intellectual giant among the Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson dealt with issues in
almost every field. Censorship was one of them. In the early part of the nineteenth century, he
bought a volume by de Becourt entitled "Sur la Creation du Monde, un Systeme
d'Organisation Primitive." Interestingly, this volume instigated a criminal inquiry as an offense
against religion. In a letter to his bookseller, N. G. Dufief, Jefferson expressed his mortification
that such a thing could happen in the United States of America. He went on to say:
Is this then our freedom of religion? And are we to have a censor whose
imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who
is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the
measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our
inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule
for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our
citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy
against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If M. de
Becourt's book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning,
refute it. But, for God's sake, let as freely hear both sides, if we choose...."
I wonder if such sentiments should apply to children in libraries. The alternative seems to be
the public funding of religiously motivated censorship, a fearful prospect.
The Danger of Restricted Reading
Recall that the assassination of Yitzak Rabin was religiously motivated and evidently
supported by rabbinical interpretations of the Jewish religious laws known as halacha. It is not
unreasonable, in my view, to believe that restricted reading and participation in a closed and
segregated social group can contribute greatly to such a disaster. And this is exactly what the
FFL permits: the policing of reading matter by parents through the agency of the library. It
should be stopped.
An article on the Rabin assassination in the New York Review of Books by Amos Elon lends
support to this idea. It details the extremist circles that the self-confessed assassin traveled
and also the narrow interpretation of halacha that "justified" the murder. Elon then quotes a
member of the National Religious Party of Israel who publicly observed that, "It is an
undeniable fact that nearly all violent right-wing extremists in Israel today are wearing
skullcaps and are graduates of religious educational institutions. We must ask ourselves
where we have gone wrong." Let's not permit the further segregation of religious
fundamentalists in the United States through the agency of the FFL. We are one nation and to
stay that way, we need a free and open society with free libraries.
In late 1996, Karen Jo Gounaud spoke to the southeastern section of the American Library
Association in Lexington, Kentucky. On request, she sent about 175 pages of material about
FFL and the issues involved. Most of this is naturally derived from the religious right since it
was from such groups that she obtained the seed money to create her organization. She
included a two-page list of creation science resources and about twelve pages of
advertisements for children's books promoting Christian lifestyles. Her literature makes me
doubt very much that she would recommend that these books be placed on a restricted
access list. Rather she would argue that they represent local community values. In this way,
Gounaud would do the thinking for my children. Frankly, I would rather see them think for
Page 3 of 5
themselves.
Further Readings
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Richard L. Abel. Speaking Respect: Respecting Speech. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1998.
Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Must We Defend Nazis? Hate Speech,
Pornography, and the New First Amendment. New York: New York University Press,
1997.
Richard Dooling. Blue Streak: Swearing, Free Speech, and Sexual Harassment. New
York: Random House, 1996.
Andrea Dworkin. Life and Death: Unapologetic Writings on the Continuing War Against
Women. New York: Free Press, 1997.
Owen M. Fiss. The Irony of Free Speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Owen M. Fiss. Liberalism Divided: Freedom of Speech and the Many Uses of State
Power. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996.
Henry Louis Gates et al. Speaking of Race, Speaking of Sex: Hate Speech, Civil
Rights, and Civil Liberties. New York: New York University Press, 1995.
Robert Justin Goldstein. Burning the Flag: The Great 1989--1990 American Flag
Desecration Controversy. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1996.
Rochelle Gurstein. The Repeal of Reticence: A History of America's Cultural and Legal
Studies over Free Speech, Obscenity, Sexual Liberation and Modern Art. New York:
Hill and Wang, 1996.
Milton Heumann, Thomas W. Church, and David P. Redlawsk, eds. Hate Speech on
Campus: Cases, Case Studies, and Commentary. Boston: Northeastern University
Press, 1997.
Steven J. Heyman, ed. Hate Speech and the Constitution. New York: Garland, 1996.
Alan Charles Kors. The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America's
Campuses, New York: Free Press, 1998.
Garza LaMarche, ed. Speech & Equality: Do We Really Have to Choose? New York:
Laura J. Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds. The Price We Pay: The Case Against
Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography. New York: Hill and Wang, 1995.
Laurence R. Marcus. Fighting Words: The Politics of Hateful Speech. Westport, CT:
Praeger, 1996.
Wendy McElroy. XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1995.
Timothy C. Shiell. Campus Hate Speech on Trial. Lawrence: University Press of
Kansas, 1998.
Rita Kirk Whillock and David Slayden, eds. Hate Speech. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, 1995.
Nicholas Wolfson. Hate Speech, Sex Speech, Free Speech. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1997.
R. George Wright. Selling Words: Free Speech in a Commercial Culture. New York:
Page 4 of 5
Periodicals
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Floyd Abrams. "Campaign Finance Restrictions Violate the Constitution," Wall Street
Journal, April 9, 1998.
Floyd Abrams. "Look Who's Trashing the First Amendment," Columbia Journalism
Review, November/December 1997.
American Legion. Special section on flag desecration Amendment, July 1998.
Russ Baker. "The Squeeze," Columbia Journalism Review, September/October 1997.
Sam Brownback. "The Melodies of Mayhem," Policy Review, November/December
1998.
Amitai Etzioni. "ACLU Favors Porn over Parents," Wall Street Journal, October 14,
1998.
Thor L. Halvorssen. "Burning Issues on Campus," Wall Street Journal, July 3, 1997.
Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa. "Chilling the Internet? Lessons from FCC
Regulation of Radio Broadcasting," Cato Policy Analysis No. 270, March 19, 1997.
Available from 1000 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20001.
Charles F. Hinkle. "Can Campaign Finance Reform Coexist with the First
Amendment?" Human Rights, Winter 1998.
Issues and Controversies on File. "Pornography," September 25, 1998.
E. Michael Jones. "What's the Difference Between a Public Library and an X-rated
Bookstore?" Culture Wars, July/August 1997. Available from 206 Marquette Ave.,
South Bend, IN 46617.
Wendy Kaminer. "The Rise of 'Respectable' Censorship," Intellectual Capital.com,
August 14, 1997. On-line. Internet. Available at www.intellectualcapital.com.
Virginia Lam. "Illiberal Arts: Campus Censorship," World & I, January 1998. Available
from 3600 New York Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002.
Wendy McElroy. "A Feminist Defense of Pornography" Free Inquiry, Fall 1997.
Barbara Miner. "Reading, Writing, and Censorship," Rethinking Schools, Spring 1998.
Available from 1001 E. Keefe Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53212.
Nation. "Speech & Power," July 21, 1997.
Charles Oliver. "The Tin Drum Meets the Tin Badge," Reason, October 1997.
Susan Philips. "Student Journalism," CQ Researcher, June 5, 1998. Available from
1414 22nd St. NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Norman Podhoretz. "'Lolita,' My Mother-in-Law, the Marquis de Sade, and Larry Flynt,"
Commentary, April 1997.
Cristopher Rapp. "Chocoholic," National Review, July 20, 1998.
David G. Savage. "First Amendment in Your Face," ABA Journal, April 1997.
Randall E. Stross. "The Cyber Vice Squad," U.S. News & World Report, March 17,
1997.
Nadine Strossen. "Regulating Cyberspace" Vital Speeches of the Day, December 15,
1997.
Eugene Volokh. "How Free Is Speech When the Government Pays?" Wall Street
Journal, June 29, 1998.
Jesse Walker. "Rebel Radio," New Republic, March 9, 1998.
Shyla Welch. "Should the Internet Be Regulated?" World & I, February 1998.
Judy Wilkins. "Protecting Our Children from Internet Smut: Moral Duty or Moral
Panic?" Humanist, September/October 1997.
Elizabeth Wright. "The First Amendment Means Exactly What It Says," Issues &
Views, Fall 1997. Available from PO Box 467, New York, NY 10025.
Barry Yeoman. "Art & States' Rights," Nation, June 29, 1998.
Source Citation: "Children's Access to Library Materials Should Not Be Restricted" by Robert
Riehemann. Free Speech. Scott Barbour, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven
Press, 2000. Reprinted from Robert Riehemann, "Family Friendly Libraries," Free Inquiry.
Page 5 of 5
Spring 1997, by permission of Free Inquiry. Endnotes in the original have been omitted in this
reprint.
Top of Page
Page 1 of 7
Helena High School
Mark this document
Search by Subject
_______ Document 48 of 88 _______
Library Censorship Is Justified
On April 18, 2000, a twice-convicted child molester named Charles Davis was found guilty in
San Diego Superior Court of possessing child pornography. Davis's collection of smut
included three photocopies of images he had obtained not from an Internet site or from a mailorder porn club but from the San Diego Public Library.
Davis copied the obscene images from two books, States of Grace by Graham Ovenden and
Twenty Five Years as an Artist by David Hamilton. Describing the books, J. Harry Jones, a
staff writer for the San Diego Union-Tribune, wrote, "The coffee-table-style publications are
filled with photographs of naked girls, often with their genitalia showing."1 Davis's attorney
called the photographs art, but Judge William Kennedy ruled that the pictures "are not art for
art's sake but for sexual purposes."2 Notified of the judge's finding, library officials did not pull
the books from the shelves but, instead, formed a panel to review the books to see if they
should remain in the collection.
Free speech zealots pounced on the San Diego case as an example of library censorship. "It
raises concerns, obviously," said Beverly Becker, associate director of the American Library
Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. "Material shouldn't be found illegal because one
person finds it offensive."3
Actually, material can be found illegal by one person, provided that that person is a judge in
an obscenity trial (such as Judge Kennedy) and provided that the defendant has waived the
right to a jury trial. There is nothing scary about this process; it is exactly how the Supreme
Court has said that such cases should be handled.
The Right of Libraries to Withdraw
Objectionable Material
Judge Kennedy did not find that the books in question were obscene. Withdrawing a book
from a library's collection is quite a different thing than declaring it in violation of obscenity
laws, however, and the standards for removing it are not as stringent as the standards for a
finding of obscenity. Although the Supreme Court ruled in Board of Education v. Pico (1982)
that books cannot be banned from libraries on a partisan political basis or even to uphold
Page 2 of 7
orthodox beliefs, the Court has upheld the right of librarians to withdraw materials that are
obscene and vulgar. In Pico, the plurality stated that "an unconstitutional motivation would not
be demonstrated if it were shown that [officials] had decided to remove the books at issue
because those books were pervasively vulgar."4
Vulgarity is not limited to sexual matters. There is no reason why people of color should have
to tolerate the existence of Ku Klux Klan literature or other racist materials in a library funded
with their tax money. Jews should not have to tolerate anti-Semitic propaganda. Women
should not have to tolerate sexist materials. Just because material is constitutionally protected
does not mean its existence in a library is justified. People may have to tolerate the existence
of offensive speech in society as a whole, but they do not have to accept its presence in a
library funded by their tax dollars.
Banned Books Week
Despite the fact that the Supreme Court finds nothing unconstitutional in withdrawing a vulgar
book from a library's collection, free speech advocates label every challenge to a book as an
attempt at censorship. During Banned Books Week (BBW), a publicity campaign sponsored
by the American Library Association (ALA) and other organizations, books that are challenged
for their suitability are lumped in with books that are banned. Explaining why the event is
called "Banned Books Week" rather than "Challenged Books Week," the ALA argues that "a
challenge is an attempt to ban or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or
group. A successful challenge would result in materials being banned or restricted."5
Although the ALA purports to believe in the "freedom to express one's opinion,"6 the Banned
Books Week campaign suggests otherwise. The stated purpose of Banned Books Week is to
reduce the number of challenges to library books, but this goal can only be achieved by
discouraging people from voicing their opinions about such books. Banned Books Week is a
publicly financed campaign to chill speech about libraries.
Librarians' Elitism versus Public
Consensus
Taxpayers have a constitutional right to discuss any public matter. In towns and cities across
the country, citizens complain about every aspect of their governance--from the condition of
public streets to the conduct of public employees. One does not have to be particularly well
informed or intelligent to speak out. Even crackpots have the right to be heard. Anyone who
speaks out about an issue--including the issue of how librarians are spending taxpayer
money--deserves to be treated with a certain degree of respect. As author and activist Phyllis
Schlafly put it, "The public has the right to exercise its right of free speech on how taxpayers'
funds are spent and on what standards, to second-guess the judgement of the persons doing
the spending."7
The ALA, People for the American Way, and other free speech advocates believe that
librarians should be given carte blanche to determine what materials to acquire and maintain
in the collection. This line of reasoning suggests that librarians are the only people capable of
forming a valid opinion about books. This is elitism, pure and simple. It is also nonsense.
There are a great number of people outside the walls of a library who are just as informed
about books as those inside the library are.
Immunizing library officials from public criticism is an even worse idea given the fact that such
officials are appointed, not elected. If a school board member, mayor, or governor makes a
bad decision, the public has the ability to remove that person from office in the next election.
Library officials face no such elections. To say that their judgments should not be criticized by
taxpayers would place librarians in an insulated realm unlike that of any other public official.
The Public Must Have Some Input
Page 3 of 7
The ALA states that "most of the books featured during BBW were not banned, thanks to the
efforts of librarians to maintain them in their collections."8 By the ALA's own admission, at
least some of the public's challenges had enough merit to warrant the removal of the materials
in question. If taxpayers did not challenge unsuitable materials, how would such cases come
to light? They would not. Instead of discouraging people from speaking out about library
collections, librarians should welcome their input. The result will be even better libraries.
Librarians denounce censorship by others, but they routinely practice censorship themselves.
Thousands of new books are published each year, but librarians have only enough shelf
space and money to purchase a tiny portion of these books. Librarians do not select these few
books randomly. They decide which books to buy based on the books' content. Other books
are excluded on the basis of their content. The exclusion of books from a library based on
content is a form of censorship.
Since librarians must practice de facto censorship in their buying decisions, they should try to
include only the best materials. Books that contain obscene images and appeal to pedophiles
like Charles Davis should not be purchased. Books that degrade people, mock religious
beliefs, contain offensive language, or are excessively violent should be omitted as well.
Perhaps some books that include these things are worthwhile, but why bother to include them
when equally valuable books are available that are less offensive?
The least librarians can do is show respect for the beliefs and values of the people who pay
their salaries. If librarians fail to respond to the concerns of the public, they should not be
surprised if the public reacts by cutting their funding. The librarians will have lost the very thing
they tried to protect, but they will have no one to blame but themselves.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1. J. Harry Jones, "Police to Investigate Ruling of Child Porn in S.D.'s Library," San Diego
Union-Tribune, April 19, 2000, p. A-20.
2. Quoted in Jones, "Police to Investigate Ruling of Child Porn in S.D.'s Library," p. A-1.
3. Quoted in Dong-Phuong Nguyen and J. Harry Jones, "S.D. Library to Review Books After
Porn Ruling," San Diego Union-Tribune, April 20, 2000, p. A-1.
4. U.S. Supreme Court, Board of Education v. Pico (1982), opinion text.
5. American Library Association, "Why Banned Books Week?"
7. Phyllis Schlafly, "Citizens' Bill of Rights About Schools and Libraries," Phyllis Schlafly
Report, February 1983, p. 5.
Further Readings
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 7
Works Consulted
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
in the region.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 5 of 7
to 1975.
censorship.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
2, 2000.
1984.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 7
July 13, 1992.
August 2, 1993.
1992.
15, 1993.
1995.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 7 of 7
1993.
March 11, 2000.
1995.
Source Citation: "Library Censorship Is Justified." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints Digests
Top of Page
Page 1 of 8
Helena High School
Mark this document
Search by Subject
_______ Document 49 of 88 _______
Library Censorship Is Not Justified
Freedom of the press does not mean anything unless it is accompanied by a freedom to read.
If a book cannot be read, it may as well not have been printed at all. As the American Library
Association's (ALA) Intellectual Freedom Manual puts it, "Freedom to express oneself through
a chosen mode of communication becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information
is not protected."1
Libraries Under Attack
Unfortunately, many good books are missing from library collections today because a few
people have pressured librarians into removing them. Between 1990 and 1999, the American
Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom recorded 5,718 challenges to library
materials. Seventy-one percent of the challenges occurred in schools or school libraries while
26 percent took place in public libraries.
The pressure to ban books and other materials from libraries comes from a wide range of
sources and arises for a variety of reasons. For example, the ALA reported that 773 of the
challenges were lodged against materials, such as the Harry Potter books, for allegedly
having an "occult theme or promoting the occult or Satanism." Most of these challenges came
from deeply religious people. At the same time, 397 of the challenges were directed at
material "promoting a religious viewpoint." Clearly these challenges did not come from
religious people. No one group is responsible for library censorship. On the contrary, libraries
are under attack from a variety of sources.
Other books were challenged for a wide range of reasons, including for containing material
deemed "sexually explicit" (1,446 cases), "unsuited to the age group" (1,167), and
"violent" (630). Other materials were challenged for containing "offensive language" (1,262
cases); dealing with a homosexual theme or "promoting homosexuality" (497); dealing with
"nudity" (297), "racism" (245), and "sex education" (217); or being "antifamily" (193).
Libraries' Role in Promoting Free Speech
If librarians caved in to every demand to remove materials from their collections, they would
Page 2 of 8
not have much left to put on the shelves. Only materials that offended no one would be
spared. Such a situation might appeal to some people, but it would not serve the needs of our
democracy or satisfy the constitutional requirements for free speech. As Supreme Court
Justice William Brennan put it in Texas v. Johnson (1989), "If there is a bedrock principle
underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of
an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."2 In West
Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), the high court stated,
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,
high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism,
religion, or other matters of opinion.3
As agents of the government, libraries are bound by the Constitution to promote free speech
and diversity of opinion. The impulse to ban books from libraries arises from confusion over
the role libraries play in society. The purpose of a library is not to promote certain points of
view but to promote a diversity of opinions. The fact that a library has a certain book on its
shelf does not imply that the library endorses the views expressed in that particular book.
In one of the most important Supreme Court cases testing the powers of library censors,
Board of Education v. Pico (1982), a plurality of the Court held that "Local school boards may
not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in
those books."4 Bruce J. Ennis, general counsel for the Freedom to Read Foundation, points
out that, while the Supreme Court allows school boards broad discretion in questions of
school curriculum, in Pico it found that the removal of books from the school library involved
First Amendment rights. "It follows," Ennis argued, "that government would have even less
justification to remove books or restrict access to books in the public library on the ground that
such books are not suitable for children."5
The Many Temptations to Censor
This is not to say that all library materials are necessarily suitable for children or that minors
should have access to every material in a library. Parents may deem some materials
inappropriate for their children. This is the parents' right, of course, but it is also their
responsibility to enforce their wishes. Parents cannot expect library officials to do their job for
them. If they wish to shield their children from certain ideas, images, or forms of expression,
they must do so themselves. Librarians cannot possibly know each family's standards, so the
only standards they would be able to enforce would be their own. It would be a mistake for
librarians to make a parental decision about what a child may read or view.
Library censors would like people to think that they only attack vulgar and deeply offensive
works, but this is hardly the case. Censors routinely challenge some of the world's great
literature, including the works of Faulkner, Steinbeck, Shakespeare, and even the Bible. As
Ann K. Symons, a past president of the American Library Association, points out, a third of the
books on the Modern Library's list of the one hundred best novels of the twentieth century,
including six of the top ten, have been challenged as inappropriate for libraries. Commenting
on the routine challenges to recognized literary classics, Symons observes,
The controversy over the Modern Library's list reminds us that great literature
is very much in the mind of the beholder. What is intellectually stimulating to
one may be irrelevant or even offensive to another. That doesn't mean that
differing viewpoints should not be heard or that parental guidance should not
be exercised. Rather, it means we must respect the rights of others to choose
for themselves and their families what they find appealing and appropriate.6
Sometimes books are banned not because of what they say but because of something the
author said or did. This practice, known as blackballing, presents a serious threat to
intellectual freedom. As the ALA points out in the organization's Library Bill of Rights, "A book
should be judged as a book. No art or literature can flourish if it is to be measured by the
political views or private lives of its creators. No society of free men can flourish which draws
up lists of writers to whom it will not listen, whatever they have to say."7
Page 3 of 8
During the 1940s and 1950s many people believed that books by avowed Communists should
be barred from libraries. President Dwight Eisenhower, who as president directed American
troops against Communist forces in Korea, disagreed. "Don't join the book burners," he said.
"Don't think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence that they ever existed.
Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book."8
Standing Up to Library Censors
Library censors correctly assert that they have a constitutional right to express their opinions.
Unfortunately, they ignore the fact that this is the very right they would deprive others from
enjoying. They also seem oblivious to the fact that their success in suppressing ideas could
later be used against them. Thomas Paine observed in Dissertations on First Principles of
Government, "He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from
opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself."9
The ALA states that the right of library censors to voice their opinions is protected "only if the
rights of persons to express ideas they despise are also protected. The rights of both sides
must be protected, or neither will survive."10
Every time a person or group succeeds in banning a book, another is encouraged to do the
same. Unless librarians and the public have the courage to stand up to the censors, the
shelves of the libraries will contain fewer and fewer materials and the free flow of ideas will
trickle to a stop.
Footnotes
Footnotes
1. Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual. Chicago: ALA Editions, 2000,
p. 33.
2. U.S. Supreme Court, Texas v. Johnson (1989), opinion text.
3. U.S. Supreme Court, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), opinion
text. http://laws.findlaw.com/us/319/624. html.
4. U.S. Supreme Court, Board of Education v. Pico (1982), opinion text.
5. Bruce J. Ennis, "ALA Intellectual Freedom Policies and the First Amendment."
6. Ann K. Symons, "A Challenged Modern Library." www.ala.org/bbooks/index.html.
7. American Library Association and Association of American Publishers, "The Freedom to
Read Statement." www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freeread. html.
8. Quoted in Ben Jacobs and Helena Hjalmarsson, The Quotable Book Lover. New York:
Lyons Press, 1999, p. 147.
9. Quoted in American Library Association, "Why Banned Books Week?" www.ala.org/
bbooks/index.html.
10. American Library Association, "Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q&A."
Further Readings
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 4 of 8
Works Consulted
Books
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
in the region.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 5 of 8
to 1975.
censorship.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
2, 2000.
1984.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 6 of 8
July 13, 1992.
August 2, 1993.
1992.
15, 1993.
1995.
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
Page 7 of 8
1993.
March 11, 2000.
1995.
Source Citation: "Library Censorship Is Not Justified." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints
Digests
Top of Page
Page 8 of 8
Henry, Peaches. “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn.” Satire and
Evasion: Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn 1992.
In the long controversy that has been Huckleberry Finn's history, the novel has been criticized, censored,
and banned for an array of perceived failings, including obscenity, atheism, bad grammar, coarse
manners, low moral tone, and antisouthernism. Every bit as diverse as the reasons for attacking the novel,
Huck Finn's detractors encompass parents, critics, authors, religious fundamentalists, right-wing
politicians, and even librarians.(1)
Ironically, Lionel Trifling, by marking Huck Finn as "one of the world's great books and one of the
central documents of American culture," (2) and T. S. Eliot, by declaring it "a masterpiece," (3) struck the
novel certainly its most fateful and possibly its most fatal blow. Trilling's and Eliot's resounding
endorsements provided Huck with the academic respectability and clout that assured his admission into
America's classrooms. Huck's entrenchment in the English curricula of junior and senior high schools
coincided with Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education, the Supreme Court case that ended public school
segregation, legally if not actually, in 1954. Desegregation and the civil rights movement deposited Huck
in the midst of American literature classes which were no longer composed of white children only, but
now were dotted with black youngsters as well. In the faces of these children of the revolution, Huck met
the group that was to become his most persistent and formidable foe. For while the objections of the
Gilded Age, of fundamentalist religious factions, and of unreconstructed Southerners had seemed
laughable and transitory, the indignation of black students and their parents at the portrayal of blacks in
Huck Finn was not at all comical and has not been short-lived.
The presence of black students in the classrooms of white America the attendant tensions of a country
attempting to come to terms with its racial tragedies, and the new empowerment of blacks to protest led to
Huck Finn's greatest struggle with censorship and banning. Black protesters, offended by the repetitions
of "nigger" in the mouths of white and black characters, Twain's minstrel-like portrayal of the escaped
slave Jim and of black characters in general, and the negative traits assigned to blacks, objected to the use
of Huck Finn in English courses. Though blacks may have previously complained about the racially
offensive tone of the novel, it was not until September 1957 that the New York Times reported the first
case that brought about official reaction and obtained public attention for the conflict. The New York City
Board of Education had removed Huck Finn from the approved textbook lists of elementary and junior
high schools. The book was no longer available for classroom use at the elementary and junior high
school levels, but could be taught in high school and purchased for school libraries. Though the Board of
Education acknowledged no outside pressure to ban the use of Huck Finn, a representative of one
publisher said that school officials had cited "some passages derogatory to Negroes" as the reason for its
contract not being renewed. The NAACP, denying that it had placed any organized pressure on the board
to remove Huck Finn, nonetheless expressed displeasure with the presence of "racial slurs" and "belittling
racial designations" in many of Twain's works. (4) Whether or not the source of dissatisfaction could be
identified, disapproval of Huck Finn's racial implications existed and had made itself felt.
The discontent with the racial attitudes of Huck Finn that began in 1957 has surfaced periodically over the
past thirty years. In 1963 the Philadelphia Board of Education, after removing Huck Finn, replaced it with
an adapted version which "tone[d] down the violence, simplify[d] the Southern dialect, and delete[d] all
derogatory references to Negroes." (5) A civil rights leader in Pasco, Washington, attacked Twain's use of
"nigger" in 1967 (6) two years later Miami-Dade Junior College (Miami, Florida) excised the text from its
required reading list after Negro students complained that it "embarrassed them" (7) Around 1976,
striking a bargain with parents of black students who demanded the removal of Huck Finn from the
curriculum, the administration of New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois, agreed to withdraw the
novel from required courses and confined Huck to the environs of elective courses and the school library.
This compromise did not end Huck's problems in that north-shore Chicago upper middle-class
community, however, for as recently as March 1988 black parents "discovered" Huck in American
Studies, an elective course team taught by an English teacher and an American history teacher, and once
again approached school administrators about banning the book. (8)
The most outspoken opponent to Huck Finn has been John Wallace, a former administrator at the Mark
Twain Intermediate School (Fairfax County, Virginia), who in 1982, while serving on the school's Human
Relations Committee, spearheaded a campaign to have Huck stricken from school curricula. A decision
by the school's principal to yield to the Human Relations Committee's recommendations was later
overridden by the superintendent of schools. Repeatedly scoring the book as "racist trash," Wallace has
raised the issue in other school districts throughout his twenty-eight-year tenure in public education. Since
the Fairfax County incident, he has appeared on ABC's "Nightline" and CNN's "Freeman Reports" and
has traveled the country championing the cause of black children who he says are embarrassed and
humiliated by the legitimization of "nigger" in public schools. Devoted to the eradication of Huck Finn
from the schools, he has "authored" an adapted version of Twain's story. (9) Wallace, aggressively if not
eloquently, enunciates many of the deleterious effects that parents and those who support them feel the
teaching of Huck Finn in junior high and senior high schools has on their children. (10)
The fact that people from Texas to Iowa to Illinois to Pennsylvania to Florida to Virginia to New York
City concur with Wallace's assessment of Huck Finn demands the attention of the academic community.
To condemn concerns about the novel as the misguided rantings of "know nothings and noise makers"
(11) is no longer valid or profitable; nor can the invocation of Huck's immunity under the protectorate of
"classic" suffice. Such academic platitudes no longer intimidate, nor can they satisfy, parents who have
walked the halls of the university and have shed their awe of academe. If the academic establishment
remains unmoved by black readers' dismay, the news that Huck Finn ranks ninth on the list of thirty
books most frequently challenged (12) should serve as testimony that the book's "racial problem" is one
of more consequence than the ancillary position to which scholars have relegated it. (13) Certainly, given
Huck Finn's high position in the canon of American literature, its failure to take on mythic proportions
for, or even to be a pleasant read for, a segment of secondary school students merits academic scrutiny.
The debate surrounding the racial implications of Huck Finn and its appropriateness for the secondary
school classroom gives rise to myriad considerations. The actual matter and intent of the text are a source
of contention. The presence of the word "nigger," the treatment of Jim and blacks in general, the
somewhat difficult satiric mode, and the ambiguity of theme give pause to even the most flexible reader.
Moreover, as numerous critics have pointed out, neither junior high nor high school students are
necessarily flexible or subtle readers. The very profundity of the text renders the process of teaching it
problematic and places special emphasis on teacher ability and attitude. Student cognitive and social
maturity also takes on special significance in the face of such a complicated and subtle text.
The nature of the complexities of Huck Finn places the dynamics of the struggle for its inclusion in or
exclusion from public school curricula in two arenas. On the one hand, the conflict manifests itself as a
contest between lay readers and so-called scholarly experts, particularly as it concerns the text. Public
school administrators and teachers, on the other hand, field criticisms that have to do with the context into
which the novel is introduced. In neither case, however, do the opponents appear to hear each other. Too
often, concerned parents are dismissed by academia as "neurotics" (14) who have fallen prey to personal
racial insecurities or have failed to grasp Twain's underlying truth. In their turn, censors regard academics
as inhabitants of ivory towers who pontificate on the virtue of Huck Finn without recognizing its potential
for harm. School officials and parents clash over the school's right to intellectual freedom and the parents'
right to protect their children from perceived racism.
Critics vilify Twain most often and most vehemently for his aggressive use of the pejorative term
"nigger." Detractors, refusing to accept the good intentions of a text that places the insulting epithet so
often in the mouths of characters, black and white, argue that no amount of intended irony or satire can
erase the humiliation experienced by black children. Reading Huck Finn aloud adds deliberate insult to
insensitive injury, complain some. In a letter to the New York Times, Allan B. Ballard recalls his reaction
to having Huck Finn read aloud "in a predominantly white junior high school in Philadelphia some 30
years ago."
I can still recall the anger I felt as my white classmates read aloud the word "nigger." In fact, as I
write this letter I am getting angry all over again. I wanted to sink into my seat. Some of the
whites snickered, others giggled. I can recall nothing of the literary merits of this work that you
term "the greatest of all American novels." I only recall the sense of relief I felt when I would flip
ahead a few pages and see that the word "nigger" would not be read that hour. (15)
Moreover, the presentation of the novel as an "American classic" serves as an official
endorsement of a term uttered by the most prejudiced racial bigots to an age group eager to
experiment with any language of shock value. One reporter has likened the teaching of the novel
to eighth-grade kids to "pulling the pin of a hand grenade and tossing it into the all too common
American classroom." (16)
Some who have followed Huck Finn's racial problems express dismay that some blacks misunderstand
the ironic function Twain assigned "nigger" or that other blacks, inspite of their comprehension of the
irony, will allow themselves and their progeny to be defeated by a mere pejorative. Leslie Fiedler would
have parents "prize Twain's dangerous and equivocal novel not in spite of its use of that wicked epithet,
but for the way in which it manages to ironize it; enabling us finally-without denying our horror or our
guilt-to laugh therapeutically at the 'peculiar institution' of slavery." (17) If Wallace has taken it upon
himself to speak for the opponents of Huck Finn, Nat Hentoff, libertarian journalist for the Village Voice,
has taken equal duty as spokesperson for the novel's champions. Hentoff believes that confronting, Huck
will give students "the capacity to see past words like 'nigger' . . into what the writer is actually saying."
He wonders, "What's going to happen to a kid when he gets into the world if he's going to let a word
paralyze him so he can't think?" (18) Citing an incident in Warrington, Pennsylvania, where a black
eighth grader was allegedly verbally and physically harassed by white students after reading Huck Finn in
class, Hentoff declares the situation ripe for the educational plucking by any "reasonably awake teacher."
He enthuses:
What a way to get Huck and Jim, on the one hand, and all those white racists they meet., on the
other hand, off the pages of the book and into that very classroom. Talk about a book coming
alive!
Look at that Huck Finn. Reared in racism, like all the white kids in his town. And then, on the
river, on the raft with Jim, shucking off that blind ignorance because this runaway slave is the
most honest, perceptive, fair-minded man this white boy has ever known. What a book for the
children, all the children, in Warrington, Pennsylvania, in 1982! (19)
Hentoff laments the fact that teachers missed such a teachable moment and mockingly reports the
compromise agreed upon-by parents and school officials, declaring it a "victory for niceness." Justin
Kaplan flatly denies that "anyone, of any color, who had actually read Huckleberry Finn, instead of
merely reading or hearing about it, and who had allowed himself or herself even the barest minimum of
intelligent response to its underlying spirit and intention, could accuse it of being 'racist' because some of
its characters use offensive racial epithets. (20) Hentoff's mocking tone and reductive language Kaplan's
disdainful and condescending attitude, and Fiedler's erroneous supposition that "nigger" can be objectified
so as to allow a black person "to laugh therapeutically" at slavery illustrate the incapacity of non-blacks to
comprehend the enormous emotional freight attached to the hateword "nigger" for each black person.
Nigger is "fightin" words and everyone in this country, black and white, knows it." (21) In his
autobiography, Langston Hughes offers a cogent explanation of the signification of "nigger" to blacks:
The word nigger to colored people of high and low degree is like a red rag to a bull. Used rightly
or wrongly, ironically or seriously, of necessity for the sake of realism, or impishly for the sake of
comedy, it doesn't matter. Negroes do not like it in any book or play whatsoever, be the book or
play ever so sympathetic in its treatment of the basic problems of the race. Even though the book
or play is written by a Negro, they still do not like it.
The word nigger, you see, sums up for us who are colored all the bitter years of insult and
struggle in America. (22)
Nonblacks know implicitly that to utter "nigger" in the presence of a Negro is to throw down a gauntlet
that will be taken up with a vengeance.
To dismiss the word's recurrence in the work as an accurate rendition of nineteenth-century American
linguistic conventions denies what every black person knows: far more than a synonym for slave,
"nigger" signifies a concept. It conjures centuries of specifically black degradation and humiliation during
which the family was disintegrated, education was denied, manhood was trapped within a forced
perpetual puerilism, and womanhood was destroyed by concubinage. If one grants that Twain substituted
"nigger" for "slave," the implications of the word do not improve; "nigger" denotes the black man as a
commodity, as chattel. (23)
In addition to serving as a reminder of the "peculiar institution" "nigger" encapsulates the decades of
oppression that followed emancipation. "It means not only racist terror and lynch mobs but that victims
'deserve it.'" (24) Outside Central High in Little Rock in 1954 it was emblazoned across placards; and
across the South throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s it was screamed by angry mobs. Currently, it is
the chief taunt of the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist groups. In short, "nigger" has the odious
distinction of signifying all "the shame, the frustration, the rage, the fear" that has been so much a part of
the history of race relations in the United States, and blacks still consider it "'dirtier" than any of the
once-taboo four-syllable Anglo-Saxon monosyllabics." (25) So to impute blacks' abhorrence of "nigger"
to hypersensitivity compounds injustice with callousness and signals a refusal to acknowledge that the
connotations of "that word" generate a cultural discomfort that blacks share with no other racial group.
To counteract the Pavlovian response that "nigger" triggers for many black readers, some scholars have
striven to reveal the positive function the word serves in the novel by exposing the discrepancy between
the dehumanizing effect of the word and the real humanity Of Jim. (26) Fiedler cites the passage in which
Huck lies to Aunt Sally about a steamboat explosion that hurt no one but "killed a nigger," and Aunt Sally
callously responds, "Well, it's lucky, because sometimes people do get hurt" (chap. 32); he notes that the
passage brims with humor at the expense of Aunt Sally and the convention to which she conforms. But
Fiedler is also of the opinion that Huck does not get the joke-does not recognize the humor of the fact that
he and Aunt Sally by "dehumanizing the Negro diminish their own humanity. (27) It seems to Huck's foes
(and to me) that if Huck does not get the joke, then there is no joke, and he becomes as culpable as Aunt
Sally.
However, Fiedler's focus on this dialogue is to the point, because racial objectors isolate it as one of the
most visible and detrimental slurs of the novel. The highlighting of this passage summons contrasting
perspectives on it. Kaplan argues that "one has to be deliberately dense to miss the point Mark Twain is
making here and to construe such passages as evidences of his 'racism." (28) Detractors drawing the
obvious inference from the dialogue, arrive at a conclusion different from Kaplan's, and their response
cannot simply be disregarded as that of the unsophisticated reader. In order to believe in Twain's satirical
intention, one has to believe in Huck's good faith toward Jim. That is to say, one has to believe that, rather
than reflecting his own adherence to such conventions, Huck simply weaves a tale that marks him as a
"right-thinking" youngster.
The faith in Huck that Twain's defenders display grows out of the manner in which he acquits himself at
his celebrated "crisis of conscience," less than twenty-four hours prior to his encounter with Aunt Sally.
There is no denying the rightness of Huck's decision to risk his soul for Jim. But there is no tangible
reason to assume that the regard Huck acquires for Jim during his odyssey down the river is generalized
to encompass all blacks. Further, Huck's choice to "go to hell" has little to do with any respect he has
gained for Jim as a human being with an inalienable right to be owned by no one. Rather, his personal
affection for the slave governs his overthrow of societal mores. It must be remembered that Huck does not
adjudge slavery to be wrong; he selectively disregards a system that he ultimately believes is right. So
when he discourses with Aunt Sally, he is expressing views he still holds. His emancipatory attitudes
extend no further than his love for Jim. It seems valid to argue that were he given the option of freeing
other slaves, Huck would not necessarily choose manumission.
Twain's apparent "perpetuation of racial stereotypes" through his portrayal of Jim and other blacks in
Huck Finn bears relation to his use of "nigger" and has fostered vociferous criticism from anti-Huck Finn
forces. Like the concept "nigger," Twain's depiction of blacks, particularly Jim, represents the tendency of
the dominant white culture to saddle blacks with traits that deny their humanity and mark them as inferior.
Critics disparage scenes that depict blacks as childish, inherently less intelligent than whites, superstitious
beyond reason and common sense, and grossly ignorant of standard English. Further, they charge that in
order to entertain his white audience, Twain relied upon the stock conventions of "black minstrelsy,"
which "drew upon European traditions of using the mask of blackness to mock individuals or social
forces." (29) Given the seemingly negative stereotypical portraits of blacks, parents concerned that
children, black and white, be exposed to positive models of blacks are convinced that Huck Finn is
inappropriate for secondary classrooms.
Critics express their greatest displeasure with Twain's presentation of Jim, the runaway slave viewed by
most as second only to Huck in importance to the novel's thematic structure. Although he is the catalyst
that spurs Huck along his odyssey of conscience, Jim commences the novel (and to some degree remains)
as the stereotypical, superstitious "darky" that Twain's white audience would have expected and in which
they would have delighted.
In his essay "Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke," Ralph Ellison examines the play Twain gives the
minstrel figure. Though Twain does strike Jim in the mold of the minstrel tradition, Ellison believes that
we observe "Jim's dignity and human capacity" emerge from "behind this stereotype mask." Yet by virtue
of his minstrel mask, Jim's role as an adult is undercut, and he often appears more childlike than Huck.
Though Ellison writes that "it is not at all odd that this black-faced figure of white fan [the minstrel darky]
is for Negroes a symbol of everything they rejected in the white man's thinking about race, in themselves
and in their own group," his final analysis seems to be that Jim's humanity transcends the limits of the
minstrel tradition. (30)
Taking a more critical stance than Ellison, Frederick Woodard and Donnarae MacCann, in "Huckleberry
Finn and the Traditions of Blackface Minstrelsy," examine specific incidents throughout the novel in the
light of the minstrel tradition. Denying that Jim is used to poke fun at whites, as some scholars suggest,
Woodard and MacCann cite the appeal that the "ridiculous or paternalistic portrayals of Black
Americans" held for "the white theatre-going audience," Twain's own delight in minstrel shows, and his
"willingness to shape his message to his audience." (31) Noting that the stereotypical blackface portrayals
were thought to be realistic by Twain and many of his white contemporaries, the pair highlight various
incidents in Huck Finn that they think illustrate their contention that Jim plays the minstrel role to Huck's
straight man. For instance, Huck's and Jim's debate about French (chap. 14) bears a striking resemblance
to the minstrel-show dialogue that Twain deemed "happy and accurate imitation[s] of the usual and
familiar negro quarrel." (32) Though Jim's logic is superior to Huck's, argue Woodard and MacCann, the
scene plays like a minstrel-show act because "Jim has the information-base of a child." (33)
Huck Finn advocates, tending to agree with Ellison's judgment that Jim's fullness of character reveals
itself, offer readings of Jim that depart sharply from the Woodard and MacCann assessment. Some view
Twain's depiction of Jim early in the novel as the necessary backdrop against which Huck's gradual
awareness of Jim's humanity is revealed. These early renditions of Jim serve more to lay bare Huck's
initial attitudes toward race and racial relations than they do to characterize Jim, positively or negatively.
As the two fugitives ride down the Mississippi deeper and deeper into slave territory, the power of Jim's
personality erodes the prejudices Huck's culture (educational, political, social, and legal) has instilled.
Such readings of passages that appear to emphasize Jim's superstitions, gullibility, or foolishness allow
Twain to escape the charge of racism and be seen as championing blacks by exposing the falseness of
stereotypes. This view of Twain's motivation is evident in letters written to the New York Times in
protest of the New York City Board of Education's decision to ban the book in 1957:
Of all the characters in Mark Twain's works there probably wasn't any of whom he was fonder
than the one that went down the river with Huck Finn. It is true that this character is introduced as
"Miss Watson's big nigger, named Jim." That was the Missouri vernacular of the day. But from
there on to the end of the story Miss Watson's Jim is a warm human being, lovable and admirable.
(34)
Now, Huckleberry Finn... is a great document in the progress of human tolerance and
understanding. Huck begins by regarding Jim, the fugitive slave, very much as the juvenile
delinquents of Little Rock regard the Negro today. Gradually, however, he discovers that Jim,
despite the efforts of society to brutalize him, is a noble human being who deserves his
protection, friendship, and respect. This theme of growing love is made clear throughout the
book. (35)
In another vein, some defenders of Twain's racial sensitivities assign Jim's initial portrayal a more
significant role than mere backdrop. The rubric of "performed ideology" frames Steven Mailloux's
interpretation of Jim as he appears in the early "philosophical debates" with Huck. (36) Mailloux explains
how a "literary text can take up the ideological rhetoric of its historical moment... and place it on a
fictional stage." As "ideological drama," the literary text-Huckleberry Finn in this case-invites readers to
become spectators and actors at a rhetorical performance. In fact, the success of the ideological drama
depends upon the reader's participation: "The humor and often the ideological point of the novel's many
staged arguments... rely upon the reader's ability to recognize patterns of false argumentation." Within the
framework of rhetorical performances, then, Jim's minstrel scenes serve "as ideological critique[s] of
white supremacy." In each case, however, the dominance of Jim's humanity over the racial discourse of
white supremacy hinges upon the reader's recognition of the discrepancy between the two ideologies. (37)
The interpretive job that Mailloux does on the "French question" in chapter 14 exonerates the passage of
any racial negativity. Huck's disdainful comment that "you can't learn a nigger to argue" renders the
debate little more than a literary version of a minstrel dialogue unless readers recognize the superior
rhetorician: "Of course, readers reject the racist slur as a rationalization. They know Huck gives up
because he has lost the argument: it is precisely because Jim has learned to argue by imitating Huck that
he reduces his teacher to silence. Far from demonstrating Jim's inferior knowledge, the debate dramatizes
his argumentative superiority, and in doing so makes a serious ideological point through a rhetoric of
humor." (38) The vigorous critical acumen with which Mailloux approaches the role played by Jim is
illustrative of the interpretative tacks taken by academics. Most view Twain's depiction of Jim as an ironic
attempt to transcend the very prejudices that dissidents accuse him of perpetuating.
Though there has been copious criticism of the Jim who shuffles his way across the pages of Huckleberry
Finn's opening chapters, the Jim who darkens the closing chapters of the novel elicits even more (and
more universally agreed-upon) disapprobation. Most see the closing sequence, which begins at Huck's
encounter with Aunt Sally, as a reversal of any moral intention that the preceding chapters imply. The
significance that Twain's audience has attached to the journey down the river-Jim's pursuit of freedom and
Huck's gradual recognition of the slave's humanness-is rendered meaningless by the entrance of Tom
Sawyer and his machinations to "free" Jim.
The particular offensiveness to blacks of the closing sequence of Huckleberry Finn results in part from
expectations that Twain has built up during the raft ride down the river. As the two runaways drift down
the Mississippi, Huck (along with the reader) watches Jim emerge as a man whose sense of dignity and
self-respect dwarf the minstrel mask. No one can deny the manly indignation evinced by Jim when Huck
attempts to convince him that he has only dreamed their separation during the night of the heavy fog.
Huck himself is so struck by Jim's passion that he humbles himself "to a nigger" and "warn't ever sorry
for it afterwards" (chap. 15).
From this point, the multidimensionality of Jim's personality erodes Huck's socialized attitudes about
blacks. During the night, thinking that Huck is asleep, Jim vents the adult frustrations he does not expect
Huck to understand or alleviate; he laments having to abandon his wife and two children: "Po' little
Lizbeth! Po' little Johnny! It's might hard; I spec' I ain't ever gwyne to see you no mo', no mo"' (chap.
2.3). Berating himself for having struck his four-year old daughter, Elizabeth, in punishment for what he
thought was blatant disobedience, Jim tells Huck of his remorse after discovering that the toddler had
gone deaf without his knowledge. Through such poignant moments Huck learns, to his surprise, that Jim
"cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their'n. It don't seem natural, but I reckon it's so"
(chap. 23).
Finally, in the welcome absence of Pap, Jim becomes a surrogate father to Huck, allowing the boy to
sleep when he should stand watch on the raft, giving him the affection his natural father did not, and
making sure that the raft is stocked and hidden. Thus Twain allows Jim to blossom into a mature,
complex human being whom Huck admires and respects. The fullness of character with which Twain
imbues Jim compels Huck to "decide, forever, betwixt two things." The reader applauds Hucks'
acceptance of damnation for helping Jim and affixes all expectations for the rest of the novel to this
climactic moment.
Having thus tantalized readers with the prospect of harmonious relations between white and black, Twain
seems to turn on his characters and his audience. Leo Marx, who mounted the best-known attack on the
novel's ending in his essay "Mr. Eliot, Mr. Trilling, and Huckleberry Finn," describes it as a glaring lapse
"of moral vision" resulting from Twain's inability to "acknowledge the truth his novel contained." (39)
Readers' discomfort with the "evasion" sequence results from discrepancies between the Jim and Huck
who grow in stature on the raft and the impostors who submit to Tom. Fritz Oehschlaeger's "'Gwyne to
Git Hung': The Conclusion of Huckleberry Finn" expresses the frustrations that many experience
regarding the evasion:
The... shift in tone from one of high seriousness to one of low burlesque is so abrupt as to be
almost chilling. Clemens has simply made the issues too serious for us to accept a return to the
boyhood world of the novel's opening. We are asked to forget Huck's process of moral education,
his growing awareness of Jim's value as a human being.
Similarly, we are asked to forget Jim's nobility, revealed to us repeatedly in the escape down the
river. Instead, Jim becomes again the stereotyped, minstrel-show "nigger" of the novel's first
section, a figure to be manipulated, tricked, and ridiculed by the boys. Perhaps even less
acceptable is Clemens's apparent decision to allow Miss Watson a partial redemption through her
death-bed freeing of Jim. At the end Jim is free and considers himself rich, and Huck is left to
pursue further adventures in the Territory. [Yet] ... something in us longs for quite a different
outcome, one that would allow Jim to retain his heroic stature and force Huck to live up to the
decision that accompanies his tearing up of the letter to Miss Watson. (40)
By this view, Twain's apparent abandonment of Huck's reformation and Jim's quest for freedom
constitutes an absolute betrayal, Consequently, any redemptive racial attitudes that Twain has displayed
earlier are nullified; his final portrait of Jim appears sinister and malicious.
Scholars have attempted to read the evasion sequence in ways that would make it palatable by placing it
in sync with the preceding chapters. In just such an attempt to render the last ten chapters less irksome,
James M. Cox attacks the very thing that has led readers to deplore that last one-fourth-that is, the moral
sentiment against which we measure Tom's actions. Our moral sentiment, explains Cox, (41) leads us to
misconstrue Twain's intent and to declare the ending a failure. Twain does not, as most believe, lose
courage and fail to carry through with his indictment of the racial attitudes of the Old South. On the
contrary, the closing sequence returns the novel and Huck to Twain's true central meaning.
For thirty-one chapters Twain wages an attack upon conscience not upon the southern conscience, as we
want to believe, but upon any conscience. According to Cox, "the deep wish which Huckleberry Finn
embodies" is "the wish for freedom from any conscience." Huck flees conscience at every turn, making
choices based on what is most comfortable. It is this adherence to the pleasure principle that defines
Huck's identity and governs his actions toward Jim, not a racial enlightenment, as we would hope. The
moment at which Huck forsakes the pleasure principle and of which we most approve marks the point at
which his identity and Twain's central focus, according to Cox, are in the most jeopardy: "In the very act
of choosing to go to hell he has surrendered to the notion of a principle of right and wrong. He has
forsaken the world of pleasure to make a moral choice. Precisely here is where Huck is about to negate
himself-where, with an act of positive virtue, he actually commits himself to play the role of Tom Sawyer
which he has to assume in the closing section of the book." (42) Insofar as the concluding sections bring
Huck back into line with Twain's determination to subvert conscience, it remains consistent with the
preceding chapters. Given this, to declare Twain's ending a failure is to deny his actual thematic intent
and to increase our discomfort with the concluding segments.
Cox's argument demonstrates the ingenious lengths to which scholars go to feel comfortable with the final
chapters of Huck Finn. But the inadequacy of such academic ingenuities in meeting this and other
challenges to the novel becomes clear when one considers that the issue remains "hot" enough to make it
available for debate on prime-time television. (43) What scholars must realize is that no amount of
interpretive acrobatics can mediate the actual matter of the closing sequence. Regardless of Twain's
motivation or intent, Jim does deflate and climb back into the minstrel costume. His self-respect and
manly pursuit of freedom bow subserviently before the childish pranks of an adolescent white boy.
Considering the perplexity of the evasion brings us back full circle to Huckleberry Finn's suitability for
public schools. Given the powerlessness of highly discerning readers to resolve the novel in a way that
unambiguously redeems Jim or Huck, how can students be expected to fare better with the novel's
conclusion? Parents question the advisability of teaching to junior and senior high school students a text
which requires such sophisticated interpretation in order for its moral statements to come clear. The
teaching of such a text presumes a level of intellectual maturity not yet realized by secondary school
students, particularly eighth- and ninth-grade students who are in the inchoate stages of literary studies.
Parents fear that the more obvious negative aspects of Jim's depiction may overshadow the more subtle
uses to which they are put. Critics such as Mailloux point to the reader as the component necessary to
obviate the racism inherent in, for example, the interchange between Aunt Sally and Huck. (44) But if an
eighth- or ninth-grader proves incapable of completing the process begun by Twain, then the ideological
point is lost. This likely possibility causes parents to be hesitant about approving Huck Finn for the
classroom.
Huck Finn apologists view the objection to the novel on the ground of students' cognitive immaturity as
an underestimation of youngsters' abilities. In the third of his four-part series on the censorship of Huck
Finn, (45) Hentoff boasts that the ability of children in 1982 to fathom Twain's subtleties is at least
comparable to that of children who read the novel a century ago. "At 10, or 12, or 14, even with only the
beginning ring of meaning," writes Hentoff, "any child who can read will not miss the doltishness and
sheer meanness and great foolishness of most whites in the book, particularly in their attitudes toward
blacks." (46) He continues, "Nor will the child miss the courage and invincible decency of the white boy
and the black man on the river." While Hentoff's confidence in the American schoolchild is
commendable, his enthusiasm reveals a naiveté about junior high school students' critical insight. As
Cox's and Mailloux's articles show, the points of the novel are anything but "as big as barn doors."
Therefore, the cognitive maturity of students and the grade-level placement of the novel are of grave
importance.
That Huckleberry Finn brims with satire and irony is a truism of academic discourse. But a study
conducted in 1983 to examine "the effects of reading Huckleberry Finn on the racial attitudes of ninth
grade students" corroborates the contention that junior high school students lack the critical perception to
successfully negotiate the satire present in the novel. According to the committee that directed the study,
the collected data indicated "that the elements of satire which are crucial to an understanding of the novel
go largely unobserved by students." (47) That approximately one-third of the group (those students who
studied the novel as an instructional unit) regarded Huckleberry Finn as merely an adventure story "after
several weeks of serious study" left the committee convinced "that many students are not yet ready to
understand the novel on its more complex levels." Therefore, although not advising expulsion of the
novel, the panel recommended its removal from the ninth-grade curriculum and placement in the
eleventh- or twelfth-grade syllabus:
This recommendation is made, not because the use of Huckleberry Finn promotes or furthers negative
stereotyping-the preponderance of our data suggests that, if anything, it lessens such stereotyping-but
because some of the literary objectives given as justification for the use of the book seem not to have been
achieved. Given the degree and instances of irony and satire in the book, the difficult dialects and general
reading level of the book, and the tendency of many students to read the book at the level of an adventure
story, the committee believes, the novel requires more literary sophistication than can reasonably be
expected from an average ninth grade student. (48)
Though the Penn State study does not support parents' calls for total removal of Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn from the curriculum, it does validate their reservations about the presence of the work
at the junior high level. Possibly a sufficiently mature audience is present in the eleventh- and
twelfth-grade classes of America, but it seems not to be available in the eighth, ninth, or even tenth
grades.
The volatile combination of satire, irony, and questions of race underscores an additional important facet
of the controversy: teacher ability and attitude. The position of the classroom teacher in the conflict over
Huckleberry Finn is delicate: students not only look to teachers as intellectual mentors, but turn to them
for emotional and social guidance as well. So in addition to ensuring that students traverse the scholarly
territory that the curriculum requires, teachers must guarantee that students complete the journey with
their emotional beings intact.
The tenuous status of race relations in the United States complicates the undertaking of such an
instructional unit. Cox, despite his affection for the novel and his libertarian views, admits that were he
"teaching an American literature course in Bedford Stuyvesant or Watts or North Philadelphia," he might
choose Twain texts other than Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. (49) A situation as emotionally charged
as the introduction of the word "nigger" into class discussion requires a sensitivity and perspicacity that
parents are unconvinced a majority of teachers possess. Those who want the "classic" expelled dread the
occurrence of incidents such as the one described by Hentoff on ABC'S "Nightline." (50) According to
Hentoff, a teacher in Texas commenced her initial class discussion of the novel with the question "What
is a nigger?" In response, the white students in the class looked around the room at the black kids. In
addition to this type of ineptness, the lack of commitment to human equality on the part of some teachers
looms large in the minds of would-be censors. The "inherent threat" of Huckleberry Finn is that in the
hands of an unfit, uncommitted teacher it can become a tool of oppression and harmful indoctrination.
Assuming the inverse to be equally possible, a competent, racially accepting educator could transform the
potential threat into a challenge. Huckleberry Finn presents the secondary teacher with a vehicle to effect
powerful, positive interracial exchange among students. Though I have not taught Huckleberry Finn in a
secondary school, I have taught Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, which is "tainted" with the
pejorative "nigger" as well as "nigger-lover," and which is also under fire from censors. Like Huck Finn,
To Kill a Mockingbird treats a highly emotional racial episode. Different from Twain's novel, however, is
the clear-cut use of "nigger-lover" and "nigger" by characters who intend the terms to be derogatory
(except where Atticus Finch, a liberal lawyer, forbids his children to use them-an important exception).
Set in a small, bigoted Alabama town during the Great Depression, the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel is
narrated by Atticus's daughter, Scout, a precocious tomboy. Scout, along with her older brother Jem and
playmate Dill, observes the horrors of racial prejudice as they are played out in the trial of a black man,
Tom Robinson, wrongfully accused of rape by a white woman.
Over a four-year period in Austin, Texas, I introduced the novel to approximately five hundred public
school ninth-graders. Each time I taught the four-week 'unit on To Kill a Mockingbird, the most difficult
day of instruction involved the introduction of "nigger" (actually "nigger-lover") into class discussion. My
rationale for forcing the word into active class discourse proceeded from my belief that students (black
and white) could only face sensitive issues of race after they had achieved a certain emotional distance
from the rhetoric of race. I thought (and became convinced over the years) that open confrontation in the
controlled setting of the classroom could achieve that emotional distance.
Early in the novel, when another child calls Atticus, who has agreed to defend Robinson, a "nigger-lover,"
Scout picks a fight with him. When Atticus learns of the fray, Scout asks if he is a "nigger lover."
Beautifully undercutting the malice of the phrase, Atticus responds, "Of course, I am. I try to love
everybody." A discussion of this episode would constitute my first endeavor to ease my students into
open dialogue about "the word" and its derivatives.
My opening query to each class-Why does Scout get into a fight at school?-was invariably answered with
a paroxysm of silence. As the reality of racial discomfort and mistrust cast its shadow over the classroom,
the tension would become almost palpable. Unable to utter the taboo word "nigger," students would be
paralyzed, the whites by their social awareness of the moral injunction against it and the blacks by their
heightened sensitivity to it. Slowly, torturously, the wall of silence would begin to crumble before
students' timid attempts to approach the topic with euphemism. Finally, after some tense moments, one
courageous adolescent would utter the word. As the class released an almost audible sigh of relief, the
students and I would embark upon a lively and risk-taking exchange about race and its attendant
complexities. The interracial understanding fostered by this careful, enlightened study of To Kill a
Mockingbird can, I think, be achieved with a similar approach to Huckleberry Finn.
It must be understood, on the other hand, that the presence of incompetent, insensitive, or (sometimes
unwittingly, sometimes purposefully) bigoted instructors in the public schools is no illusion. Black
parents who entrust their children's well-being to such people run the risk of having their offspring
traumatized and humiliated; white parents risk having their children inculcated with attitudes that run
contrary to a belief in human rights and equality. The possibility of lowering black students' self-esteem
and undermining their pride in their heritage is a substantial argument against sanctioning the novel's use,
and the likelihood that Huckleberry Finn could encourage racial prejudice on the part of white students is
a matter of comparable concern.
Though these qualms are legitimate and are partly supported by the Penn State study, other studies
charged with the task of determining whether Huckleberry Finn causes, furthers, or ameliorates poor
self-concept, racial shame, or negative racial stereotyping indicate that the novel's influence on a majority
of students is positive. A 1972 study that measured the influence the novel had on the racial attitudes of
black and white ninth-grade boys yielded only positive results. (51) Herbert Frankel, director of the study,
concluded that significant changes in perceptions of blacks occurred for black and white students, and all
shifts were of a positive nature. The data indicated that black adolescents' self-concepts were enhanced.
Further, "black students tended to identify more strongly and more positively with other members of their
race" as a result of having studied Huckleberry Finn. For white students, reading the novel "reduce[d]
hostile or unfavorable feelings toward members of another race and increase[d] favorable feelings toward
members of another race" (emphasis added). Students who read the novel under a teacher's guidance
showed "Significantly greater positive change" than those students who read the novel on their own. (52)
The Penn State study upholds this last conclusion, judging the novel "suitable for serious literary study by
high school students":
Our data indicate that students who read the novel as part of an instructional unit demonstrated
both a deeper sensitivity to the moral and psychological issues central to the novel (a number of
which deal with issues of race) and a more positive attitude on matters calling for racial
understanding and acceptance. These students were also able to interpret the novel with greater
literary sophistication than those students who read the novel without instruction. Additionally,
these students were significantly more accepting of contacts with Blacks than were the other
students involved in the study. (53)
Based on these studies completed eleven years apart (1972 and 1983), it appears that in the right
circumstances Huckleberry Finn can be taught without perpetuating negative racial attitudes in white
students or undermining racial pride in black students.
Still, in the final analysis the concerns voiced by parents and other would-be censors of Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn are not wholly invalid. One has only to run a mental scan across the nation's news
headlines to glean a portrait of the present state of American race relations. Such a glimpse betrays the
ambivalence present in the status of blacks and their relations with whites. In "Breaking the Silence," a
powerful statement on the plight of the "black underclass," Pete Hamill delineates the duality of the
American black experience. Admitting the dismal reality of continued racist behavior, Hamill cites "the
antibusing violence in liberal Boston, the Bernhard Goetz and Howard Beach cases in liberal New York,
[and] a some places." (54) Then, turning to inroads forged toward equality, he mentions that "for the first
time in American history, there is a substantial and expanding black middle class, [a] leading contender
for the Democratic nomination for President is a black man," and mayors of eight American cities are
black. Hamill's article points to a fundamental fissure in the American psyche when it comes to race.
Further, these details suggest that the teaching of Twain's novel may not be the innocent pedagogical
endeavor that we wish it to be.
When we move from the context into which we want to deposit Huckleberry Finn and consider the nature
of the text and its creator, matter becomes even more entangled. Though devotees love to praise
Huckleberry Finn as "a savage indictment of a society that accepted slavery as a way of life" (55) or "the
deadliest satire ... ever written on ... the inequality of [the] races," (56) the truth is that neither novel nor
its author has escaped ambivalence about racial matters.
First, the ambiguities of the novel are multiple. The characterization of Jim is a string of inconsistencies.
At one point he is the superstitious darky; at another he is the indulgent surrogate father. On the one hand,
his desire for freedom is unconquerable; on the other, he submits it to the ridiculous antics of a child.
Further, while Jim flees from slavery and plots to steal his family out of bondage, most other slaves in the
novel embody the romantic contentment with the "peculiar institution" that slaveholders tried to convince
abolitionists all slaves felt.
Twain's equivocal attitude toward blacks extends beyond his fiction into his lifelong struggle with "the
Negro question." In his autobiography Twain describes the complaisance with which he accepted slavery
while growin g up. Leaving slaveholding Missouri seems to have had little effect on his racial outlook,
because in 1853 he wrote home to his mother from New York, "I reckon I had better black my face, for in
these Eastern states niggers are considerably better than white people." He served briefly as a Confederate
soldier before heading west and never seemed to be morally discomfited by his defense of slavery. (57)
Set over and against these unflattering details are Twain's advocacies for equality. In 1985 a letter proving
that Twain had provided financial assistance to a black student at the Yale University Law School in 1885
was discovered and authenticated by Shelley Fisher Fishkin. In the letter Twain writes, 'We [whites] have
ground the manhood out of them, & the shame is ours, not theirs, & we should pay for it." (58) He is also
known to have teamed with Booker T. Washington in championing several black causes. (59)
The factor of racial uncertainty on the part of Twain, its manifestation in his best-loved piece, and its
existence in American society should not be a barrier to Huckleberry Finn's admittance to the classroom.
Instead, this should make it the pith of the American literature curriculum. The insolubility of the race
question as regards Huckleberry Finn functions as a model of the fundamental racial ambiguity of the
American mind-set. Active engagement with Twain's novel provides one method for students to confront
their own deepest racial feelings and insecurities. Though the problems of racial perspective present in
Huckleberry Finn may never be satisfactorily explained for censors or scholars, the consideration of them
may have a practical, positive bearing on the manner in which America approaches race in the coming
century.
Notes
1. Justin Kaplan, Born to Trouble: One Hundred Years of Huckleberry Finn, Center for the Book Viewpoint Series,
no. 13 (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 19 8 5) 10-11.
2. Lionel Trifling, Introduction to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (New York: Rinehart, 1948) v-xviii; reprinted in
Norton Critical Edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 2nd ed., ed. Sculley Bradley et al. (New York: Norton,
1977) 318.
3. T. S. Eliot, Introduction to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (London: Cresset, 19 5 0) vii-xvi; reprinted in Norton
Critical Edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 2nd ed., ed. Sculley Bradley et al. (New York: Norton, 1977)
328.
4. Leonard Buder, "'Huck Finn' Barred as Textbook by City," New York Times Sept. 1957: 1.
5. "Schools in Philadelphia Edit 'Huckleberry Finn,"' New York Times 17 Apr. 1963: 44.
6. "'Huckleberry Finn' Scored for References to 'Nigger,"' New York Times 22 Mar. 1967: 43.
7. "'HuckFinn' Not Required," New York Times, T5 Jan. 1969: 44.
8. Telephone interviews with Lois Fisher, New Trier High School librarian, and Eric Lair, New Trier School District
assistant superintendent, 24 Mar. 1988. As of 2o April 1988, New Trier's current controversy over Huckleberry Finn
had yet to be resolved.
9. John Wallace, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Adapted (Chicago: Wallace, 1984).
10. See Wallace's essay, "The Case against Huck Finn," in this volume.
11. Christopher Hitchchs, "American Notes," (London) Times Literary Supplement 9 Mar. 1985: 258.
12. Nicholas J. Karolides and Lee Burress, eds., Celebrating Censored Books (Racine, Wisc.: Wisconsin Council of
Teachers of English, 1985) 6. This information is based on six national surveys of censorship pressures on the
American public schools between 19 6 5 and 1982.
13. Most scholars express opinions on whether or not to ban Huckleberry Finn in a paragraph or two of an article
that deals mainly with another topic. Shelley Fisher Fishkin has given the issues much more attention. In addition to
authenticating a letter written by Mark Twain that indicates his nonracist views (see n. 59), Fishkin has debated the
issue with John Wallace on "Freeman Reports" (C N N, 14 March 19 8 5).
14. Hitchens 2 5 8.
15. Allan B. Ballard, letter, New York Times 9 May 19 8 z.
16. "Finishing the Civil War: Huck Finn in Racist America," Young Spartacus (Summer 1982): 12.
17. Leslie Fiedler, "Huckleberry Finn: The Book We Love to Hate," Proteaus 1.2. (Fall 1984): 6.
18. Nat Hentoff, "Huck Finn and the Shortchanging of Black Kids," Village Voice 18 May 19 8 z.
19. Hentoff.
20. Kaplan 18.
2l. "Finishing the Civil War" 12.
22. Langston Hughes, The Big Sea (New York: Thunder's Month P, 1940) 268-69. At this point in his
autobiography, Hughes discusses the furor caused by Carl Van Vechten's novel Nigger Heaven, published in 1926.
23. See David L. Smith's essay, "Huck, Jim, and American Racial Discourse," in this volume.
24. "Finishing the Civil War" 12..
25. Fiedler 5.
26. Again, see Smith's essay.
27. Fiedler 6; see also Smith's discussion of this passage.
28. Kaplan ib.
29. Frederick Woodard and Donnarae MacCann, "Huckleberry Finn and the Traditions of Blackface Minstrelsy,"
Interracial Books for Children Bulletin 15 - 1-2 (1984): 4-13; reprinted in The Black American in Books for
Children: Readings in Racism, 2nd ed., ed. Donnarae MacCann and Gloria Woodard (Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow,
1985) 75-103.
30. Ralph Ellison, "Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke," Partisan Review 15 (Spring 1958): 212-2.2; reprinted in
Ellison's Shadow and Act (New York: Random House, 19 64) 45 - 59.
31. Woodard and MacCann 76-77.
32. Mark Twain, quoted in Woodard and MacCann 76 (emphasis added).
33. Woodard and MacCann 79. See also the Woodard and MacCann essay "Minstrel Shackles and
Nineteenth-Century 'Liberality' in Huckleberry Finn," in this volume.
34. "Huck Finn's Friend Jim," editorial, New York Times 13 Sept. 1957: 22.
35. Hoxie N. Fairchild, letter, New York Times, 14 Sept. 19 5 7: 18
36. Steven Mailloux, "Reading Huckleberry Finn: The Rhetoric of Performed Ideology," New Essays on
"Huckleberry Finn," ed. Louis J. Budd (Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge UP, 198 5) 107-3 3. For a defense of the early
Jim as an example of Twains strategy to "elaborate [racial stereotypes] in order to undermine them," see David
Smith's essay.
37. Mailloux's discussion of "rhetorical performances" in Huckleberry Finn bears kinship to M. M. Bakhtin's
discussion of the function of heteroglossia in the comic novel. In "Discourse on the Novel," Bakhtin identifies two
features that characterize "the incorporation of heteroglossia and its stylistic utilization" in the comic novel. First,
the comic novel incorporates a "multiplicity of languages and verbal-ideological belief systems," and for the most
part these languages are not posited in particular characters, but they can be. Second, "the incorporated languages
and socio-ideological belief systems... are unmasked and destroyed as something false, hypocritical, greedy, limited,
narrowly rationalistic, inadequate to reality." Huckleberry Finn seems to me to embody much of what Bakhtin says
regarding heteroglossia in the comic novel. The multiplicity of languages is clearly recognizable in the lower-class
vernacular of Huck and Pap, the exaggerated slave dialect of Jim, the southern genteel tradition, the romantic diction
of Scott and Dumas as it has been gleaned by Tom and filtered through Huck, and several other dialects. Twain
himself acknowledges the painstaking attention he paid to language in the novel. Clearly, through his play with the
"posited author" Huck, Twain's motive is to unmask and destroy various socioideological belief systems that are
represented by language. So what Mailloux refers to as rhetorical performance Bakhtin identifies as the
heteroglossia struggle. Thus Jim's successful appropriation of Huck's argumentative strategy dismantles the
hegemony of white supremacy discourse present as Huck's language. M. M. Bakhtin, "Discourse in the Novel,"
trans. Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson, in The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed. Michael Holquist
(Austin: U of Texas P, 1981) 310-15.
38. Mailloux 1117.
39. Leo Marx, "Mr. Eliot, Mr. Trilling, and Huckleberry Finn," American Scholar 2.2--4 (1953): 423-4o; reprinted
in Norton Critical Edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 2nd ed., ed. Sculley Bradley et al. (New York:
Norton, 1977) 349.
40. Fritz Oelschlaeger, "'Gwyne to Git Hung': The Conclusion of Huckleberry Finn," in One Hundred Ycars of
"Huckleberry Finn" ' - The Boy, His Book and American Culture, ed. Robert Sattelmeyer and J. Donald Crowley
(Columbia, Mo.: U of Missouri P, 1985) 117.
41. James M. Cox, Mark Twain: The Fate of Humor (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton UP, 19 66); reprinted as "The
Uncomfortable Ending of Huckleberry Finn," in the Norton Critical Edition of Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, 2nd
ed., ed. Sculley Bradley et al. (New York: Norton, 1977) 350-59. Though he ignores Jim and his aspiration for
freedom in Mark Twain: The Fate of Humor, in a more recent, related article, "A Hard Book to Take," Cox returns
to the evasion sequence and treats Jim's freedom in particular and the concept of freedom in general. He contends
that Twain had recognized "the national he [myth] of freedom" and that the closing movement of Huckleberry Finn
dramatizes Twain's realization that Jim is not and never will be truly free. Further, no one, black or white, is or will
be free, elaborates Cox, "despite the fictions of history and the Thirteenth Amendment." See "A Hard Book to
Take," in One Hundred Years of "Huckleberry Finn'- The Boy', His Book and American Culture, ed. Robert
Sattelmeyer and J. Donald Crowley (Columbia, Mo.: U of Missouri P, 198 5) 386-403.
42. Cox, Mark Twain 356. [See also Charles Nilon's defense of the concluding chapters of Huckleberry Finn in his
essay, "The Ending of Huckleberry Finn: 'Freeing the Free Negro,"' in this Volume- E D.]
43. "Huckleberry Finn: Literature or Racist Trash?" ABC "Nightline," 4 Feb. 1985.
44. Mailloux 117.
45. Hentoff.
46. Hentoff.
47. The Effects of Reading "Huckleberry Finn" on the Racial Attitudes of Ninth Grade Students, a cooperative study
of the State College Area School District and the Fonim on Black Affairs of Pennsylvania State University (State
College, Pa., 19 8 3) 12.
48. The Effects of Reading "Huckleberry Finn" 22.
49. Cox, Mark Twain 388.
5o. "Huckleberry Finn: Literature or Racist Trash>"
51. Herbert Lewis Frankel, "The Effects of Reading The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn on the Racial Attitudes of
Selected Ninth Grade Boys," diss. Temple U, May 1971, 203-4.
52. Frankel z03-4.
53. The Effects of Reading "Huckleberry Finn" 11.
54. Pete Hamill, "Breaking the Silence," Esquire 109.3 (1988): 92-9 3
55. Kaplan 18.
56. "Huck Finn's Friend Jim," p. 22.
57. See Bernard Bell's essay, "Twain's 'Nigger' Jim: The Tragic Face behind the Minstrel Mask," in this volume.
58. Will Havgood, "Twain Letter Revives Old Question: Detractors Say They Still Think 'Huck Finn' Has Racist
Taint," Boston Globe 15 Mar. 1985: 3.
59. Jacqueline James Goodwin, "Booker T. Washington and Twain as a Team," letter, New York Times 24 Apr.
1985: A22.
From Harvard University Gazette September 2000 (I bet you can find more about this guy/NAACP) Fair or not, race relations remain a touchy issue in America, and "Huckleberry Finn" has remained a lightning rod for criticism. The Pennsylvania chapter of the NAACP would like to see the book removed from required reading lists in high schools and colleges, though it doesn't object to "Huckleberry Finn" being left as voluntary reading. "The n‐word is spoken there a number of times," said NAACP Pennsylvania state President Charles Stokes. "The concern we have is that to a black child it might be damaging. Also to a white child, or a Hispanic child, those words could be damaging." Stokes said that the free use of a word so associated with hate and racial strife is inappropriate, particularly at a time when hate crimes are rising and race relations are fragile. Don't teach the book, he said, or else update the language ‐‐ as is done with the Bible periodically. "What you're saying is those words are OK, but they're not OK to a group of people," Stokes said, comparing the issue to that of flying the Confederate flag. "What the NAACP has done is take up a posture that the book as written is not good for America." Say It Ain’t So, Huck
Second thoughts on Mark Twain’s “masterpiece”
By Jane Smiley, Harper’s Magazine, Jan96, Vol. 292, Issue 1748, p61
So I broke my leg. Doesn’t matter how--since the accident I’ve heard plenty of
broken-leg tales, and, I’m telling you, I didn’t realize that walking down the stairs,
walking down hills, dancing in high heels, or stamping your foot on the brake pedal
could be so dangerous. At any rate, like numerous broken-legged intellectuals before
me, I found the prospect of three months in bed in the dining room rather seductive
from a book-reading point of view, and I eagerly got started. Great novels piled up on
my table, and right at the top was The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which, I’m
embarrassed to admit, I hadn’t read since junior high school. The novel took me a
couple of days (it was longer than I had remembered), and I closed the cover stunned.
Yes, stunned. Not, by any means, by the artistry of the book but by the notion that
this is the novel all American literature grows out of, that this is a great novel, that
this is even a serious novel.
Although Huck had his fans at publication, his real elevation into the pantheon
was worked out early in the Propaganda Era, between 1948 and 1955, by Lionel
Trilling, Leslie Fiedler, T. S. Eliot, Joseph Wood Krutch, and some lesser lights, in
the introductions to American and British editions of the novel and in such journals
as Partisan Review and The New York Times Book Review. The requirements of Huck’s
installation rapidly revealed themselves: the failure of the last twelve chapters (in
which Huck finds Jim imprisoned on the Phelps plantation and Tom Sawyer is
reintroduced and elaborates a cruel and unnecessary scheme for Jim’s liberation) had
to be diminished, accounted for, or forgiven; after that, the novel’s special qualities
had to be placed in the context first of other American novels (to their detriment) and
then of world literature. The best bets here seemed to be Twain’s style and the river
setting, and the critics invested accordingly: Eliot, who had never read the novel as a
boy, traded on his own childhood beside the big river, elevating Huck to the Boy, and
the Mississippi to the River God, therein finding the sort of mythic resonance that he
admired. Trilling liked the river god idea, too, though he didn’t bother to capitalize it.
He also thought that Twain, through Huck’s lying, told truths, one of them being (I
kid you not) that “something... had gone out of American life after the [Civil War],
some simplicity, some innocence, some peace.” What Twain himself was proudest of
in the novel his style--Trilling was glad to dub “not less than definitive in American
literature. The prose of Huckleberry Finn established for written prose the virtues of
American colloquial speech .... He is the master of the style that escapes the fixity of
the printed page, that sounds in our ears with the immediacy of the heard voice, the
very voice of unpretentious truth.” The last requirement was some quality that would
link Huck to other, though “lesser,” American novels such as Herman Melville’s
Moby-Dick, that would possess some profound insight into the American character.
Leslie Fiedler obligingly provided it when he read homoerotic attraction into the
relationship between Huck and Jim, pointing out the similarity of this to such other
white man-dark man friendships as those between Ishmael and Queequeg in MobyDick and Natty Bumppo and Chingachgook in James Fenimore Cooper’s Last of the
Mohicans.
The canonization proceeded apace: great novel (Trilling, 1950), greatest novel
(Eliot, 1950), world-class novel (Lauriat Lane Jr., 1955). Sensible naysayers, such as
Leo Marx, were lost in the shuffle of propaganda. But, in fact, The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn has little to offer in the way of greatness. There is more to be
learned about the American character from its canonization than through its
canonization.
Let me hasten to point out that, like most others, I don’t hold any grudges
against Huck himself. He’s just a boy trying to survive. The villain here is Mark
Twain, who knew how to give Huck a voice but didn’t know how to give him a novel.
Twain was dearly aware of the story’s difficulties. Not finished with having revisited
his boyhood in Tom Sawyer, Twain conceived of a sequel and began composition
while still working on Tom Sawyer’s page proofs. Four hundred pages into it, having
just passed Cairo and exhausted most of his memories of Hannibal and the upper
Mississippi, Twain put the manuscript aside for three years. He was facing a problem
every novelist is familiar with: his original conception was beginning to conflict with
the implications of the actual story. It is at this point in the story that Huck and Jim
realize two things: they have become close friends, and they have missed the Ohio
River and drifted into what for Jim must be the most frightening territory of all-down the river, the very place Miss Watson was going to sell him to begin with. Jim’s
putative savior, Huck, has led him as far astray as a slave can go, and the farther they
go, the worse it is going to be for him. Because the Ohio was not Twain’s territory, the
fulfillment of Jim’s wish would necessarily lead the novel away from the artistic
integrity that Twain certainly sensed his first four hundred pages possessed. He found
himself writing not a boy’s novel, like Tom Sawyer, but a man’s novel, about real
moral dilemmas and growth. The patina of nostalgia for a time and place, Missouri in
the 1840s (not unlike former President Ronald Reagan’s nostalgia for his own
boyhood, when “Americans got along”), had been transformed into actual longing for
a timeless place of friendship and freedom, safe and hidden, on the big river. But the
raft had floated Huck and Jim, and their author with them, into the truly dark heart
of the American soul and of American history: slave country.
Twain came back to the novel and worked on it twice again, once to rewrite the
chapters containing the feud between the Grangerfords and the Shepherdsons, and
later to introduce the Duke and the Dauphin. It is with the feud that the novel begins
to fail, because from here on the episodes are mere distractions from the true subject
of the work: Huck’s affection for and responsibility to Jim. The signs of this failure are
everywhere, as Jim is pushed to the side of the narrative, hiding on the raft and
confined to it, while Huck follows the Duke and the Dauphin onshore to the scenes
of much simpler and much less philosophically taxing moral dilemmas, such as fraud.
Twain was by nature an improviser, and he was pleased enough with these
improvisations to continue. When the Duke and the Dauphin finally betray Jim by
selling him for forty dollars, Huck is shocked, but the fact is neither he nor Twain has
come up with a plan that would have saved Jim in the end. Tom Sawyer does that.
Considerable critical ink has flowed over the years in an attempt to integrate the
Tom Sawyer chapters with the rest of the book, but it has flowed in vain. As Leo
Marx points out, and as most readers sense intuitively, once Tom reappears, “[m]ost
of those traits which made [Huck] so appealing a hero now disappear .... It should be
added at once that Jim doesn’t mind too much. The fact is that he has undergone a
similar transformation. On the raft he was an individual, man enough to denounce
Huck when Huck made him the victim of a practical joke. In the closing episode,
however, we lose sight of Jim in the maze of farcical invention.” And the last twelve
chapters are boring, a sure sign that an author has lost the battle between plot and
theme and is just filling in the blanks.
As with all bad endings, the problem really lies at the beginning, and at the
beginning of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn neither Huck nor Twain takes
Jim’s desire for freedom at all seriously; that is, they do not accord it the respect that a
man’s passion deserves. The sign of this is that not only do the two never cross the
Mississippi to Illinois, a free state, but they hardly even consider it. In both Tom
Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, the Jackson’s Island scenes show that such a crossing,
even in secret, is both possible and routine, and even through it would present legal
difficulties for an escaped slave, these would certainly pose no more hardship than
locating the mouth of the Ohio and then finding passage up it. It is true that there
could have been slave catchers in pursuit (though the novel ostensibly takes place in
the 1840s and the Fugitive Slave Act was not passed until 1850), but Twain’s moral
failure, once Huck and Jim link up, is never even to account for their choice to go
down the river rather than across it. What this reveals is that for all his lip service to
real attachment between white boy and black man, Twain really saw Jim as no more
than Huck’s sidekick, homoerotic or otherwise. All the claims that are routinely made
for the book’s humanitarian power are, in the end, simply absurd. Jim is never
autonomous, never has a vote, always finds his purposes subordinate to Huck’s, and,
like every good sidekick, he never minds. He grows ever more passive and also more
affectionate as Huck and the Duke and the Dauphin and Tom (and Twain) make ever
more use of him for their own purposes. But this use they make of him is not
supplementary; it is integral to Twain’s whole conception of the novel. Twain thinks
that Huck’s affection is a good enough reward for Jim.
The sort of meretricious critical reasoning that has raised Huck’s paltry good
intentions to a “strategy of subversion” (David L. Smith) and a “convincing
indictment of slavery” (Eliot) precisely mirrors the same sort of meretricious
reasoning that white people use to convince themselves that they are not “racist.” If
Huck feels positive toward Jim, and loves him, and thinks of him as a man, then that’s
enough. He doesn’t actually have to act in accordance with his feelings. White
Americans always think racism is a feeling, and they reject it or they embrace it. To
most Americans, it seems more honorable and nicer to reject it, so they do, but they
almost invariably fail to understand that how they feel means very little to black
Americans, who understand racism as a way of structuring American culture,
American politics, and the American economy. To invest The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn with “greatness” is to underwrite a very simplistic and evasive
theory of what racism is and to promulgate it, philosophically, in schools and the
media as well as in academic journals. Surely the discomfort of many readers, black
and white, and the censorship battles that have dogged Huck Finn in the last twenty
years are understandable in this context. No matter how often the critics “place in
context” Huck’s use of the word “nigger,” they can never excuse or fully hide the
deeper racism of the novel--the way Twain and Huck use Jim because they really
don’t care enough about his desire for freedom to let that desire change their plans.
And to give credit to Huck suggests that the only racial insight Americans of the
nineteenth or twentieth century are capable of is a recognition of the obvious--that
blacks, slave and free, are human.
[section cut]
Should Huckleberry Finn be taught in the schools? The critics of the Propaganda
Era laid the groundwork for the universal inclusion of the book in school curriculums
by declaring it great. Although they predated the current generation of politicized
English professors, this was clearly a political act, because the entry of Huck Finn
into classrooms sets the terms of the discussion of racism and American history, and
sets them very low: all you have to do to be a hero is acknowledge that your poor
sidekick is human; you don’t actually have to act in the interests of his humanity.
Arguments about censorship have been regularly turned into nonsense by appeals to
Huck’s “greatness.” Moreover, so much critical thinking has gone into defending
Huck so that he can be great, so that American literature can be found different from
and maybe better than Russian or English or French literature, that the very integrity
of the critical enterprise has been called into question. That most readers intuitively
reject the last twelve chapters of the novel on the grounds of tedium or triviality is’
clear from the fact that so many critics have turned themselves inside out to defend
them. Is it so mysterious that criticism has failed in our time after being so robust only
a generation ago? Those who cannot be persuaded that The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn is a great novel have to draw some conclusion.
I would rather my children read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, even though it is far more
vivid in its depiction of cruelty than Huck Finn, and this is because Stowe’s novel is
clearly and unmistakably a tragedy. No whitewash, no secrets, but evil, suffering,
imagination, endurance, and redemption--just like life. Like little Eva, who eagerly
but fearfully listens to the stories of the slaves that her family tries to keep from her,
our children want to know what is going on, what has gone on, and what we intend to
do about it. If “great” literature has any purpose, it is to help us face up to our
responsibilities instead of enabling us to avoid them once again by lighting out for the
territory.
wentieth-Century Literary Criticism: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Ernest D. Mason (essay date Septem
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Ernest D.
Mason (essay date September 1989)
©2009 eNotes.com, Inc. or its Licensors. Please see copyright information at the end of this document.
Ernest D. Mason (essay date September 1989)
SOURCE: Mason, Ernest D. “Attraction and Repulsion: Huck Finn ‘Nigger’ Jim, and Black Americans.”
CLA Journal 33 (September 1989): 36-48.
[In the following essay, Mason discusses Huck's ambivalent attitude toward Jim and suggests that readers
should rethink their admiration for The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.]
According to most of the literature on Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Huck's final decision to help Jim
escape represents Huck's belief in and affirmation of Jim's humanity. In a very dramatic scene, Huck states
emphatically that he will steal Jim out of slavery and willingly “go to hell” for doing so. Yet closer reading of
the novel reveals that Huck supports Jim and his quest for freedom somewhat as a rope supports one who is
being hanged. On two occasions he deliberately decides to turn Jim in; both efforts are frustrated by his
conscience. Notice, however, that it is a conscience which merely tells Huck that Jim is essentially a “good
nigger”; it is not a conscience which tells him that Jim is a human being like himself who simply wants to live
and be free. Slavery for Huck was one thing, but a free “nigger” was quite another. Clearly, the hand handing
out its alms can often look like a fist. Huck's intention is to acknowledge Jim as a fellow human; but his effect
is to treat a human being as a “nigger.” The full ambivalence of Twain's work cannot be measured unless we
understand that Huck's relationship to Jim represents an interesting combination of revulsion and fascination,
intimacy and remoteness, attraction and repulsion.
When we think of such moral ambivalence, of such antinomies of moral experience, we stand, as it were,
between intellectual incoherence and passionate feeling. As a moral attitude it is enormously puzzling and
difficult either to condemn or condone. It is, accordingly, not easy to decide what one must make of Huck
Finn; he is hard to decipher. Twain himself complicates matters by making us care far more about Huck's
regeneration and altruism than about his treachery. Nevertheless, today, when black Americans speak in their
own literary and political voice, we are better placed to appreciate everything which is offensive and
caricatural about Twain's representation of both Huck and Jim. Huck's feeling, for instance, that Jim is
essentially “white inside” can hardly be distinguished from the racist refusal to associate anyone “black”
with human decency. Whatever the ambiguities of this perspective, it is inconceivable that a serious black
American novelist could without deliberately mimicking the likes of Mark Twain focus his vision in this way,
even if the facts of the plot remained the same.
The main problem in Huckleberry Finn, as I see it, centers on understanding little Huck's outstretched hand to
Jim. Why is Huck's hand, even in the form of a fist sometimes, ever stretched out in the first place? One
answer is that Huck is in many ways stuck with Jim; at least he is half-stuck with him. He is mighty happy to
have Jim as “his slave” because it gives him respectability and an opportunity to practice deception on his
own white society, which may interrogate him. As Jim's master, Huck is quite benevolent and regards Jim as
fun-loving, good humored, and happy-go-lucky; in short, as inferior but lovable as long as he stays in his
place. Although Huck may be “trash,” as Jim often calls him, Huck's privilege is certainly there, thanks to the
social structure. Huck himself fully understands the great degree of social distance that separates him from
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Ernest D. Mason (essay date September 1989) 1
Jim and, accordingly, finds it quite easy to accept their distant intimacy.
Another response to our query is that Huck stretches his hands out to Jim because Huck is lonely, bored, and
afraid. When not trying to play the role of Jim's master, Huck sees Jim as an adult teacher, guide, nurse, and
father. The reductive implication here, however, is that blacks are directly fitted for acting as nurses, teachers,
and fathers (or mammies) of children simply because blacks themselves are childish, frivolous, and, in a very
primitive sense, wise. In short, Huck has internalized the racist and paternalistic view that blacks are children
all their lives long. They exist eternally in a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the fully
developed adult.
Perhaps this mysterious mode of existence explains much of Huck's moral ambivalence toward Jim: his desire
to worship Jim the child and dominate Jim the man. One senses throughout their journey Huck's determination
to maintain control of his situation, to make the behavior of adults predictable and safe for himself. Since none
of this can be accomplished with his own cruel father or with his “deadly dull” existence with Christians
Widow Douglass and Miss Watson, Huck escapes them all and turns to nature (the river and wilderness) and
Jim. Although at times both prove problematic, it is clear that it is Jim, and not the river or forest, who creates
the greatest frustration for Huck. As long as Huck can give Jim “old slick counterfeit” quarters and keep him
in his proper place, things are fine. Things are not so fine, however, when Jim stands firm, asserts his
selfhood, and exhibits equal or superior intelligence. It is at such points that readers get some sense of the
many negative images forced upon blacks in America and elsewhere, images which tell us what a “nigger” is
supposed to be and do and what he is not supposed to be and do.
Let us first turn to the conversation which Huck and Jim have concerning the French language: “Spose,” says
Huck, “a man was to come to you and say Polly-voo-franzy—what would you think?”
“I wouldn' think nuff'n; I'd take en bust him over de head. Dat is, if he warn't white. I
wouldn't 'low no nigger to call me dat.”
“Shucks, it ain't calling you anthing. It's only saying do you know how to talk French.”
“Well, den, why couldn't he say it?”
“Why, he is a-saying it. That's a Frenchman's way of saying it.”
“Well, it's a blame' ridicklous way, en I doan' want to hear no mo' 'bout it. Day ain' no sense
in it.” 1
Huck should have at this point simply stopped while he was ahead, as Jim is obviously revealing his
ignorance. However, determined to play out his role as Jim's master, Huck goes on to try to make Jim see
things his way:
“Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?”
“No, a cat don't.”
“Well, does a cow?”
“No, a cow don't, nuther.”
“Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a cat?”
2
“No, dey don't.”
“It's natural and right for 'em to talk different from each other, ain't it?”
“Course.”
“And ain't it natural and right for a cat and a cow to talk different from us?”
“Why, mos' sholy it is.”
“Well, then, why ain't it natural and right for a Frenchman to talk different from us? You
answer me that.”
“Is a cat a man, Huck?”
“No.”
“Well, den, dey ain't no sense in a cat talkin' like a man. Is a cow a man?—er is a cow a cat?”
“No, she ain't either of them.”
“Well, den, she ain' got no business to talk like either one er the yuther of 'em. Is a
Frenchman a man?”
“Yes.”
“Well, den! Dad blame it, why doan' he talk like a man? You answer me dat!”
I see it warn't no use wasting words—you can't learn a nigger to argue. So I quit.
(pp. 113-14)
This conversation contains one of the main ironies of the novel. By negating in reality what it postulates in
theory, the dialogue serves as a comment upon itself. While Huck accepts in theory the notion that it is
“natural and right” for people of different cultures to speak and behave in different ways, he ignores this in
practice by refusing to realize that it is natural for Jim to think differently from him, seeing that Jim has not
yet been taught to think in terms of the white “civilized” world. Instead, Huck finds it only too natural to
believe that his way—which in this case is simultaneously the way of the Christians Widow Douglass and Miss
Watson—is the only true and essential way, and that whatever is inaccessible to him is false. We have in
consequence at least one good statement by which to judge black people: not only are they unable to argue
and reason, but they cannot even learn to do so. Yet on another occasion, Huck insists that Jim “was right; he
was most always right; he had an uncommon level head, for a nigger” (p. 109). Whatever fault Jim has surely
must be attributed to the fact that he is a “nigger”—not an acquired fault, but as Joel Kovel points out,
“something hidden deep in the essence of things, and revealed as it seeped outward through [his] skin.” 2
Huck's racist attitude toward Jim is continued in chapter sixteen. Here we see Huck doubting for the first time
the wisdom of helping Jim to escape. Jim exacerbates things by overtly expressing his joy and future plans:
“Jim talked out loud all the time while I was talking to myself. He was saying how the first thing he would do
when he got to a free state he would buy his wife, … and then they would work to buy two children, and if
their master wouldn't sell them, they'd get an ab'litionist to go and steal them” (pp. 123-24). That Jim should
think about such things is to Huck revolting: “It most froze me to hear such talk. He wouldn't ever dared to
3
talk such talk in his life before. Just see what a difference it made in him the minute he judged he was about
free. It was according to the old saying, ‘give a nigger an inch and he'll tak an ell’” (p. 124). In addition to
all of their other defects, this familiar “old saying” makes clear Huck's agreement with his white culture that
“niggers” are unspeakably thankless, almost morally perverse, and totally undeserving of freedom. Huck thus
no longer sees Jim at this point as a fun-loving, happy-go-lucky companion, but as an aggressive, insolent,
and “uppity” nigger. It is the exact view of free blacks expressed by his drunken father during his charade
against the American government:
“Oh, yes, this is a wonderful govment, wonderful. Why, looky here. There was a free nigger
there, from Ohio; a mulatter, most as white as a white man. He had the whitest shirt on you
ever see, too, and the shiniest hat. … And what do you think? they said he was a p'fessor in a
college, and could talk all kinds of languages, and knowed everything. And that ain't the wust.
They said he could vote, when he was at home. Well, that let me out. Thinks I, what is the
country a-coming to? … And to see the cool way of that nigger—why, he wouldn't a give me
the road if I hadn't shoved him out o' the way. I says to the people, why ain't this nigger put
up at auction and sold?—that's what I want to know. And what do you reckon they said? Why
they said he couldn't be sold till he'd been in the state six months, and he hadn't been there
that long yet. There, now—that's a specimen. They call that govment that can't sell a free
nigger till he's been in the state six months. Here's a govment that calls itself a govment, and
lets on to be a govment, and thinks it is a govment, and yet's got to set stock-still for six
whole months before it can take ahold of a prowling, thieving, infernal, white-shirted free
nigger, and—”
(pp. 49-50)
It is indeed hard to escape the feeling that like his father, Huck, who already has what Jim lacks most, namely,
freedom, is nonetheless intent on robbing the latter of even that; hard to escape the feeling that what is at work
here is some primal envy at the heart of Huck's attitude toward Jim's desire for his family's freedom, a longing
to appropriate that familial solidarity from which Huck himself must eternally remain excluded. Huck's
confused “friendship” with Jim may thus be read at this point as a rather grim commentary on the
unconscious meaning of Huck's altruism and outstretched hand, a virtually Alain Lockean unmasking of the
gesture of self-interest and even hostility concealed within the charitable liberal impulse.
Huck's ambivalence toward Jim continues several chapters later as Huck overhears Jim mourning and
seriously considers the possibility that Jim may be human with genuine feelings after all. He remains,
however, forever skeptical: “I do believe he cared just as much for his people as white folks does for their'n. It
don't seem natural, but I reckon it's so” (p. 201). Huck soon discovers that Jim is mourning over his cruel
behavior toward his little four-year-old daughter, Elizabeth. Elizabeth, who has become deaf and dumb after
contracting scarlet fever, fails to obey Jim's command to close the door:
“She never done it; jis' stood dah, kiner smilin' up at me. It make me mad; en I says agin,
mighty loud, I says:
“‘Doan’ you hear me?—shet de do'!”
“She jis' stood de same way, kiner smilin' up. I was a-bilin'! I says:
“‘I lay I make you mine!’”
“En wid dat I fetch' her a slap side de head dat sont her a-sprawlin'. Den I went into de yuther
room, en 'uz gone 'bout ten minutes; en when I come back, dah was dat do' a stannin' open yit,
4
en dat chile stannin' mos' right in it, a-looking down and mourin', en de tears runin' down.
My, but I wuz mad, I was agwyne for de chile, but jis' den … 'long come de wind en slam it to,
behine de chile, ker-blam!—en my lan', de chile never—move'! … I doan' know how I feel … all
ov a sudden, I says pow! jis' as loud as I could yell. She never budge! Oh, Huck I bust out
a-cryin' en grab her up in my arms, en say, ‘Oh, de po' little thing! de Lord God Almighty
forgive po' ole Jim, Kaze he never gwyne to forgive hisself as long's as he live!’ Oh, she was
plumb deef en dumb, Huck, plumb deef en dumb—en I'd ben a-treat'n her so!”
(pp. 201-02)
This is by no means our first encounter with Jim's rather hostile temper. In addition to calling Huck “trash,”
Jim sometimes reveals himself in conversations to be quite aggressive, self-righteous, self-centered, and
deceptive. In this respect he is no different from the majority of adults when they confront children. The
simple truth is that Jim could have and perhaps should have closed the door himself; he had no right to “fetch
her a slap side de head dat sont her a-sprawlin'” across the room. It is of little help, moreover, to interpret this
scene as Jim's attempt to demand respect for his adulthood. On the contrary, what Jim does is enough to make
Elizabeth lose respect for him altogether. Jim himself admits that he had treated Elizabeth “ornery,” a term
Huck uses to describe the behavior of his own father and others. Accordingly, Jim himself realizes that in his
actions toward Elizabeth he is no better than Pap, who beats Huck. For Huck to therefore sympathize with Jim
at this point is not readily understandable; for if Huck can explain away Jim's cruelty by simply saying that he
was not aware of his daughter's condition, then he should likewise explain away his own father's cruelty by
saying that he was an alcoholic. But then again, perhaps we should sympathize with Jim. After all, he is a
“nigger.”
And what, precisely, is a “nigger” to Huck? In chapter thirty-two, we find that Huck certainly does not speak
of “it” as a human being at all. Pretending to be Tom, Huck tells Aunt Sally that his boat blew out a cylinder
head:
“Good gracious! anybody hurt?”
“No'm. killed a nigger.”
“Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt. …”
(p. 280)
Here, we immediately recognize Mrs. Phelps' refusal to consider a “nigger” as “somebody,” but unless we
are careful we are likely to overlook the fact that Huck is of the same opinion. When asked “anybody hurt?”
it is none other then Huck who replies, “No'm. killed a nigger.” In speaking as if a “nigger” is not a human
being, both Huck and Aunt Sally are not merely missing something about their slaves but something about
themselves as well, or rather something about their internal connection with them. When Aunt Sally wants to
be served at table by a black hand or entertained by a black voice, she would not be satisfied to be served by a
black paw or entertained by a black crow. And when she wants to spread the gospel, she does not go to great
lengths to convert her horses or chickens to Christianity. When Huck is tired and wants to sleep, he does not
look to a bird or rabbit. When he is afraid or in trouble, he does not call on Widow Douglass, Miss Watson, or
Pap. Everything in their relation to slaves, to Jim in Huck's case, shows that they treat them as more or less
human—their humiliation of them, their jealousies, their fears, their punishments, their attachments, and so
forth. Indeed, part of the ambiguity and anxiety in the image of American racism is that it really is a way in
which certain human beings can treat others whom they know to be human beings. Rather then admit this, we
say that some people do not count as human beings at all. To understand the institution of American slavery,
American racism, Nat Turner, or Bigger Thomas is to understand them all as human actualities and
5
possibilities: monstrous, unforgivable, but not therefore the conduct of monsters or animals. Monsters and
animals are not forgivable, and not unforgivable, as we do not bear the right internal relations to them for
forgiveness to apply.
Neither Huck nor Aunt Sally thus really meant to maintain that blacks are not human. Although Huck does
not speak of “niggers” as humans, he at least thinks of Jim as one. His decision to “go to hell” for Jim is but
an indication that racial prejudice was slowly becoming psychically insupportable. After writing the letter to
turn Jim in, Huck starts to thinking,
thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to
hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim
before me, all the time. … But somehow I couldn't seem to strike no places to harden me
against him, but only the other kind. I'd see him standing my watch on top of his'n, stead of
calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of
the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such
like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me, and do everything he could think of
for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the
men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim
ever had in the world, and the only one he's got now; and then I happened to look around, and
see that paper.
(p. 271)
Huck's feelings at this point make him very vulnerable to Kovel's charge that the abolitionist's attacks were
directed
not simply at an external source of evil, but also at the appeasement of an inner sense of guilt.
We do not question the real need to attack the evil of slavery. However, a complex
phenomenon such as abolitionism must have been more than a simple attack on a gross evil.
People are never so singular in their motivation. … Nothing suits the resolution of an inner
conflict so much as the presence of an outer facsimile of it, distant enough to spare the self
direct guilt, yet close enough to allow a symbolic correspondence.
(Kovel, p. 203)
Kovel goes so far as to maintain that the very act of saving a black man from slavery is simply another
expression of restoration of the ideology of white supremacy: “[I]nsofar as the white's superego directs him to
the aid of the oppressed black, it allows him to bring back into the self a portion of what has been lost; it has
restored the self and ‘saved’ the object, in all the sense of that word. And so blacks have periodically been
‘saved’ by the ministrations of white reformism except that the saving has all too often been motivated by
the desire for the restoration of white integrity” (Kovel, p. 201). While there is much to be said in favor of
Kovel's observation, it needs to be noted that this kind of argument—which traces all moral action to egotistic
causes, i.e., to the desire to pacify one's conscience—can be used to deny the existence of morality altogether.
As Kovel himself argues, “people are never so singular in their motivation.” Huck, viewed as a “little
abolitionist,” is impelled to action for more than one reason. One is that Huck has acquired genuine affections
for Jim; another is that Huck's attraction to Jim is also his love of and attraction to himself, as Kovel suggests,
and as the above passage detailing Jim's devotion to Huck indicates. Still a third reason is that since Huck
thinks he is “bad,” he must perform a wicked deed. It is very tempting to attend to one of these aspects to the
exclusion of the others, tempting to suppose, for example, that a choice impelled by a feeling of superiority is
bad whatever the object aimed at. To speak, however, as if any one motive caused Huck's decision to free Jim
without the others playing any part is an abstraction which has led to numerous false readings of Huckleberry
6
Finn and misunderstandings of Huck's relation to Jim.
But here again, readers are not entirely responsible, as Twain is known for his strong proclivity for creating
confusion. At every point, one must be aware of his ventriloquist's voice, parodic themes, and ironic author
commentary. Twain's use of irony has in particular often been singled out as the source of his treatment of
black-white relations. Twain is not a racist, it is said, and his use of “nigger” and similar stereotypes must be
understood as attempts to satirize centuries-old assumptions of white superiority. I believe, however, that it is
less the total ironic effect itself than the underlying psychological tensions, existential ambiguities, and
oppositional structures which reveal the major thrust of Twain's racial consciousness in Huckleberry Finn.
The value of Kovel's psychological treatment of the abolitionist's motives is precisely that it underscores what
writers like Twain and others knew all along: the pulls, tensions, and ambiguities inherent in race relations
and moral choices generally.3
If Huckleberry Finn appears to most readers to be a triumphant, positive moral statement, it is because much
of Huckleberry Finn is the promise of happiness in confronting such moral and racial problems, a promise that
is constantly being broken. As long as America keeps being ravished by utilitarian pseudo-progress, it will be
virtually impossible to convince most desegregation advocates that, before the matter is all over, the
pre-desegregation world of race relations may well prove to have been better, even though less free and
humane, than what we have today, notwithstanding its racism, violence, and backwardness. Granted, Huck is
not always for Jim; but he somehow manages to stay with him. And in contrast to the forced and phony
togetherness characteristic of much of today's race relations, what we see as a result is, at moments, a rare,
genuine coexistence without aloofness. Viewed, then, from this perspective, the traces of an old immediacy
and intimacy in race relations, no matter how outdated and questionable they may be, acquire a certain
rightfulness. Why else, despite our sympathy with Jim (and other real victims of American slavery), do we
still manage to laugh at their togetherness, at the clownlike behavior and racist statements throughout
Huckleberry Finn?
Perhaps we laugh not so much because we prefer the pre-desegregation style of racism but because we feel
utterly helpless in its presence. Indeed, part of the appeal of Huckleberry Finn lies in Twain's refusal to cover
stillness, cruelty, and absurdity in racial affairs with a coat of seriousness. The stillness, cruelty, and absurdity
of racism are all laughable precisely because we can't cope with them. Their various subtleties and numerous
forms are literally infinite. The dominant tendency is to simply put up with racism, not take it seriously, and
leave it to itself. To this extent, “funny” refers to something one can't get hold of and can't set to rights. It is
for this reason that stupidity inclines us to laughter much more than intelligence; and despite the nature and
extent of their education, most racists and their racist remarks bear the mark of stupidity. This obviously
makes significant dialogue virtually impossible, since the poorer the possibilities of understanding, the
quicker we reach the boundary of senselessness and ambivalence. We are not sure if we should laugh or cry.
The works of Langston Hughes, Claude McKay, Rudolph Fisher, Jessie Fauset, and numerous other black
writers reveal a clear understanding of this. In his 1912 novel, The Autobiography of an Ex-Coloured Man,
James Weldon Johnson, speaking of black laughter as the fear of taking racism too seriously, wrote: “I have
since learned that this ability to laugh heartily is, in part, the salvation of the American Negro; it does much to
keep him from going the way of the Indian.” 4
It makes sense to suppose, then, that readers who continue to admire Huckleberry Finn do so not because they
fail to see its racist implications, but because they find the racism in it laughable and refuse to take it too
seriously. But this sounds both insensitive and disrespectful not only to the millions of men and women who
died during “nigger” Jim's generation, but also to the millions of victims presently suffering from racism
today in America and throughout the Third World. The problem here, however, is not merely one of
insensitivity to oppression, but also of an overinflated reverence for “history,” the infamous model attitude
being the assertion that “what is done is done.” It suffices to experience oppression out of context and from a
distance, i.e., in a milieu that is foreign to one's own. It is here, too, in the context or name of history, that
7
“great” literary and other cultural products are shielded from the troublesome query of what they are for, how
they came to be, and what they are up to. And just as it is history that has endowed Huckleberry Finn with the
mark of authenticity, it is history that continues to keep at a distance the embarrassing question of why little
white Huck reaches out to a “nigger.” People are likely to get grumpy when they sense the intelligibility of
one of their most cherished cultural products crumbling or suddenly under scrutiny. But sometimes the
authority of history, tradition, and public opinion must be ignored.
Notes
1. S. L. Clemens, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler, 1962), p. 113.
Subsequent references are to this edition, and page numbers are provided in the text.
2. Joel Kovel, White Racism: A Psychohistory (New York: Vintage, 1970), p. 62.
3. Oddly enough, in their article “Huckleberry Finn: A Psychoanalytic Study,” Kovel and Barchilon
completely ignore the phenomenon of racism. They explain Huck's ambiguous attitude toward Jim in
terms of two “intrapsychic forces.” In addition to Huck's need for a “primitive and symbiotic bond,”
there is also the need for “aggression against the symbiotic object. We might expect to find specific
instances where this conflict is actualized in terms of whether to stay with Jim or abandon him, and
lined to emergent impulses actually to destroy the slave” (J. Barchilon and J. S. Kovel, “Huckleberry
Finn: A Psychoanalytic Study,” Bulletin of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 22 [1966],
794).
4. James Weldon Johnson, The Autobiography of an Ex-Coloured Man (Garden City, N.Y.: Garden City
Publishing Co., 1912), p. 56.
Copyright Notice
©2009 eNotes.com, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or information
storage retrieval systems without the written permission of the publisher.
For complete copyright information, please see the online version of this work:
http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism
Copyright Notice
8
Twentieth-Century Literary Criticism: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Julius Lester (essay date fall 19
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Julius
Lester (essay date fall 1984)
©2009 eNotes.com, Inc. or its Licensors. Please see copyright information at the end of this document.
Julius Lester (essay date fall 1984)
SOURCE: Lester, Julius. “Morality and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” In Satire or Evasion?: Black
Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn, edited by James S. Leonard, Thomas A. Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis,
pp. 199-207. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1992.
[In the following essay, originally published in 1984, Lester maintains that Huckleberry Finn fails to confront
the realities of slavery.]
I don't think I'd ever read Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Could that be? Every American child reads it, and
a child who read as much as I did must have.
As carefully as I search the ocean floor of memory, however, I find no barnacle-encrusted remnant of
Huckleberry Finn. I may have read Tom Sawyer, but maybe I didn't. Huckleberry Finn and Tom Sawyer are
embedded in the American collective memory like George Washington (about whom I know I have never
read). Tom and Huck are part of our American selves, a mythologem we imbibe with our mother's milk.
I do have an emotional memory of going to Hannibal, Missouri, with my parents when I was eight or nine,
and visiting the two-story white frame house where Mark Twain lived as a boy—where Huck and Tom lived as
boys. In the American collective memory, Twain, Huck, and Tom merge into a paradigm of boyhood which
shines as poignantly as a beacon, beckoning, always beckoning to us from some paradise lost, albeit no
paradise we (or they) ever had.
I remember that house, and I remember the white picket fence around it. Maybe it was my father who told me
the story about Tom Sawyer painting the fence (if it was Tom Sawyer who did), and maybe he told me about
Huckleberry Finn, too. But it occurs to me only now to wonder if my father ever read Twain's books—my
father born in Mississippi when slavery still cast a cold shadow at brightest and hottest noon. And if he did not
read Twain, is there any Lester who did? Probably not, and it doesn't matter. In the character of Huckleberry
Finn, Twain evoked something poignant and real in the American psyche, and now, having read the novel, I
see that it is something dangerously, fatally seductive.
In the summer of 1973 I drove across country from New York City, where I was living, and returned to
Hannibal to visit that two-story white house for the first time since childhood. It was mid-afternoon when I
drove into Hannibal, planning to stay in a motel that night and spend the next morning leisurely going through
the Twain boyhood home. As I walked toward the motel desk, there was a noticeable hush among the people
in the lobby, and I perceived a tightening of many razor-thin, white lips. I was not surprised, therefore, when
the motel clerk said there were no vacancies. The same scenario was repeated at a second and third motel. It
was the kind of situation black people know all about and white people say is merely our imaginations, our
hypersensitivity, our seeing discrimination where none exists. All I know is that no motel in town could find a
room for me and that as I got into the car and drove away from Hannibal, another childhood memory returned.
It was my father's voice reminding me that “Hannibal is rough on Negroes.”
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain - Julius Lester (essay date fall 1984)
1
That's the kind of thing that can happen to a black person when the American collective memory subsumes
black reality, when you remember Huck shining brightly and forget to keep an eye on what (or who) may be
lurking in the shadows.
I am grateful that among the many indignities inflicted on me in childhood, I escaped Huckleberry Finn. As a
black parent, however, I sympathize with those who want the book banned, or at least removed from required
reading lists in schools. While I am opposed to book banning, I know that my children's education will be
enhanced by not reading Huckleberry Finn. It is, in John Gardner's phrase, a “well-meant, noble sounding
error” that “devalue[s] the world.” 1
That may sound harsh and moralistic, but I cannot separate literature, no matter how well written, from
morality. By morality I do not mean bourgeois mores, which seek to govern the behavior of others in order to
create (or coerce) that conformity thought necessary for social cohesion. The truly moral is far broader, far
more difficult, and less certain of itself than bourgeois morality, because it is not concerned with the “what”
of behavior but with the spirit we bring to our living, and, by implication, to literature. Gardner put it this
way: “We recognize true art by its careful, thoroughly honest research for and analysis of values. It is not
didactic because, instead of teaching by authority and force, it explores, open-mindedly, to learn what it
should teach. It clarifies and confirms. … [M]oral art tests values and rouses trustworthy feelings about the
better and the worse in human action.” 2
It is in this sense, then, that morality can and should be one of the criteria for assessing literature. It must be if
a book is to “serve as the axe for the frozen sea within us,” as Kafka wrote. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
is not the axe; it is the frozen sea, immoral in its major premises, one of which demeans blacks and insults
history.
Twain makes an odious parallel between Huck's being “enslaved” by a drunken father who keeps him locked
in a cabin and Jim's legal enslavement. Regardless of how awful and wrong it is for a boy to be held
physically captive by his father, there is a profound difference between that and slavery. By making them into
a parallelism, Twain applies a veneer to slavery which obscures the fact that, by definition, slavery was a
horror. Such a parallelism also allowed Twain's contemporaries to comfortably evade responsibility and
remorse for the horror they had made.
A boy held captive by a drunken father is not in the same category of human experience as a man enslaved.
Twain willfully refused to understand what it meant to be legally owned by another human being and to have
that legal ownership supported by the full power of local, state, and federal government enforcement. Twain
did not take slavery, and therefore black people, seriously.
Even allowing for the fact that the novel is written from the limited first-person point of view of a
fourteen-year-old boy (and at fourteen it is not possible to take anything seriously except oneself), the author
must be held responsible for choosing to write from that particular point of view. If the novel had been written
before emancipation, Huck's dilemma and conflicting feelings over Jim's escape would have been moving.
But in 1884 slavery was legally over. Huck's almost Hamlet-like interior monologues on the rights and
wrongs of helping Jim escape are not proof of liberalism or compassion, but evidence of an inability to
relinquish whiteness as a badge of superiority. “I knowed he was white inside,” is Huck's final assessment of
Jim (chap. 40).
Jim does not exist with an integrity of his own. He is a childlike person who, in attitude and character, is more
like one of the boys in Tom Sawyer's gang than a grown man with a wife and children, an important fact we
do not learn until much later. But to Twain, slavery was not an emotional reality to be explored extensively or
with love.
2
The novel plays with black reality from the moment Jim runs away and does not immediately seek his
freedom. It defies logic that Jim did not know Illinois was a free state. Yet Twain wants us not only to believe
he didn't, but to accept as credible that a runaway slave would drift south down the Mississippi River, the only
route to freedom he knew being at Cairo, Illinois, where the Ohio River meets the Mississippi. If Jim knew
that the Ohio met the Mississippi at Cairo, how could he not have known of the closer proximity of freedom
to the east in Illinois or north in Iowa? If the reader must suspend intelligence to accept this, intelligence has
to be dispensed with altogether to believe that Jim, having unknowingly passed the confluence of the Ohio
and Mississippi Rivers, would continue down the river and go deeper and deeper into the heart of slave
country. A century of white readers have accepted this as credible, a grim reminder of the abysmal feelings of
superiority with which whites are burdened.
The least we expect of a novel is that it be credible—if not wholly in fact, then in emotion; for it is emotions
that are the true subject matter of fiction. As Jim floats down the river farther and farther into slave country,
without anxiety about his fate and without making the least effort to reverse matters, we leave the realm of
factual and emotional credibility and enter the all-too-familiar one of white fantasy in which blacks have all
the humanity of Cabbage Patch dolls.
The novel's climax comes when Jim is sold and Tom and Huck concoct a ridiculous scheme to free him.
During the course of the rescue, Tom Sawyer is shot. Huck sends the doctor, who cannot administer to Tom
alone. Jim comes out of hiding and aids the doctor, knowing he will be recaptured. The doctor recounts the
story this way:
so I says, I got to have help, somehow; and the minute I says it, out crawls this nigger from
somewheres, and says he'll help, and he done it, too, and done it very well. Of course I judged
he must be a runaway nigger, and there I was! and there I had to stick, right straight along, all
the rest of the day, and all night. … I never see a nigger that was a better nuss or faithfuller
[emphasis added], and yet he was resking his freedom to do it, and was all tired out, too, and I
see plain enough he'd been worked main hard, lately. I liked the nigger for that; I tell you,
gentlemen, a nigger like that is worth a thousand dollars—and kind treatment, too. … there I
was, … and there I had to stick, till about dawn this morning; then some men in a skiff come
by, and as good luck would have it, the nigger was setting by the pallet with his head propped
on his knees, sound asleep; so I motioned them in, quiet, and they slipped up on him and
grabbed him and tied him before he knowed what he was about, and we never had no trouble.
… the nigger never made the least row nor said a word, from the start. He ain't no bad nigger,
gentlemen; that's what I think about him.
(Chap. 42)
This depiction of a black “hero” is familiar by now since it has been repeated in countless novels and films. It
is a picture of the only kind of black that whites have ever truly liked—faithful, tending sick whites, not
speaking, not causing trouble, and totally passive. He is the archetypal “good nigger,” who lacks self-respect,
dignity, and a sense of self separate from the one whites want him to have. A century of white readers have
accepted this characterization because it permits their own “humanity” to shine with more luster.
The depth of Twain's contempt for blacks is not revealed fully until Tom Sawyer clears up something that has
confused Huck. When Huck first proposed freeing Jim, he was surprised that Tom agreed so readily. The
reason Tom did so is because he knew all the while that Miss Watson had freed Jim when she died two
months before.
Once again credibility is slain. Early in the novel Jim's disappearance from the town coincided with Huck's.
Huck, having manufactured “evidence” of his “murder” to cover his escape, learned that the townspeople
3
believed that Jim had killed him. Yet we are now to believe that an old white lady would free a black slave
suspected of murdering a white child. White people may want to believe such fairy tales about themselves, but
blacks know better.
But this is not the nadir of Twain's contempt, because when Aunt Sally asks Tom why he wanted to free Jim,
knowing he was already free, Tom replies: “Well that is a question, I must say; and just like women! Why, I
wanted the adventure of it” (chap. 42). Now Huck understands why Tom was so eager to help Jim “escape.”
Tom goes on to explain that his plan was “for us to run him down the river, on the raft, and have adventures
plumb to the mouth of the river.” Then he and Huck would tell Jim he was free and take him “back up home
on a steamboat, in style, and pay him for his lost time.” They would tell everyone they were coming and “get
out all the niggers around, and have them waltz him into town with a torchlight procession and a brass band,
and then he would be a hero, and so would we” (“Chapter the Last”).
There is no honor here; there is no feeling for or sense of what Gardner calls that which “is necessary to
humanness.” Jim is a plaything, an excuse for “the adventure of it,” to be used as it suits the fancies of the
white folk, whether that fancy be a journey on a raft down the river or a torchlight parade. What Jim clearly is
not is a human being, and this is emphasized by the fact that Miss Watson's will frees Jim but makes no
mention of his wife and children.
Twain doesn't care about the lives the slaves actually lived. Because he doesn't care, he devalues the world.
Every hero's proper function is to provide a noble image for men to be inspired by and guided
by in their own actions; that is, the hero's business is to reveal what the gods require and love.
… [T]he hero's function … is to set the standard in action … the business of the poet (or
“memory” …) is to celebrate the work of the hero, pass the image on, keep the heroic model
of behavior fresh, generation on generation.3
Criticizing Adventures of Huckleberry Finn because of Twain's portrayal of blacks is almost too easy, and,
some would add sotto voce, to be expected from a black writer. But a black writer accepts such arrogant
dismissals before he or she sits down to write. We could not write otherwise.
But let me not be cynical. Let me allow for the possibility that what I have written may be accepted as having
more than a measure of truth. Yet doesn't Huckleberry Finn still deserve to be acknowledged as an American
classic, eminently deserving of being read?
The Council on Interracial Books for Children, while highly critical of the book, maintains “that much can be
learned from this book—not only about the craft of writing and other issues commonly raised when the work is
taught, but also about racism. … Unless Huck Finn's racist and anti-racist messages are considered, the book
can have racist results.” 4 While it is flattering that the council goes on to recommend one of my books, To Be
a Slave, as supplementary reading to correct Twain's portrayal of slavery, racism is not the most insidious and
damaging of the book's flaws. In its very essence the book offends that morality which would give “a noble
image … to be inspired and guided by.” If it is the hero's task “to reveal what the gods require and love,” what
do we learn from Adventures of Huckleberry Finn?
The novel's major premise is established in the first chapter: “The widow Douglas, she took me for her son,
and allowed she would sivilize me; but it was rough living in the house all the time, considering how dismal
regular and decent the widow was in all her ways; so when I couldn't stand it no longer, I lit out. I got into my
old rags, and my sugar-hogshead again, and was free and satisfied” (chap. 1). Civilization is equated with
education, regularity, decency, and being “cramped up,” and the representatives of civilization are women.
Freedom is old clothes and doing what one wants to do. “All I wanted was a change, I warn't particular”
4
(chap. 1).
The fact that the novel is regarded as a classic tells us much about the psyche of the white American male,
because the novel is a powerful evocation of the puer, the eternal boy for whom growth, maturity, and
responsibility are enemies. There is no more powerful evocation in American literature of the eternal
adolescent than Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. It is a fantasy adolescence, however. Not only is it free of
the usual adolescent problems caused by awakening sexuality, but also Huck has a verbal adroitness and
cleverness beyond the capability of an actual fourteen-year-old. In the person of Huck, the novel exalts verbal
cleverness, lying, and miseducation. The novel presents, with admiration, a model we (men) would and could
be if not for the pernicious influence of civilization and women.
In its lyrical descriptions of the river and life on the raft, the novel creates an almost primordial yearning for a
life of freedom from responsibility:
It was kind of solemn, drifting down the big still river, laying on our backs looking up at the
stars, and we didn't ever feel like talking loud, and it warn't often that we laughed, only a little
kind of low chuckle. We had mighty good weather, as a general thing, and nothing ever
happened to us at all.
(Chap. 12)
Sometimes we'd have that whole river all to ourselves for the longest time. Yonder was the
banks and the islands, across the water; and maybe a spark—which was a candle in a cabin
window—and sometimes on the water you could see a spark or two—on a raft or a scow, you
know; and maybe you could hear a fiddle or a song coming over from one of them crafts. It's
lovely to live on a raft. We had the sky, up there, all speckled with stars, and we used to lay
on our backs and look up at them, and discuss about whether they was made, or only just
happened.
(Chap. 19)
It is in passages such as these that the book is most seductive in its quiet singing of the “natural” life over the
life of “sivilization,” which is another form of slavery for Huck. It is here also that the novel fails most
profoundly as moral literature.
Twain's notion of freedom is the simplistic one of freedom from restraint and responsibility. It is an
adolescent vision of life, an exercise in nostalgia for the paradise that never was. Nowhere is this adolescent
vision more clearly expressed than in the often-quoted and much-admired closing sentences of the book: “But
I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest, because aunt Sally she's going to adopt me and
sivilize me, and I can't stand it. I been there before.”
That's just the problem, Huck. You haven't “been there before.” Then again, neither have too many other
white American males, and that's the problem, too. They persist in clinging to the teat of adolescence long
after only blood oozes from the nipples. They persist in believing that freedom from restraint and
responsibility represents paradise. The eternal paradox is that this is a mockery of freedom, a void. We
express the deepest caring for this world and ourselves only by taking responsibility for ourselves and
whatever portion of this world we make ours.
Twain's failure is that he does not care until it hurts, and because he doesn't, his contempt for humanity is
disguised as satire, as humor. No matter how charming and appealing Huck is, Twain holds him in contempt.
And here we come to the other paradox, the critical one that white Americans have so assiduously resisted: it
5
is not possible to regard blacks with contempt without having first so regarded themselves.
To be moral. It takes an enormous effort of will to be moral, and that's another paradox. Only to the extent
that we make the effort to be moral do we grow away from adolescent notions of freedom and begin to see
that the true nature of freedom does not lie in “striking out for the territory ahead” but resides where it always
has—in the territory within.
Only there does one begin to live with oneself with that seriousness from which genuine humor and satire are
born. Twain could not explore the shadowy realms of slavery and freedom with integrity because he did not
risk becoming a person. Only by doing so could he have achieved real compassion. Then Jim would have
been a man and Huck would have been a boy, and we, the readers, would have learned a little more about the
territory ahead which is always within.
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a dismal portrait of the white male psyche. Can I really expect white males
to recognize that? Yet they must. All of us suffer the consequences as long as they do not.
Notes
1. John Gardner, On Moral Fiction (New York: Basic Books, 1978) 8.
2. Gardner 19.
3. Gardner 29.
4. Anon., “On Huck, Criticism, and Censorship” (editorial), Interracial Books for Children Bulletin
15.1-2 (1984): 3.
Copyright Notice
©2009 eNotes.com, Inc.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means
graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, Web distribution or information
storage retrieval systems without the written permission of the publisher.
For complete copyright information, please see the online version of this work:
http://www.enotes.com/twentieth-century-criticism
Copyright Notice
6
Webb, Allen. “Racism and Huckleberry Finn: Censorship, Dialogue, and Change”
English Journal, Nov. 1993. Reprinted with revision in Literature and Lives, NCTE Press, 2001.
“A masterpiece.”
--T.S. Elliot
“One of the world’s great books and one of the central documents of American culture.”
--Lionel Trilling
“All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn...
There was nothing before. There has been nothing as good since.”
--Ernest Hemingway
“For the past forty years, black families have trekked to schools in numerous districts throughout
the country to say, ‘This book is not good for our children,’ only to be turned away by insensitive
and often unwittingly racist teachers and administrators who respond, ‘This book is a classic.’”
--John H. Wallace
Huckleberry Finn may be the most exalted single work of American literature. Praised by our
best known critics and writers, the novel is enshrined at the center of the American literature
curriculum. According to Arthur Applebee the work is second only to Shakespeare in the
frequency it appears in the classroom and is required in 70% of public high schools and 76% of
parochial high schools. The most taught novel, the most taught long work, and the most taught
piece of American literature, Huckleberry Finn is a staple from junior high (where eleven
chapters are included in the Junior Great Books program) to graduate school. Written in a now
vanished dialect, told from the point of view of a runaway fourteen-year-old, the novel
conglomerates melodramatic boyhood adventure, farcical low comedy, and pointed social satire.
Yet at its center is a relationship between a white boy and an escaped slave, an association
freighted with the tragedy and the possibility of American history. Despite a social order set
against interracial communication and respect, Huck develops a comradeship with Jim for which
he is willing-against all he has been taught-to risk his soul.
Despite the novel’s sanctified place and overtly anti-racist message, since school desegregation in
the 1950s, black Americans have raised objections to Huckleberry Finn and its effect on their
children. Linking their complaints with the efforts of other groups to influence the curriculum, we
English teachers have seen the issue as one of censorship, defending the novel and our right to
teach it. In so doing we have been properly concerned: the freedom of English teachers to design
and implement curriculum must be protected as censorship undermines the creation of an
informed citizenry able to make critical judgments between competing ideas. Yet, considering the
objections to Huckleberry Finn only in terms of freedom and censorship doesn’t resolve
potentially divisive situations that can arise in either high school or college settings. For this we
need to listen to objections raised to the novel and reconsider the process of teaching it. Entering
into a dialogue with those that have objections to Huckleberry Finn can help us think the
dynamics of race in literature courses and about the way literature depicts, interrogates, and
affirms our national culture and history.
A “ communication shut-down” is the way I would describe what happened in November 1991
in a largely white suburb just next door to where I train English teachers. African American
student and parent concerns during the teaching of Huckleberry Finn led to a decision to
immediately remove the text from the classroom in the district’s two high schools. Required to
read a brief statement to their students stating that the book had been withdrawn, teachers were
prohibited from further discussion of Huckleberry Finn or reasons for its removal until “more
sensitive” approaches were found. Local television and newspaper reporters learned of the story,
and English teachers, students, parents, and administrators suddenly and unexpectedly found
themselves at the center of a difficult and very public controversy. An impassioned meeting at the
high school made the nightly news. A subsequent meeting with the school board was broadcast
on the cable access channel. Expressing sentiments that might be echoed by many across the
country, these teachers felt that they had been teaching appropriately all along. One teacher told
the local paper, “ We have shown a concerted effort to express what we call sensitivity,” and “ we
feel a very strong kinship to this book because of what we believe it stands for” (Kalamazoo
Gazette, 11/26/91). Upset that their freedom in the classroom was impinged, these teachers were
also confused and pained that parents should find the text and their methods insensitive.
On the other side black students who raised concerns with teachers about the book felt they had
not been listened to, and black parents concluded that a tight-knit group of narrow-minded
teachers had shut out and demeaned their legitimate concerns. Some white students were angry
that the complaints of the black students meant they couldn’t finish reading the book. Some black
students felt that long friendships with white students were in jeopardy. In sum, parents were
angry with teachers, teachers felt threatened and misunderstood, administrators went in various
directions but failed to follow policies already in place, and students were alienated from the
school and from one another. In the following year the novel was reinstated, but to this day
teachers remain understandably nervous about using it, unclear as to why blacks object to it, and
uncertain just how it should best be taught. As with many similar incidents that have occurred
again and again around the country, this controversy over Huckleberry Finn only exacerbated
problems of interracial communication and respect.
We can and must do better. Doing better begins with English teachers at all levels taking a careful
look at the complex racial issues raised by the novel and an active listening to the views of
African Americans, teachers, scholars, writers, parents, and students. That Huckleberry Finn
draws the attention of black families should not be a surprise. Since no text by a black‹or any
other minority group member for that matter‹has yet to make it to the list of most frequently
taught works (according to Applebee’s research), Huckleberry Finn has a peculiar visibility. The
novel remains the only one of the most taught works in high school to treat slavery, to represent a
black dialect, and to have a significant role for an African American character. The length of the
novel, the demands it places on instructional time, its centrality in the curriculum augment its
prominence. Add to this the presence in the novel of the most powerful racial epithet in
English‹the word appears 213 times‹and it is evident why Huckleberry Finn legitimately concerns
African American parents sending their children into racially mixed classrooms.
Huckleberry Finn has also consistently attracted the attention of prominent black scholars and
writers who, since the 1950’s, have thought carefully about the work, its cultural contexts, and its
role in the curriculum. We are fortunate to have much of their analysis readily available in a
paperback volume entitled Satire and Evasion? Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn
(Durham: Duke UP, 1992). Every contributor is concerned with the role of Huckleberry Finn in
the classroom; most are professors and teachers at leading universities, some have high school
experience. The diverse and divergent Cultural Studies essays in Satire and Evasion demonstrate
the complexity of Twain’s novel and the racial issues it raises. In addition to the articles, Satire
and Evasion contains an annotated bibliography on issues of race, the novel, and the classroom.
The collection begins with an essay by John H. Wallace, the black school administrator at Mark
Twain Intermediate School in Fairfax Virginia who played a prominent role in the debates over
the novel in the early 1980’s. Wallace’s essay is followed by others that take significantly
different and more subtle positions, but most contributors agree on several key points.
First, they make a persuasive case that Twain’s depiction of Jim owes much to the popular
nineteenth-century black-face minstrel show where white actors darkened their skin to the color
of coal to render comic burlesques of African American speech and manners. This insight is not
entirely new: more than fifty years ago Ralph Ellison wrote that “ Twain fitted Jim into the
outlines of the minstrel tradition, and it is from behind this stereotype mask that we see Jim’s
dignity and human capacity‹and Twain’s complexity‹emerge” (65). While Ellison noted Twain’s
talent, he remarked on a fundamental ambivalence in Jim’s portrayal that justified the discomfort
of the “Negro” reader. He found Jim “a white man’s inadequate portrait of a slave” (72).
(Ellison’s essay “Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke,” frequently referred to in Satire and
Evasion, is found in its entirety in Shadow and Act, New York: Signet, 1964, 61-73). Satire and
Evasion considerably elaborates Ellison’s remarks. The contributors offer significant evidence
that Twain himself was an avid fan of the black-face minstrelsy. Bernard Bell, a professor of
English at the University of Massachusetts, quotes from one of Twain’s letters: “The minstrel
used a very broad Negro dialect; he used it competently and with easy facility and it was funny
‹delightfully and satisfyingly funny” (128). When the shows appeared to be dying out in the early
twentieth century Bell points out that Twain lamented the loss of “the real nigger show‹the
genuine nigger show, the extravagant nigger show‹the show which to me has no peer and whose
peer has not arrived” (127).
As his affection for the minstrel show indicates, and the contributors point out, Twain’s personal
attitudes toward blacks were contradictory. His father and uncle owned slaves, yet his wife was
the daughter of a prominent abolitionist. He fought briefly with the confederate army, yet later in
life paid a black student’s way through Yale Law School. Though he protested against lynching
and discrimination, he loved minstrel shows and “nigger jokes.” In their essay Frederick
Woodward and Donnarae MacCann, a professor and a graduate student at the University of Iowa,
argue that Twain’s affection for the minstrel show is fundamental to the portrayal of Jim, “The
swaggering buffoonery of the minstrel clown is represented early in the novel when Jim awakes
and finds his hat in a tree (one of Tom’s tricks), and then concocts a tale about witches and the
devil” (145). They argue that: The stage Negro’s’ typical banter about wife troubles, profit
making, spooks, and formal education is echoed in episodes in Huckleberry Finn, and their
inclusion can be traced to a period when Twain was in the midst of planning a new tour of stage
readings. Jim gives his impression of King Sollermun’ and his harem in a minstrel-like repartee
(chap. 14) and his confusion about stock market profits is seen in a farcical account of how Jim’s
stock‹his cow-failed to increase his fourteen dollar fortune when he tuck to specalat’n’’ (chap. 8).
Throughout the novel Jim is stupefied by information that Huck shares with him, as when they
discuss Louis XVI’s little boy the dolphin.’ (145) Several scholars in Satire and Evasion point
out that in the sequels that Twain wrote to Huckleberry Finn (Tom Sawyer Abroad and the
unfinished Tom Sawyer’s Conspiracy) Jim also appears as “the patient simpleton” and “ Huck
and Tom amuse themselves while risking Jim’s dignity and even his life” (152). In this view even
the affection Huck and the reader feel for Jim fits with the minstrel tradition where the comic
black characters are congenial and non-threatening.
While a couple of the contributors to Satire and Evasion develop complex explanations of how
the end of the novel serves as “ Twain’s satire on the extremes to which the defeated Confederacy
went to keep the black population enslaved” (213), for the most part these African American
scholars and teachers are profoundly disappointed with Huck Finn’s final chapters. Although Jim
runs away early on in the book, his independence is downplayed because he never makes his own
way to freedom; it is Miss Watson’s benevolence rather than Jim’s intelligence or courage that
gain him his liberty. Further, the believability of the deus ex machina freeing of Jim depends on
an unsustainably innocent view of racial relations. Speaking of the public knowledge that Jim is
suspected of killing Huck, writer and English professor Julius Lester comments, “Yet we are now
to believe that an old white lady would free a black slave suspected of murdering a white child.
White people may want to believe such fairy tales about themselves, but blacks know better”
(203).
In examining the conclusion of the novel these scholars are troubled by the way that the
developing relationship between Jim and Huck abruptly seems to loose its meaning as Huck
accedes to Tom Sawyer’s cruel and senseless manipulations. Rhett Jones, an English professor at
Rutgers, writes: “The high adventures of the middle chapters, Huck’s admiration of Jim, Jim’s
own strong self-confidence, and the slave’s willingness to protect and guide Huck are all, in some
sense, rendered meaningless by the closing chapters, in which Twain turns Jim over to two white
boys on a lark” (186). Jones views Huck’s failure to speak up, his only protest being to compare
stealing “a nigger” to “a watermelon, or a Sunday school book,” as Huck finally rejecting Jim’s
humanity. He points out that Huck in the closing paragraph is careful to tell the reader all about
Tom and himself, including Aunt Sally’s plans to adopt him. But the reader who is interested in
learning what Jim intends to do, how he intends to rejoin his family, and what plans he has for
freeing them is left in the dark when Huck flatly concludes, “There ain’t nothing more to write
about.’ Huck is not interested in the fate of Jim—much less that of his family—not is Tom; nor,
evidently, was Twain. (190) Bernard Bell puts it simply: “Twain nostalgically and
metaphorically-- sells Jim down river for laughs at the end” (138).
Seen from the point of view of some of these scholars even the most cherished aspects of the
book begin to appear ambiguous, compromised. Focusing on the portrayal of Jim in the latter part
of the book, particularly the testimony of the doctor who recaptures Jim after Jim has risked
freedom to stand by the injured Tom, Julius Lester comments: It is a picture of the only kind of
black that whites have every truly liked‹faithful, tending sick whites, not speaking, not causing
trouble, and totally passive. He is the archetypal good nigger,’ who lacks self-respect, dignity,
and a sense of self separate from the one whites what him to have. A century of white readers
have accepted this characterization because it permits their own humanity ‘to shine through with
more luster.’ (203)
Some of the scholars are even critical of Huck’s reasoning when he decides to “go to hell” for
Jim. Jones points out that while Huck considers “Jim’s love for him, Jim’s humanity, and, most
important, the ways in which Jim has served Huck,” Huck “concludes that Jim has done a great
deal for him but in none of his reflections does he consider Jim’s own needs, much less those of
his wife and children” (188). Shelly Fisher Fishkin puts forward a well publicized argument in
Was Huck Black: Mark Twain and African American Voices (New York: Oxford UP, 1993) that
Twain patterned Huck’s speech on that of black children thus suggesting a close interrelationship
between racial identities in the novel. Her position is anticipated in Satire and Evasion by Arnold
Rampersand, Professor of English at Princeton, who makes the case that Huck Finn, with its
stress on folk culture, on dialect, and on American humor, can be seen to be “ near the
fountainhead” for African American writers such as Hughes, Hurston, Ellison, and Walker.
Rampersand explores issues of alienation in the novel, comparing Twain to Wright, Baldwin, and
Morrison, yet he argues that the major compromise of the novel is not the ending, but that Jim
never gains the intellectual complexity of Huck; never becomes a figure of disruptive alienation,
nor does he even seem capable of learning this from Huck. “Assuredly Twain knew that Huck’s
attitude could be contagious, and that blacks had more reason than whites to be alienated and
angry” (226), Rampersand writes. Consequently despite the close relationship Huck and Jim
develop on the raft-and the possibility that Huck’s own language may owe something to black
dialect-their roles and human possibilities are kept irresolutely separate and unequal.
In her study of American fiction (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination
Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1992) Toni Morrison--winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her own novel
about slavery Beloved--goes farther in criticizing Huckleberry Finn than the contributors to Satire
and Evasion. Morrison believes that in the novel there is a close “interdependence of slavery and
freedom, of Huck’s growth and Jim’s serviceability within it, and even of Mark Twain’s inability
to continue, to explore the journey into free territory” (55). She is struck by two things in the
novel: “the apparently limitless store of love and compassion the black man has for his white
friend and white masters; and his assumption that the whites are indeed what they say they are,
superior and adult” (56). According to Morrison, Jim permits his persecutors to torment him,
humiliate him, and responds to the torment and humiliation with boundless love. The humiliation
comes after we have experienced Jim as an adult, a caring father and a sensitive man. If Jim had
been a white ex-convict befriended by Huck, the ending could not have been imagined or written.
(56) What is above all disturbing about the novel, Morrison argues, is not its portrayal of Jim,
“but what Mark Twain, Huck, and especially Tom need from him” (57). Rather than merely a
white man’s limited portrait of a slave, the novel demonstrates the inadequacy of Euro-American
utopian aspirations; Morrison says Huck Finn “simulates and describes the parasitic nature of
white freedom” (57). In her reading, then, the American dream of freedom may well be embodied
in Huck and Jim’s time on the river, but if so then that very dream itself is fundamentally flawed,
resting on a shedding of social responsibility and a failure to examine relations of subservience.
The racial problematics of Huckleberry Finn are partly “corrected” in the 1994 Hollywood film
version. The film shuns the complexities of irony and satire that make understanding the novel
difficult. All points of view are simply and directly argued, offending passages are cut away. All
213 repetitions of the racial epithet are simply eliminated. The Widow Douglas espouses an
explicitly abolitionist position. Above all, Jim is a far stronger character. His superstitiousness
becomes a self-conscious put-on, and rather than being frightened of Huck and thinking him a
ghost when they meet on Jackson Island, it is Jim that surprises and frightens Huck. Running
away with a plan and a map, Jim exercises planning and foresight. Still ridiculed by being dressed
up as an “African” by the Duke and King, Jim is for the most part more articulate: he directly
argues for the elimination of slavery. Also enhancing the depiction of Jim is the film’s
elimination of Tom Sawyer. Without Tom, the scene in the second chapter where Jim is mocked
by stealing his hat disappears. The problematic final eleven chapters of the novel-where Jim is a
helpless and gullible figure for Tom’s scheming-are simply done away with. By making Huck
(instead of Tom, as in the novel) the injured boy that Jim must save, the climax of the film
becomes a reciprocating act of friendship, rather than a deus ex machine revelation that Jim has
all along been free. Although far from examining slavery from an African American perspective
or telling its full horror, the film does add scenes of a plantation with a cruel overseer whipping
slaves, Jim among them. Huck views this brutality, consciously examines his own complicity in
the system of racial inequality, explicitly and determinedly rejects slavery as an institution, and
makes a personal apology for his own complicity with slavery to Jim. None of this is in Twain’s
novel. Rather than serving as a contemporary testament to Twain’s greatness, the radically
revised film simply points to significant problems with the text. After watching the film with my
school age son, I had a troubling and, for an English teacher, iconoclastic thought: might this
Hollywood production be more effective with students than the novel itself?
My own experience with students in the classroom would seem to verify the observation that
one’s cultural background influences one’s reaction to the novel. Recently I taught Huckleberry
Finn in two classes with racially different student populations and had clearly divergent results.
The first class was in the fall, a college-level Black American Literature class with a Cultural
Studies approach to the theme of slavery. The class included a wide range of primary and
secondary material from the seventeenth century to the present. We studied depictions of slavery
by black authors such as Olaudah Equiano, Frederick Douglas, Linda Brent, Nat Turner,
Langston Hughes, Ishmail Reed, and Toni Morrison and white authors Aphra Behn, Harriet
Beecher Stowe, Caroline Lee Hentz, Herman Melville, and Mark Twain. We viewed segments of
“Roots” and read historical essays (including chapters from Howard Zinn’s A People’s History)
and contemporary studies about slavery (see appendix for list of materials). The course
enrollment was 50% African Americans and 50% white students, from Detroit and medium size
towns throughout Michigan.
Given the historical and thematic integration of the course, each new text we read was examined
in light of what we already knew, and, simultaneously, the new texts lead us to fundamentally
rethink our previous reading. For example, it wasn’t until after reading Frederick Douglas, Linda
Brent, and Nat Turner that my students, both white and black, were able to fully recognize the
stereotyping in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe’s black characters appeared as stock figures in a white
abolitionist imagination only after coming to know the intellectually questing Douglass, the
trapped and emotionally conflicted Brent, and the violent and unrepentant Turner. Focusing on an
historical theme and putting the texts next to each other created a Cultural Studies experience that
encouraged students to make sophisticated judgments, write complex papers, and engage in
increasingly meaningful discussions. After reading and discussing Huckleberry Finn in the
context of this class my African American college students from freshman to seniors--many of
them planning to become teachers themselves--were concerned about the use of Huckleberry
Finn in the high school, an institution they themselves had only recently left. Some of these
students talked about their own experience as the only or nearly the only African American
student in an otherwise white classroom. In this situation they resented being turning to as experts
by their white teachers, and they were uncomfortable being stared at by their fellow students. One
of the brightest and most outspoken students--a popular college Junior and an actor who had done
stage appearances as Malcolm X--spoke of how as a high school sophomore he had read
Huckleberry Finn, felt demeaned and angry in the process, and yet considered himself so isolated
by his situation as the only black person in the classroom that he was unable to share his reaction
even privately with his teacher. What does it tell us about the challenge we teachers face in
attempting to teach the novel that such a student, in this case the son of two college professors,
lacked confidence to raise the issue?
I read several passages of the book aloud to the class to set up a discussion. One of the passages
was the paragraph where Tom and Huck trick Jim in the second chapter. In this paragraph the
epithet occurs seven times. Although I read the passage gently and as “sensitively” as I could, it
was clear that hearing the word come out of my mouth made my African American college
students bristle. One African American student (who was, in fact, of a mixed racial background
and thus particularly acute on the question) was quite direct with me in the discussion afterwards.
He pointed out that while this word may be used by blacks with other blacks, it simply must not
be used by whites. In his opinion while a black teacher might be able to read Huckleberry Finn
aloud, a white teacher, no matter how “sympathetic,” simply could not read the work aloud
without offending black students.
Still trying to understand the issue of Huckleberry Finn in the classroom, the following semester I
again taught the novel, this time in a literature teaching methods class for fifth-year English
majors who themselves would soon be student teachers in high school and middle school
language arts classrooms. In addition to reading Huckleberry Finn we read Frederick Douglass,
Nat Turner, Linda Brent, and several of the essays from Satire and Evasion. In contrast with the
African American literature class, nearly all the students in this methods class are of EuroAmerican background (as are 98% of all the education students at our university). This particular
term there was one African American student. She told me after the course was over that the only
day that she really felt completely comfortable in the room was the day that we had a black
professor--and eight black students from my course in the fall--come to join us for a discussion of
the novel. Simply having more people of color in the class and listening to their point of view had
a powerful impact on all the students. Up until that day all of the white students were confident
that they would be able to teach Huckleberry Finn in appropriate and sensitive ways; after that
day although most of them decided that they would teach the novel, their final projects indicated
that they realized it would be a complex task indeed.
Those who still want to teach Huckleberry Finn after reading this chapter and exploring the
perspectives offered by Satire and Evasion can marshal impressive arguments for their cause, not
the least of which is the importance of having students examine the issue for themselves. In
literature courses we are sometimes so busy trying to “cover all the material” or “expose” our
students to “great literature” that we fail to take the time to focus in, develop connections between
works and contexts, and explore the relevance of what we read to the present. It is crystal clear to
me that Huckleberry Finn should not be taught in a curriculum that simply showcases literary
works without developing student skills at challenging the classics and thinking critically about
literature, history, politics, and language. In other words, Huckleberry Finn should not be taught
simply within a New Critical perspective. To ethically teach this novel involves entering into a
response-based Cultural Studies approach that, at a minimum, requires: 1) Teaching Huckleberry
Finn in a way that is sensitive to the racial makeup and dynamics of the classroom. 2) Openly
addressing the presence of the racial epithet in the text and developing a strategy for use or
avoidance of the term in the classroom. 3) Along with reading the book, examining objections to
the Twain’s portrayal of African Americans and texts about slavery written by black authors. (See
appendix.) 4) Informing the parents of high school age students that the text will be used and
offering intellectually meaningful alternative assignments when these students or parents are
uncomfortable with the novel.
Several of these points need clarification. For example, the dynamics of teaching Huckleberry
Finn differ considerably from classroom to classroom, based on the race of the teacher and the
proportion of minority students in the classroom, as well as on local social, cultural, and political
factors. Talking across racial lines about questions of race always carries emotional impact in
high school or college. The issues require a sensitivity and intellectual maturity from students that
is not ordinary found below the eleventh grade. Teachers and students who undertake to read
Huck Finn must be committed to respecting and learning from minority views, yet I do not
recommend that a classroom vote or even a consensus process be used to decide whether or not
Huckleberry Finn should be read. This difficult decision should be that of the teacher, letting
students decide may put unfair pressure on those students who might object to reading the work,
alienating them from their classmates.
The racial make-up of the classroom is a complex factor in teaching Huckleberry Finn that
requires further consideration. While we might wish that fifty years after Brown vs. Board of
Education classrooms without black students would be increasingly rare, a de facto racial
segregation is still the norm in many of America’s suburbs, rural areas, and in many private
schools. Even in racially mixed urban schools tracking often leads to racially segregated
classrooms. And universities are often just as segregated as the public schools, if not more so. In a
classroom without African Americans or other students of color, teachers often mistakenly
believe that they are “off the hook” and need not deal with racial issues. As the country and the
world become increasingly interrelated and as the current white majority in this country becomes
a minority in the twenty-first century, it will, however, be all the more imperative for white
students to learn a multicultural literature and history and to participate in Cultural Studies
curriculums. Indeed, a classroom without African Americans presents particular difficulties for
the teacher and students reading Huckleberry Finn. Lacking black voices it will be difficult for
“sympathy” or “understanding” to be more than superficial. Issues of race may be treated at a safe
though somewhat uncomfortable intellectual distance: “I think that they would think...” “If I were
black I would feel...” In a classroom without blacks some students may seek to relieve the tension
that a discussion of race brings by making supposedly funny, but actually inappropriate racial
remarks. A white teacher in this situation needs to make it clear from the outset that such remarks
are not acceptable whether or not blacks are present to hear them. Students and parents in such
contexts may resent any time spent on racial questions or on black history and culture as “too
much” time, yet for these students more time is necessary to understanding the literature and
prepare for democratic citizenship. Inviting black speakers to the class, whatever their viewpoint,
is especially important.
It is relatively easy for white teachers to argue for the importance of multicultural perspectives
and racial understanding, while teachers of color, black or otherwise, attempting the same
pedagogy may be perceived as “hypersensitive,” “activist,” or be accused of “reverse racism.”
When issues of race come up in classes where students of color constitute a small minority, these
students will sense, often accurately, that they are being singled out, that the other students are
looking at them, waiting for a reaction. In a letter to the New York Times Allan Ballard describes
his experience in a predominately white junior high school in Philadelphia in the 195Os:
I can still recall the anger I felt as my white classmates read aloud the word “nigger.” In
fact, as I write this letter I am getting angry all over again. I wanted to sink into my seat.
Some of the whites snickered, others giggled. I can recall nothing of the literary merits of
this work that you term “the greatest of all American novels.” I only recall the sense of
relief I felt when I would flip ahead a few pages and see that the word “nigger” would
not be read that hour. (Allan B Ballard, in Satire and Evasion, 29)
Non-black teachers need to understand that it may be difficult for black students, even the most
able, to express their reservations or concerns about matters of race to their teacher. Silent refusal
to read the novel, distracting comments or behavior, an excess of humor in the classroom by
students asked to read Huckleberry Finn should be seen by teachers not as student
insubordination or narrow-mindedness but as inchoate expressions of resistance to a possibly
inappropriate curriculum or pedagogy.
Since a special burden falls on them, African American students have a right to expect that they
will be consulted in advance of reading and discussing the novel. Particularly if the teacher is
Euro-American, it is important that minority students know that their teacher is aware of their
position. Minority students can be told that when they write or participate in discussion that they
can choose to either speak “just as person” or, if they choose to, identify their viewpoint with that
of other African Americans. In a classroom where half or more of the students are black, African
American students are less likely to feel isolated. Yet in these classrooms also teachers still need
to find ways to affirm student voices and facilitate communicate between racial groups. Small
group discussion plays a particularly important role in this classroom. Such groups will probably
be more racially mixed if students are assigned by “counting off”, though group self-selection
may be important in helping to build comfort level and confidence. Unless their purposes are
made explicit, teachers should avoid overtly separating groups by race.
As a white teacher with about half African American students, I observe an evolution in class
discussion. In the first weeks the majority of large group discussion volunteers are often white.
As we work with small groups, as I show an interest in listening to minority perspectives, as
black teachers and colleagues visit my classroom, and as I invite non-volunteers to participate, a
more balanced class discussion evolves. African American--or any other minority--voices are not
automatically affirmed just because African American students are present in the classroom.
Since African American or minority culture is not the focus of academic attention in most schools
or universities--even institutions with a majority of “minority” students--it is not a fair for
teachers to assume that these students know “their” history or literature. Thus it may be just as
important for students in a class with a larger percentage of black students, for example, to
acquaint themselves with complimentary background materials from African American
perspectives.
In addition to carefully considering the racial dynamics of the classroom, in reading Huckleberry
Finn it is important to recognize the power of language, in particular racial epithets. Teachers
make a mistake when they excuse Twain’s use of the term on the grounds that it was accepted in
his time. All of the scholars I have read on the subject agree with professor David L. Smith that,
“Even when Twain was writing his book, “nigger” was universally recognized as an insulting,
demeaning word” (Satire and Evasion, 107). Peaches Henry, former high school teacher and
graduate student at Columbia University, describes the history and politics of the word:
To dismiss the word’s recurrence in the work as an accurate rendition of nineteenthcentury American linguistic conventions denies what every black person knows: far more
than a synonym for slave, “nigger” signifies a concept. It conjures centuries of
specifically black degradation and humiliation during which the family was disintegrated,
education was denied, manhood was trapped within a forced perpetual puerilism, and
womanhood was destroyed by concubinage. If one grants that Twain substituted “
nigger” for “slave,” the implications of the word do not improve; “nigger” denotes the
black man as a commodity, as chattel... “Nigger” encapsulates the decades of oppression
that followed emancipation. It means not only racist terror and lynch mobs but that
victims deserve it’.’ Outside Central High in Little Rock in 1954 it was emblazoned
across placards; and across the South throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s it was
screamed by angry mobs.... So to impute black’s abhorrence of ‘nigger’ to
hypersensitivity compounds injustice with callousness and signals a refusal to
acknowledge that the connotations of that word’ generate a cultural discomfort that
blacks share with no other racial group. (31)
Henry believes that in teaching texts such as Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird the word
should be “forced” “ into active class discourse” in a controlled classroom setting because in her
experience “students (black or white) could only face sensitive issues of race after they had
achieved a certain emotional distance from the rhetoric of race” (41). She describes her
experience with ninth graders: Unable to utter the taboo word nigger,’ students would be
paralyzed, the whites by their social awareness of the moral injunction against it and the black by
their heightened sensitivity to it. Slowly, torturously, the wall of silence would begin to crumble
before students’ timid attempts to approach the topic with euphemism. Finally, after tense
moments, one courageous adolescent would utter the word. As the class released an almost
audible sight of relief, the students and I would embark upon a lively and risk-taking exchange
about race and its attendant complexities. (41-2) An open classroom discussion of racial epithets
in a mixed classroom of ninth graders with a sensitive and able black teacher clearly offers
important opportunities for learning. With a different student population and a different teacher
the results might have been less positive.
Some teachers forbid the use of the word in the classroom and simply skip over it when the work
is read aloud. Others speak the word only when they are quoting from a secondary source, such as
the novel itself. Others use the expression “n-word” or “the racial epithet.” No approach is
guaranteed, but whatever approach is taken it should be done explicitly and be discussed by the
students, in college or in high school. Discomfort with the word on the part of teachers or
students may not be overcome by even the most sensitive approach and the problem of the racial
epithet in the novel constitutes reason enough for some teachers to choose away from teaching
the work. No teacher should be required to teach this novel. (The ethics of requiring teachers to
teach Huckleberry Finn are explored by Wayne Booth in The Company We Keep: An Ethics of
Fiction, Berkeley: U California P, 1988.)
There was a time when I thought it was silly not to teach Huckleberry Finn on the grounds that it
was a racist novel. After reading and listening to African American scholars, teacher, parents, and
students I have changed my mind. Gerald Graff has urged English teachers to “ teach the
conflicts” (Beyond the Culture Wars, New York: Norton, 1992), and at teacher’s conferences in
Oregon and Michigan I have advocated using the novel in a Cultural Studies framework and
along with other works as an opportunity for students to develop their own critical thinking about
literature, racism, and the literary canon. Given the prominence of Huckleberry Finn in the
curriculum, the attempt to teach it in a truly anti-racist way marks a starting point, a much needed
improvement over business as usual. I realize that sometimes it is necessary for English
classrooms to be uncomfortable, and that if we fail to challenge established ways of knowing,
contrast viewpoints, and broaden perspectives we fail to do our job. Yet we must be careful that
such discomfort is experienced equally rather than focused on an oppressed group that is
desperately struggling for school success.
It is timely for us English teachers to look beyond Huckleberry Finn, to find other works that
might be more appropriate for all our students and more effective in creating multicultural
communities of learning in our classrooms. Educating white students about prejudice with a text
that is alienating to blacks perpetuates racist priorities, does it not? There is no excuse for the fact
that not even one of the most taught works in American high schools is written from a minority
perspective‹or that many college courses still include very little African American literature. Why
aren’t the great African American novels of Richard Wright, Zora Neal Hurston, Ralph Ellison or
Alice Walker more central to our teaching? Moreover, race is not the only disturbing issue when
we consider the role of Huckleberry Finn in the classroom; we also need to ask other questions,
about the novel’s treatment of women, for instance, about its effect on women students, and the
overwhelming male orientation of our curriculum. Julius Lester states:
[In Huckleberry Finn] civilization is equated with education, regularity, decency, and
being cramped up, and the representations of civilization are women... The fact that the
novel is regarded as a classic tells us much about the psyche of the white American male,
because the novel is a power evocation of puer, the eternal boy for whom growth,
maturity, and responsibility are enemies. (Satire and Evasion, 205)
Guest Columnist: Time to update schools' reading lists
1 of 2
http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http:...
http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/394832_nword06.html
Last updated January 5, 2009 3:35 p.m. PT
By JOHN FOLEY
GUEST COLUMNIST
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.
Even if Huck Finn didn't contain the N‐word and demeaning stereotypes, it would remain a tough sell to
students accustomed to fast‐paced everything. The novel meanders along slower than the Mississippi
River and uses a Southern dialect every bit as challenging as Shakespeare's Old English.
Explaining that Twain wasn't a racist ‐‐ or at least didn't hate African‐Americans (he had a
well‐documented prejudice against Native Americans) ‐‐ is a daunting challenge. I explain that Jim, a
black man, is the hero of the book. I tell them Huck eventually sees the error of his ways, apologizes to
Jim and commits himself to helping him escape slavery. Yes, I tell them, he does all this while continuing
to refer to Jim by the demeaning word, but Twain was merely being realistic.
Many students just hear the N‐word. This is particularly true, of course, of African‐American students. I
have not taught Huck Finn in a predominantly black classroom, and I think it would be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to do so effectively. With few exceptions, all the black students in my classes over the
years have appeared very uncomfortable when I've discussed these matters at the beginning of the unit.
And I never want to rationalize Huck Finn to an angry African‐American mom again as long as I breathe.
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.
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
4/10/2009 5:27 PM
2 of 2
http://www.seattlepi.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http:...
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." Like Huck, "Dove" involves an epic journey of discovery and loss and
addresses an important social issue ‐‐ the terrible treatment of women in the Old West. That issue does
not rank as high as slavery on our national list of shame, but it definitely makes the list.
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.
John Foley of Vancouver is an English teacher at Ridgefield High School in southern Washington.
© 1998‐2009 Seattle Post‐Intelligencer
4/10/2009 5:27 PM
Racism and Huckleberry Finn
1 of 8
http://www.webbschool.com/rhood/english2/webb_racism_and_h...
Webb, Allen. “Racism and Huckleberry Finn: Censorship, Dialogue, and Change”
English Journal, Nov. 1993. Reprinted with revision in Literature and Lives, NCTE Press, 2001.
“A masterpiece.”
--T.S. Elliot
“One of the world’s great books and one of the central documents of American culture.”
--Lionel Trilling
“All modern American literature comes from one book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry Finn... There was
nothing before. There has been nothing as good since.”
--Ernest Hemingway
“For the past forty years, black families have trekked to schools in numerous districts throughout the country
to say, ‘This book is not good for our children,’ only to be turned away by insensitive and often unwittingly
racist teachers and administrators who respond, ‘This book is a classic.’”
--John H. Wallace
Huckleberry Finn may be the most exalted single work of American literature. Praised by our best known critics
and writers, the novel is enshrined at the center of the American literature curriculum. According to Arthur
Applebee the work is second only to Shakespeare in the frequency it appears in the classroom and is required
in 70% of public high schools and 76% of parochial high schools. The most taught novel, the most taught long
work, and the most taught piece of American literature, Huckleberry Finn is a staple from junior high (where
eleven chapters are included in the Junior Great Books program) to graduate school. Written in a now vanished
dialect, told from the point of view of a runaway fourteen-year-old, the novel conglomerates melodramatic
boyhood adventure, farcical low comedy, and pointed social satire. Yet at its center is a relationship between a
white boy and an escaped slave, an association freighted with the tragedy and the possibility of American
history. Despite a social order set against interracial communication and respect, Huck develops a
comradeship with Jim for which he is willingagainst all he has been taughtto risk his soul.
Despite the novel’s sanctified place and overtly anti-racist message, since school desegregation in the 1950s,
black Americans have raised objections to Huckleberry Finn and its effect on their children. Linking their
complaints with the efforts of other groups to influence the curriculum, we English teachers have seen the
issue as one of censorship, defending the novel and our right to teach it. In so doing we have been properly
concerned: the freedom of English teachers to design and implement curriculum must be protected as
censorship undermines the creation of an informed citizenry able to make critical judgments between
competing ideas. Yet, considering the objections to Huckleberry Finn only in terms of freedom and censorship
doesn’t resolve potentially divisive situations that can arise in either high school or college settings. For this
we need to listen to objections raised to the novel and reconsider the process of teaching it. Entering into a
dialogue with those that have objections to Huckleberry Finn can help us think the dynamics of race in
literature courses and about the way literature depicts, interrogates, and affirms our national culture and
history.
A “ communication shut-down” is the way I would describe what happened in November 1991 in a largely white
suburb just next door to where I train English teachers. African American student and parent concerns during
the teaching of Huckleberry Finn led to a decision to immediately remove the text from the classroom in the
district’s two high schools. Required to read a brief statement to their students stating that the book had been
withdrawn, teachers were prohibited from further discussion of Huckleberry Finn or reasons for its removal
until “more sensitive” approaches were found. Local television and newspaper reporters learned of the story,
and English teachers, students, parents, and administrators suddenly and unexpectedly found themselves at
the center of a difficult and very public controversy. An impassioned meeting at the high school made the
nightly news. A subsequent meeting with the school board was broadcast on the cable access channel.
Expressing sentiments that might be echoed by many across the country, these teachers felt that they had
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
2 of 8
been teaching appropriately all along. One teacher told the local paper, “ We have shown a concerted effort to
express what we call sensitivity,” and “ we feel a very strong kinship to this book because of what we believe it
stands for” (Kalamazoo Gazette, 11/26/91). Upset that their freedom in the classroom was impinged, these
teachers were also confused and pained that parents should find the text and their methods insensitive.
On the other side black students who raised concerns with teachers about the book felt they had not been
listened to, and black parents concluded that a tight-knit group of narrow-minded teachers had shut out and
demeaned their legitimate concerns. Some white students were angry that the complaints of the black students
meant they couldn’t finish reading the book. Some black students felt that long friendships with white students
were in jeopardy. In sum, parents were angry with teachers, teachers felt threatened and misunderstood,
administrators went in various directions but failed to follow policies already in place, and students were
alienated from the school and from one another. In the following year the novel was reinstated, but to this day
teachers remain understandably nervous about using it, unclear as to why blacks object to it, and uncertain
just how it should best be taught. As with many similar incidents that have occurred again and again around
the country, this controversy over Huckleberry Finn only exacerbated problems of interracial communication
and respect.
We can and must do better. Doing better begins with English teachers at all levels taking a careful look at the
complex racial issues raised by the novel and an active listening to the views of African Americans, teachers,
scholars, writers, parents, and students. That Huckleberry Finn draws the attention of black families should not
be a surprise. Since no text by a black‹or any other minority group member for that matter‹has yet to make it to
the list of most frequently taught works (according to Applebee’s research), Huckleberry Finn has a peculiar
visibility. The novel remains the only one of the most taught works in high school to treat slavery, to represent
a black dialect, and to have a significant role for an African American character. The length of the novel, the
demands it places on instructional time, its centrality in the curriculum augment its prominence. Add to this the
presence in the novel of the most powerful racial epithet in English‹the word appears 213 times‹and it is
evident why Huckleberry Finn legitimately concerns African American parents sending their children into
racially mixed classrooms.
Huckleberry Finn has also consistently attracted the attention of prominent black scholars and writers who,
since the 1950’s, have thought carefully about the work, its cultural contexts, and its role in the curriculum. We
are fortunate to have much of their analysis readily available in a paperback volume entitled Satire and
Evasion? Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn (Durham: Duke UP, 1992). Every contributor is concerned
with the role of Huckleberry Finn in the classroom; most are professors and teachers at leading universities,
some have high school experience. The diverse and divergent Cultural Studies essays in Satire and Evasion
demonstrate the complexity of Twain’s novel and the racial issues it raises. In addition to the articles, Satire
and Evasion contains an annotated bibliography on issues of race, the novel, and the classroom. The collection
begins with an essay by John H. Wallace, the black school administrator at Mark Twain Intermediate School in
Fairfax Virginia who played a prominent role in the debates over the novel in the early 1980’s. Wallace’s essay
is followed by others that take significantly different and more subtle positions, but most contributors agree on
several key points.
First, they make a persuasive case that Twain’s depiction of Jim owes much to the popular nineteenth-century
black-face minstrel show where white actors darkened their skin to the color of coal to render comic
burlesques of African American speech and manners. This insight is not entirely new: more than fifty years ago
Ralph Ellison wrote that “ Twain fitted Jim into the outlines of the minstrel tradition, and it is from behind this
stereotype mask that we see Jim’s dignity and human capacity‹and Twain’s complexity‹emerge” (65). While
Ellison noted Twain’s talent, he remarked on a fundamental ambivalence in Jim’s portrayal that justified the
discomfort of the “Negro” reader. He found Jim “a white man’s inadequate portrait of a slave” (72). (Ellison’s
essay “Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke,” frequently referred to in Satire and Evasion, is found in its entirety
in Shadow and Act, New York: Signet, 1964, 61-73). Satire and Evasion considerably elaborates Ellison’s
remarks. The contributors offer significant evidence that Twain himself was an avid fan of the black-face
minstrelsy. Bernard Bell, a professor of English at the University of Massachusetts, quotes from one of Twain’s
letters: “The minstrel used a very broad Negro dialect; he used it competently and with easy facility and it was
funny ‹delightfully and satisfyingly funny” (128). When the shows appeared to be dying out in the early
twentieth century Bell points out that Twain lamented the loss of “the real nigger show‹the genuine nigger
show, the extravagant nigger show‹the show which to me has no peer and whose peer has not arrived” (127).
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
3 of 8
As his affection for the minstrel show indicates, and the contributors point out, Twain’s personal attitudes
toward blacks were contradictory. His father and uncle owned slaves, yet his wife was the daughter of a
prominent abolitionist. He fought briefly with the confederate army, yet later in life paid a black student’s way
through Yale Law School. Though he protested against lynching and discrimination, he loved minstrel shows
and “nigger jokes.” In their essay Frederick Woodward and Donnarae MacCann, a professor and a graduate
student at the University of Iowa, argue that Twain’s affection for the minstrel show is fundamental to the
portrayal of Jim, “The swaggering buffoonery of the minstrel clown is represented early in the novel when Jim
awakes and finds his hat in a tree (one of Tom’s tricks), and then concocts a tale about witches and the devil”
(145). They argue that: The stage Negro’s’ typical banter about wife troubles, profit making, spooks, and formal
education is echoed in episodes in Huckleberry Finn, and their inclusion can be traced to a period when Twain
was in the midst of planning a new tour of stage readings. Jim gives his impression of King Sollermun’ and his
harem in a minstrel-like repartee (chap. 14) and his confusion about stock market profits is seen in a farcical
account of how Jim’s stock‹his cowfailed to increase his fourteen dollar fortune when he tuck to specalat’n’’
(chap. 8). Throughout the novel Jim is stupefied by information that Huck shares with him, as when they
discuss Louis XVI’s little boy the dolphin.’ (145) Several scholars in Satire and Evasion point out that in the
sequels that Twain wrote to Huckleberry Finn (Tom Sawyer Abroad and the unfinished Tom Sawyer’s
Conspiracy) Jim also appears as “the patient simpleton” and “ Huck and Tom amuse themselves while risking
Jim’s dignity and even his life” (152). In this view even the affection Huck and the reader feel for Jim fits with
the minstrel tradition where the comic black characters are congenial and non-threatening.
While a couple of the contributors to Satire and Evasion develop complex explanations of how the end of the
novel serves as “ Twain’s satire on the extremes to which the defeated Confederacy went to keep the black
population enslaved” (213), for the most part these African American scholars and teachers are profoundly
disappointed with Huck Finn’s final chapters. Although Jim runs away early on in the book, his independence is
downplayed because he never makes his own way to freedom; it is Miss Watson’s benevolence rather than
Jim’s intelligence or courage that gain him his liberty. Further, the believability of the deus ex machina freeing
of Jim depends on an unsustainably innocent view of racial relations. Speaking of the public knowledge that
Jim is suspected of killing Huck, writer and English professor Julius Lester comments, “Yet we are now to
believe that an old white lady would free a black slave suspected of murdering a white child. White people may
want to believe such fairy tales about themselves, but blacks know better” (203).
In examining the conclusion of the novel these scholars are troubled by the way that the developing
relationship between Jim and Huck abruptly seems to loose its meaning as Huck accedes to Tom Sawyer’s
cruel and senseless manipulations. Rhett Jones, an English professor at Rutgers, writes: “The high adventures
of the middle chapters, Huck’s admiration of Jim, Jim’s own strong self-confidence, and the slave’s willingness
to protect and guide Huck are all, in some sense, rendered meaningless by the closing chapters, in which
Twain turns Jim over to two white boys on a lark” (186). Jones views Huck’s failure to speak up, his only
protest being to compare stealing “a nigger” to “a watermelon, or a Sunday school book,” as Huck finally
rejecting Jim’s humanity. He points out that Huck in the closing paragraph is careful to tell the reader all about
Tom and himself, including Aunt Sally’s plans to adopt him. But the reader who is interested in learning what
Jim intends to do, how he intends to rejoin his family, and what plans he has for freeing them is left in the dark
when Huck flatly concludes, “There ain’t nothing more to write about.’ Huck is not interested in the fate of
Jim—much less that of his family—not is Tom; nor, evidently, was Twain. (190) Bernard Bell puts it simply:
“Twain nostalgically and metaphorically-- sells Jim down river for laughs at the end” (138).
Seen from the point of view of some of these scholars even the most cherished aspects of the book begin to
appear ambiguous, compromised. Focusing on the portrayal of Jim in the latter part of the book, particularly
the testimony of the doctor who recaptures Jim after Jim has risked freedom to stand by the injured Tom,
Julius Lester comments: It is a picture of the only kind of black that whites have every truly liked‹faithful,
tending sick whites, not speaking, not causing trouble, and totally passive. He is the archetypal good nigger,’
who lacks self-respect, dignity, and a sense of self separate from the one whites what him to have. A century of
white readers have accepted this characterization because it permits their own humanity ‘to shine through with
more luster.’ (203)
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
4 of 8
Some of the scholars are even critical of Huck’s reasoning when he decides to “go to hell” for Jim. Jones
points out that while Huck considers “Jim’s love for him, Jim’s humanity, and, most important, the ways in
which Jim has served Huck,” Huck “concludes that Jim has done a great deal for him but in none of his
reflections does he consider Jim’s own needs, much less those of his wife and children” (188). Shelly Fisher
Fishkin puts forward a well publicized argument in Was Huck Black: Mark Twain and African American Voices
(New York: Oxford UP, 1993) that Twain patterned Huck’s speech on that of black children thus suggesting a
close interrelationship between racial identities in the novel. Her position is anticipated in Satire and Evasion by
Arnold Rampersand, Professor of English at Princeton, who makes the case that Huck Finn, with its stress on
folk culture, on dialect, and on American humor, can be seen to be “ near the fountainhead” for African
American writers such as Hughes, Hurston, Ellison, and Walker. Rampersand explores issues of alienation in
the novel, comparing Twain to Wright, Baldwin, and Morrison, yet he argues that the major compromise of the
novel is not the ending, but that Jim never gains the intellectual complexity of Huck; never becomes a figure of
disruptive alienation, nor does he even seem capable of learning this from Huck. “Assuredly Twain knew that
Huck’s attitude could be contagious, and that blacks had more reason than whites to be alienated and angry”
(226), Rampersand writes. Consequently despite the close relationship Huck and Jim develop on the raftand
the possibility that Huck’s own language may owe something to black dialecttheir roles and human possibilities
are kept irresolutely separate and unequal.
In her study of American fiction (Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination Cambridge:
Harvard UP, 1992) Toni Morrison--winner of the Pulitzer Prize for her own novel about slavery Beloved--goes
farther in criticizing Huckleberry Finn than the contributors to Satire and Evasion. Morrison believes that in the
novel there is a close “interdependence of slavery and freedom, of Huck’s growth and Jim’s serviceability
within it, and even of Mark Twain’s inability to continue, to explore the journey into free territory” (55). She is
struck by two things in the novel: “the apparently limitless store of love and compassion the black man has for
his white friend and white masters; and his assumption that the whites are indeed what they say they are,
superior and adult” (56). According to Morrison, Jim permits his persecutors to torment him, humiliate him, and
responds to the torment and humiliation with boundless love. The humiliation comes after we have experienced
Jim as an adult, a caring father and a sensitive man. If Jim had been a white ex-convict befriended by Huck, the
ending could not have been imagined or written. (56) What is above all disturbing about the novel, Morrison
argues, is not its portrayal of Jim,
“but what Mark Twain, Huck, and especially Tom need from him” (57). Rather than merely a white man’s limited
portrait of a slave, the novel demonstrates the inadequacy of Euro-American utopian aspirations; Morrison
says Huck Finn “simulates and describes the parasitic nature of white freedom” (57). In her reading, then, the
American dream of freedom may well be embodied in Huck and Jim’s time on the river, but if so then that very
dream itself is fundamentally flawed, resting on a shedding of social responsibility and a failure to examine
relations of subservience.
The racial problematics of Huckleberry Finn are partly “corrected” in the 1994 Hollywood film version. The film
shuns the complexities of irony and satire that make understanding the novel difficult. All points of view are
simply and directly argued, offending passages are cut away. All 213 repetitions of the racial epithet are simply
eliminated. The Widow Douglas espouses an explicitly abolitionist position. Above all, Jim is a far stronger
character. His superstitiousness becomes a self-conscious put-on, and rather than being frightened of Huck
and thinking him a ghost when they meet on Jackson Island, it is Jim that surprises and frightens Huck.
Running away with a plan and a map, Jim exercises planning and foresight. Still ridiculed by being dressed up
as an “African” by the Duke and King, Jim is for the most part more articulate: he directly argues for the
elimination of slavery. Also enhancing the depiction of Jim is the film’s elimination of Tom Sawyer. Without
Tom, the scene in the second chapter where Jim is mocked by stealing his hat disappears. The problematic
final eleven chapters of the novelwhere Jim is a helpless and gullible figure for Tom’s schemingare simply done
away with. By making Huck (instead of Tom, as in the novel) the injured boy that Jim must save, the climax of
the film becomes a reciprocating act of friendship, rather than a deus ex machine revelation that Jim has all
along been free. Although far from examining slavery from an African American perspective or telling its full
horror, the film does add scenes of a plantation with a cruel overseer whipping slaves, Jim among them. Huck
views this brutality, consciously examines his own complicity in the system of racial inequality, explicitly and
determinedly rejects slavery as an institution, and makes a personal apology for his own complicity with
slavery to Jim. None of this is in Twain’s novel. Rather than serving as a contemporary testament to Twain’s
greatness, the radically revised film simply points to significant problems with the text. After watching the film
with my school age son, I had a troubling and, for an English teacher, iconoclastic thought: might this
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
5 of 8
Hollywood production be more effective with students than the novel itself?
My own experience with students in the classroom would seem to verify the observation that one’s cultural
background influences one’s reaction to the novel. Recently I taught Huckleberry Finn in two classes with
racially different student populations and had clearly divergent results. The first class was in the fall, a
college-level Black American Literature class with a Cultural Studies approach to the theme of slavery. The
class included a wide range of primary and secondary material from the seventeenth century to the present.
We studied depictions of slavery by black authors such as Olaudah Equiano, Frederick Douglas, Linda Brent,
Nat Turner, Langston Hughes, Ishmail Reed, and Toni Morrison and white authors Aphra Behn, Harriet Beecher
Stowe, Caroline Lee Hentz, Herman Melville, and Mark Twain. We viewed segments of “Roots” and read
historical essays (including chapters from Howard Zinn’s A People’s History) and contemporary studies about
slavery (see appendix for list of materials). The course enrollment was 50% African Americans and 50% white
students, from Detroit and medium size towns throughout Michigan.
Given the historical and thematic integration of the course, each new text we read was examined in light of
what we already knew, and, simultaneously, the new texts lead us to fundamentally rethink our previous
reading. For example, it wasn’t until after reading Frederick Douglas, Linda Brent, and Nat Turner that my
students, both white and black, were able to fully recognize the stereotyping in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Stowe’s
black characters appeared as stock figures in a white abolitionist imagination only after coming to know the
intellectually questing Douglass, the trapped and emotionally conflicted Brent, and the violent and unrepentant
Turner. Focusing on an historical theme and putting the texts next to each other created a Cultural Studies
experience that encouraged students to make sophisticated judgments, write complex papers, and engage in
increasingly meaningful discussions. After reading and discussing Huckleberry Finn in the context of this class
my African American college students from freshman to seniors--many of them planning to become teachers
themselves--were concerned about the use of Huckleberry Finn in the high school, an institution they
themselves had only recently left. Some of these students talked about their own experience as the only or
nearly the only African American student in an otherwise white classroom. In this situation they resented being
turning to as experts by their white teachers, and they were uncomfortable being stared at by their fellow
students. One of the brightest and most outspoken students-a popular college Junior and an actor who had
done stage appearances as Malcolm X-spoke of how as a high school sophomore he had read Huckleberry
Finn, felt demeaned and angry in the process, and yet considered himself so isolated by his situation as the
only black person in the classroom that he was unable to share his reaction even privately with his teacher.
What does it tell us about the challenge we teachers face in attempting to teach the novel that such a student,
in this case the son of two college professors, lacked confidence to raise the issue?
I read several passages of the book aloud to the class to set up a discussion. One of the passages was the
paragraph where Tom and Huck trick Jim in the second chapter. In this paragraph the epithet occurs seven
times. Although I read the passage gently and as “sensitively” as I could, it was clear that hearing the word
come out of my mouth made my African American college students bristle. One African American student (who
was, in fact, of a mixed racial background and thus particularly acute on the question) was quite direct with me
in the discussion afterwards. He pointed out that while this word may be used by blacks with other blacks, it
simply must not be used by whites. In his opinion while a black teacher might be able to read Huckleberry Finn
aloud, a white teacher, no matter how “sympathetic,” simply could not read the work aloud without offending
black students.
Still trying to understand the issue of Huckleberry Finn in the classroom, the following semester I again taught
the novel, this time in a literature teaching methods class for fifth-year English majors who themselves would
soon be student teachers in high school and middle school language arts classrooms. In addition to reading
Huckleberry Finn we read Frederick Douglass, Nat Turner, Linda Brent, and several of the essays from Satire
and Evasion. In contrast with the African American literature class, nearly all the students in this methods class
are of Euro-American background (as are 98% of all the education students at our university). This particular
term there was one African American student. She told me after the course was over that the only day that she
really felt completely comfortable in the room was the day that we had a black professor--and eight black
students from my course in the fall--come to join us for a discussion of the novel. Simply having more people
of color in the class and listening to their point of view had a powerful impact on all the students. Up until that
day all of the white students were confident that they would be able to teach Huckleberry Finn in appropriate
and sensitive ways; after that day although most of them decided that they would teach the novel, their final
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
6 of 8
projects indicated that they realized it would be a complex task indeed.
Those who still want to teach Huckleberry Finn after reading this chapter and exploring the perspectives
offered by Satire and Evasion can marshal impressive arguments for their cause, not the least of which is the
importance of having students examine the issue for themselves. In literature courses we are sometimes so
busy trying to “cover all the material” or “expose” our students to “great literature” that we fail to take the time
to focus in, develop connections between works and contexts, and explore the relevance of what we read to
the present. It is crystal clear to me that Huckleberry Finn should not be taught in a curriculum that simply
showcases literary works without developing student skills at challenging the classics and thinking critically
about literature, history, politics, and language. In other words, Huckleberry Finn should not be taught simply
within a New Critical perspective. To ethically teach this novel involves entering into a response-based Cultural
Studies approach that, at a minimum, requires: 1) Teaching Huckleberry Finn in a way that is sensitive to the
racial makeup and dynamics of the classroom. 2) Openly addressing the presence of the racial epithet in the
text and developing a strategy for use or avoidance of the term in the classroom. 3) Along with reading the
book, examining objections to the Twain’s portrayal of African Americans and texts about slavery written by
black authors. (See appendix.) 4) Informing the parents of high school age students that the text will be used
and offering intellectually meaningful alternative assignments when these students or parents are
uncomfortable with the novel.
Several of these points need clarification. For example, the dynamics of teaching Huckleberry Finn differ
considerably from classroom to classroom, based on the race of the teacher and the proportion of minority
students in the classroom, as well as on local social, cultural, and political factors. Talking across racial lines
about questions of race always carries emotional impact in high school or college. The issues require a
sensitivity and intellectual maturity from students that is not ordinary found below the eleventh grade.
Teachers and students who undertake to read Huck Finn must be committed to respecting and learning from
minority views, yet I do not recommend that a classroom vote or even a consensus process be used to decide
whether or not Huckleberry Finn should be read. This difficult decision should be that of the teacher, letting
students decide may put unfair pressure on those students who might object to reading the work, alienating
them from their classmates.
The racial make-up of the classroom is a complex factor in teaching Huckleberry Finn that requires further
consideration. While we might wish that fifty years after Brown vs. Board of Education classrooms without
black students would be increasingly rare, a de facto racial segregation is still the norm in many of America’s
suburbs, rural areas, and in many private schools. Even in racially mixed urban schools tracking often leads to
racially segregated classrooms. And universities are often just as segregated as the public schools, if not more
so. In a classroom without African Americans or other students of color, teachers often mistakenly believe that
they are “off the hook” and need not deal with racial issues. As the country and the world become increasingly
interrelated and as the current white majority in this country becomes a minority in the twenty-first century, it
will, however, be all the more imperative for white students to learn a multicultural literature and history and to
participate in Cultural Studies curriculums. Indeed, a classroom without African Americans presents particular
difficulties for the teacher and students reading Huckleberry Finn. Lacking black voices it will be difficult for
“sympathy” or “understanding” to be more than superficial. Issues of race may be treated at a safe though
somewhat uncomfortable intellectual distance: “I think that they would think...” “If I were black I would feel...”
In a classroom without blacks some students may seek to relieve the tension that a discussion of race brings
by making supposedly funny, but actually inappropriate racial remarks. A white teacher in this situation needs
to make it clear from the outset that such remarks are not acceptable whether or not blacks are present to hear
them. Students and parents in such contexts may resent any time spent on racial questions or on black history
and culture as “too much” time, yet for these students more time is necessary to understanding the literature
and prepare for democratic citizenship. Inviting black speakers to the class, whatever their viewpoint, is
especially important.
It is relatively easy for white teachers to argue for the importance of multicultural perspectives and racial
understanding, while teachers of color, black or otherwise, attempting the same pedagogy may be perceived as
“hypersensitive,” “activist,” or be accused of “reverse racism.” When issues of race come up in classes where
students of color constitute a small minority, these students will sense, often accurately, that they are being
singled out, that the other students are looking at them, waiting for a reaction. In a letter to the New York Times
Allan Ballard describes his experience in a predominately white junior high school in Philadelphia in the 195Os:
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
7 of 8
I can still recall the anger I felt as my white classmates read aloud the word “nigger.” In
fact, as I
write this letter I am getting angry all over again. I wanted to sink into my seat.
Some of the whites snickered,
others giggled. I can recall nothing of the literary merits of
this work that you term “the greatest of all
American novels.” I only recall the sense of
relief I felt when I would flip ahead a few pages and see that
the word “nigger” would not be read that hour. (Allan B Ballard, in Satire and Evasion, 29)
Non-black teachers need to understand that it may be difficult for black students, even the most able, to
express their reservations or concerns about matters of race to their teacher. Silent refusal to read the novel,
distracting comments or behavior, an excess of humor in the classroom by students asked to read Huckleberry
Finn should be seen by teachers not as student insubordination or narrow-mindedness but as inchoate
expressions of resistance to a possibly inappropriate curriculum or pedagogy.
Since a special burden falls on them, African American students have a right to expect that they will be
consulted in advance of reading and discussing the novel. Particularly if the teacher is Euro-American, it is
important that minority students know that their teacher is aware of their position. Minority students can be
told that when they write or participate in discussion that they can choose to either speak “just as person” or,
if they choose to, identify their viewpoint with that of other African Americans. In a classroom where half or
more of the students are black, African American students are less likely to feel isolated. Yet in these
classrooms also teachers still need to find ways to affirm student voices and facilitate communicate between
racial groups. Small group discussion plays a particularly important role in this classroom. Such groups will
probably be more racially mixed if students are assigned by “counting off”, though group self-selection may be
important in helping to build comfort level and confidence. Unless their purposes are made explicit, teachers
should avoid overtly separating groups by race.
As a white teacher with about half African American students, I observe an evolution in class discussion. In the
first weeks the majority of large group discussion volunteers are often white. As we work with small groups, as
I show an interest in listening to minority perspectives, as black teachers and colleagues visit my classroom,
and as I invite non-volunteers to participate, a more balanced class discussion evolves. African American-or
any other minority-voices are not automatically affirmed just because African American students are present in
the classroom. Since African American or minority culture is not the focus of academic attention in most
schools or universities--even institutions with a majority of “minority” students--it is not a fair for teachers to
assume that these students know “their” history or literature. Thus it may be just as important for students in
a class with a larger percentage of black students, for example, to acquaint themselves with complimentary
background materials from African American perspectives.
In addition to carefully considering the racial dynamics of the classroom, in reading Huckleberry Finn it is
important to recognize the power of language, in particular racial epithets. Teachers make a mistake when they
excuse Twain’s use of the term on the grounds that it was accepted in his time. All of the scholars I have read
on the subject agree with professor David L. Smith that, “Even when Twain was writing his book, “nigger” was
universally recognized as an insulting, demeaning word” (Satire and Evasion, 107). Peaches Henry, former high
school teacher and graduate student at Columbia University, describes the history and politics of the word:
To dismiss the word’s recurrence in the work as an accurate rendition of nineteenthcentury
American linguistic conventions denies what every black person knows: far more
than a synonym for
slave, “nigger” signifies a concept. It conjures centuries of
specifically black degradation and
humiliation during which the family was disintegrated,
education was denied, manhood was trapped
within a forced perpetual puerilism, and
womanhood was destroyed by concubinage. If one grants that
Twain substituted “
nigger” for “slave,” the implications of the word do not improve; “nigger” denotes
the
black man as a commodity, as chattel... “Nigger” encapsulates the decades of oppression
that followed emancipation. It means not only racist terror and lynch mobs but that
victims deserve it’.’
Outside Central High in Little Rock in 1954 it was emblazoned
across placards; and across the South
throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s it was
screamed by angry mobs.... So to impute black’s
abhorrence of ‘nigger’ to
hypersensitivity compounds injustice with callousness and signals a refusal to
acknowledge that the connotations of that word’ generate a cultural discomfort that
blacks
share with no other racial group. (31)
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
8 of 8
Henry believes that in teaching texts such as Huckleberry Finn or To Kill a Mockingbird the word should be
“forced” “ into active class discourse” in a controlled classroom setting because in her experience “students
(black or white) could only face sensitive issues of race after they had achieved a certain emotional distance
from the rhetoric of race” (41). She describes her experience with ninth graders: Unable to utter the taboo
word nigger,’ students would be paralyzed, the whites by their social awareness of the moral injunction against
it and the black by their heightened sensitivity to it. Slowly, torturously, the wall of silence would begin to
crumble before students’ timid attempts to approach the topic with euphemism. Finally, after tense moments,
one courageous adolescent would utter the word. As the class released an almost audible sight of relief, the
students and I would embark upon a lively and risk-taking exchange about race and its attendant complexities.
(41-2) An open classroom discussion of racial epithets in a mixed classroom of ninth graders with a sensitive
and able black teacher clearly offers important opportunities for learning. With a different student population
and a different teacher the results might have been less positive.
Some teachers forbid the use of the word in the classroom and simply skip over it when the work is read aloud.
Others speak the word only when they are quoting from a secondary source, such as the novel itself. Others
use the expression “n-word” or “the racial epithet.” No approach is guaranteed, but whatever approach is
taken it should be done explicitly and be discussed by the students, in college or in high school. Discomfort
with the word on the part of teachers or students may not be overcome by even the most sensitive approach
and the problem of the racial epithet in the novel constitutes reason enough for some teachers to choose away
from teaching the work. No teacher should be required to teach this novel. (The ethics of requiring teachers to
teach Huckleberry Finn are explored by Wayne Booth in The Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction, Berkeley:
U California P, 1988.)
There was a time when I thought it was silly not to teach Huckleberry Finn on the grounds that it was a racist
novel. After reading and listening to African American scholars, teacher, parents, and students I have changed
my mind. Gerald Graff has urged English teachers to “ teach the conflicts” (Beyond the Culture Wars, New
York: Norton, 1992), and at teacher’s conferences in Oregon and Michigan I have advocated using the novel in
a Cultural Studies framework and along with other works as an opportunity for students to develop their own
critical thinking about literature, racism, and the literary canon. Given the prominence of Huckleberry Finn in
the curriculum, the attempt to teach it in a truly anti-racist way marks a starting point, a much needed
improvement over business as usual. I realize that sometimes it is necessary for English classrooms to be
uncomfortable, and that if we fail to challenge established ways of knowing, contrast viewpoints, and broaden
perspectives we fail to do our job. Yet we must be careful that such discomfort is experienced equally rather
than focused on an oppressed group that is desperately struggling for school success.
It is timely for us English teachers to look beyond Huckleberry Finn, to find other works that might be more
appropriate for all our students and more effective in creating multicultural communities of learning in our
classrooms. Educating white students about prejudice with a text that is alienating to blacks perpetuates racist
priorities, does it not? There is no excuse for the fact that not even one of the most taught works in American
high schools is written from a minority perspective‹or that many college courses still include very little African
American literature. Why aren’t the great African American novels of Richard Wright, Zora Neal Hurston, Ralph
Ellison or Alice Walker more central to our teaching? Moreover, race is not the only disturbing issue when we
consider the role of Huckleberry Finn in the classroom; we also need to ask other questions, about the novel’s
treatment of women, for instance, about its effect on women students, and the overwhelming male orientation
of our curriculum. Julius Lester states:
[In Huckleberry Finn] civilization is equated with education, regularity, decency, and
being
cramped up, and the representations of civilization are women... The fact that the
novel is regarded as a
classic tells us much about the psyche of the white American male,
because the novel is a power
evocation of puer, the eternal boy for whom growth,
maturity, and responsibility are enemies. (Satire
and Evasion, 205)
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
1 of 7
http://www.neh.gov/news/humanities/2000‐01/taminghuck.html
Trying to Tame Huck Finn: A Conversation with Nancy Methelis
NEH Chairman William R. Ferris talked recently with Boston teacher Nancy Methelis
about the controversy surrounding the teaching of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. A
film on the subject will air in January.
William R. Ferris: Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn is probably the most frequently t aught
work of American literature in our schools. You have been teaching the book for many
years to high school students. Why do you think it is important for students to read
Huck Finn?
Nancy Methelis: It is important on so many levels. It is a book that students relate to
because of the youth of the narrator. It is part of American history as well as American
literature, so they can see its place within the spectrum of literature and history. I have
always tried to set books within their historical context. This is particularly helpful with
Huckleberry Finn because of the controversy that swirls around it and the language
problem that has caused a good deal of trouble in many communities.
I have experienced some difficulty in that area, but it has never caused a parent to
contact me o r a student to refuse to read the work. Rather, a conversation takes place
between me and a particular student in which I try to assess his or her level of comfort
or discomfort with the work. I have never had a case where a student was not able to
read the book or not able to discuss it, even if that discussion included what it is about
the book that offends the student, that makes it difficult.
All in all, I would say my experience has been very positive. Learning about the
vernacular, learning what makes this such a special book in terms of the nineteenth
century‐‐the difference between starting a book with Huck Finn saying, "You don't know
me without you have read a book by the name of Tom Sawyer by Mr. Mark Twain," or
starting Moby Dick with "Call me Ishmael" ‐‐this is such a tremendous difference and
takes the reader directly into the world of this young boy.
Ferris: Right.
Methelis: You need to think about the name Ishmael, what the allusion is. With
Huckleberry Finn there is no barrier. There is nothing between one young person, the
reader, looking at this other young person and leaping into his world. And I think it is a
very modern world. Even though we tend to think about the modern world starting with
World War I, we sometimes don't recognize the impact of the Civil War, not only on the
country historically, but in terms of the literature.
Ferris: What can literature teach us about the past that a history textbook cannot?
Methelis: I have my very particular feeling about that, which is a certain trust in fiction
to represent the truth without necessarily giving us the facts. The history book will give
us facts, which we are told are true, but we know they are chosen for the particular text.
It generally doesn't connect in the same emotional way that a fictional work does.
I use quite a bit of material in terms of slaves' narratives, material from the magazines
at that time, newspapers, reviews of Huckleberry Finn in the 1800s as well as in the
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
2 of 7
twentieth century, helping the students understand that the objections to Huckleberry
Finn in the 1800s were very different from the objections that we have seen in recent
times. It is quite surprising to students that the concerns that people had in the 1800s
when the book was published had little to do with race, little to do with language, but
much more to do with deportment, much more to do with how a young person was
supposed to behave. That opens their eyes to how the book stays the same but the
attitudes toward it change.
Ferris: Why do you think this particular book still raises so much controversy a century
after it was published?
Methelis: I think it is because of unfinished business in our country. I think it is much less
the book itself than the sensitivity that many African Americans have to racial pain they
may be experiencing now. When my students have talked about the book‐‐and by the
way, African American students are very often the most open about discussing the
book‐‐that has been my experience. Rather than holding back, they really tend to open
the class to discussion. I also find that when there is a fairly well‐balanced classroom in
terms of race, this makes for a much higher comfort level and better discussion for
everyone. Some students would say, "I was offended by the language of the book, but
this is language I hear every day." I don't know if we will ever reach a point where a
student will not say that, but I imagine if we did, that the book itself would lose the
power of that word. It would still be a book worth reading, but perhaps less
controversial.
Ferris: I'm sure the racial makeup of a community influences how Huck Finn is received.
What have your experiences been?
Methelis: Well, I have always taught in Boston. I haven't taught Huckleberry Finn
throughout my career, but I have taught it for the past several years at Boston Latin
School, which, up until very recently, maintained racial guidelines for entrance into the
school along with tests and the grades the student received in the prior school. The
balance was such that students looking around would realize there were all kinds of
people with all kinds of backgrounds. The community, the school, the class‐‐each of
these has an impact on how this book is received by the student.
There are many things I can't control, but I have a certain amount of control over the
climate in my own classroom. I think it is very important for the teacher to provide a
climate that is as comfortable as possible. My concern when I read about controversy in
other communities or other schools is that that climate is not being provided. It might
be the influence of the community as a whole, it might be lack of preparation or
knowledge in terms of the teaching staff, it might be the introduction of a book such as
Huckleberry Finn without input from the teachers, without adequate training. It might be
because of a change in the community as the makeup of a community changed. The
film on the classroom controversy in Tempe, Arizona, over teaching Huckleberry Finn
mentions that more minorities were moving into Tempe. Did that change the climate of
the school? Were minorities being treated differently in the classroom? It is terrible to
think that respect for a student would be diminished because of a word used in a book
and that word could be used to somehow discriminate against a student.
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
3 of 7
It is very hard for me to say what is going on in another classroom or in another school
or community, but I know that the makeup and the attitudes of the community are key.
Ferris: The film you mention shows your classroom talking about the book without ever
using the "n" word. How did you get around that?
Methelis: I generally tell my students at the beginning that this word is not going to be
used in class because it could hurt people in the class.
Ferris: Beautiful.
Methelis: I know that there are educators who feel that the word must be confronted,
must be said, and must be discussed, and I'm not saying that this isn't the correct
intellectual approach to take. But as a teacher in a public school with young students,
high school students, I think that the possibility of hurting some students and
desensitizing others is too high a price to pay.
The power of words has always been something that I have understood. Words hurt. I've
never agreed with the "sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt
me." Names do hurt people every day. There has to be a place where students feel safe,
and schools often provide those places. I'm determined to provide that type of
atmosphere. Then students can talk.
There is a section in Huck Finn in which Huck's father, Pap, is ranting about a freed slave
whom he saw who was educated, who was well dressed, who could read, who could
write, and who voted. And he uses the "n" word over and over again. What I have done is
retype that speech using African American in its place. The students, when they read
that aloud, really understand the power of that word. I actually had a student two years
ago, after beginning the book, very innocently ask me why couldn't he have used the
word African American or at least used the word black? She didn't see that Twain was
being true to his own time‐‐as an author, he had to reflect the language of his time.
Ferris: Some believe that Mark Twain modeled Huck on his own childhood. How do your
students relate to Huck?
Methelis: My students are very different in some ways. They are well educated. I'm sure
there are many ways that individual students can relate. For example, Huck is an
orphan. At least we believe his mother has died. Huck is orphaned in the book because
his father is killed. Huck has a father who is an alcoholic and who beats him. Very often
we don't know what is going on in the world of our students' lives outside of school.
More is going on than we often suspect. I would feel very sad to know that I have
students who are relating on that level, but they also see the boy as a survivor, who has
dealt with great difficulty and who has managed to go beyond this.
They also can identify with his feelings as an outsider‐‐not because they are necessarily
outside of society, but that it is part of the adolescent world to disconnect from the
adult world, to try to grow up, to push parents away. I know we have students who are
struggling with finding a peer group, who are looking for an adult that they can connect
with. For Huck, this is Jim. For them, it is sometimes a teacher, it is sometimes a coach
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
4 of 7
or counselor, it could be a parent, it could be a different relative. In the world of Huck as
an adolescent, even if it is 150 years ago, there are common elements in the alienation,
in the hoping to connect, in finding friendship, in trying to find out what's right and
wrong. I think these things are very relevant to students today. I think it is one of the
many reasons that the book continues to live on.
Ferris: How do your students react to Jim, who on the surface seems somewhat
stereotypical?
Methelis: I think they recognize the stereotyping at the beginning of the novel, but I
think they also recognize that during their time on the river, that Jim grows beyond this
stereotyping, that Jim is truly being shown as a man‐‐a man who has been deprived of
freedom, a man who has been deprived of his family‐‐but a man, a man who loves his
family. Little by little, the things that Huck has been told and taught about slaves,
though he's not ready to say these things are not true of slaves, he little by little,
through direct experience with Jim, finds out that these things are not true about Jim,
that Jim loves his family, that Jim is always doing something more for him. He's not
used to that in the adult men he has seen and lived with‐‐his own father, the duke, and
the king. He hasn't seen this kind of generosity, this real father figure. But the students
also see the stereotyping, the superstition, the return of Jim to a more stereotypical
figure at the end of the book.
Ferris: Twain grew up in a slave‐owning family in Missouri, but he married an
abolitionist and was an outspoken critic of racism. How does knowing about Mark
Twain's background help students understand the book?
Methelis: I think it helps them move away from the idea that it is a racist book. This is a
major problem‐‐the people who say it is racist because it uses the language of a racist in
the "n" word, and that it's racist in stereotyping Jim and in making him a butt of tricks
and jokes.
I believe that that interpretation doesn't come from a deep reading. A more careful
reading looks at the purpose behind the use of the word, at the characters who are
saying it. Every major character that we meet in the book uses that language. But you
also have Jim, not just as a father figure and friend, but with Huck apologizing to Jim for
tricking him, for making fun of him.
Now, my students notice that. You may remember the student who speaks in the film
about his feeling‐‐and he is an African American student‐‐that Huck did not feel that
Jim was less than he because he apologized to him, and that this was something that
was very difficult for him, that never in his life had he apologized to a slave. This was a
tremendous turning point in his attitude toward Jim.
Ferris: I understand you asked your students at the end of the course on Huck Finn, "Was
it worth it?" What kind of responses do you get?
Methelis: Generally, I get very favorable responses. There is a great deal that they like
about the book. Most students enjoy it. They like the story, they enjoy the adventures.
That is a part of what this book is about. Here is a boy. He is having adventures. Many
things are happening. Some of them are funny.
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
5 of 7
Then there is the relationship between Huck and Jim. They really enjoy watching Huck
change because it seems that Jim is the only person that can change Huck. All these
other people have tried to. The widow tried to change him. His father tried to control
him. Sally wants to adopt him. He is not having any of this. But just spending time with
Jim has changed Huck, at least in relation to Jim. And it certainly hasn't made him wish
to return to the civilization that supports slavery. At the end of the book, he is not
interested. So the students like that very much.
Before we start the book at all, we usually go into the literary and historical background
so the students are familiar with the change in American literature from romanticism
through local color to realism. Students are often very proud of the fact that they can
recognize the place of a novel or a story within this continuum, that they can see that
Huckleberry Finn leaves the past behind, that it is moving in a new direction, that you
have a new kind of narrator. Many of them have read, for example, Catcher in the Rye,
and some of them can make that connection between a Holden Caulfield as a narrator
and a Huck Finn, and that is very satisfying.
But there is the other side. Two or three years ago, one of my African American
students, a young man‐‐and I will say that he was the only African American student in
a class of thirty students. As I said before, this is a less than an ideal situation. This
student came from a home where this type of language was very much frowned upon. It
had bothered him to read a book for school that contained this type of language, and it
continued to bother him‐‐not to the degree where he felt he could not read it or his
parents felt that he should not read it, but he did write his ending paper with a wish that
the book were not required.
Ferris: Does any other minority have its Huck Finn in literature?
Methelis: That is a very important question. I do not think so, not in terms of required
reading. There are other books about which I take special care. For example, in teaching
Night, I would make certain to be aware of whether I had Jewish students in the class,
and if so, not to make them experts on Judaism or the Holocaust if they did not wish to
be. A few years ago, in a particular class, I had two Jewish students. They did not wish to
be experts. The following year, I had one student who was very eager to speak about
Jewish history and customs. He had attended a Jewish day school prior to coming to
Latin School. He felt quite confident and secure.
But Night is a very different kind of book. It's a book about the Holocaust written by Elie
Wiesel, a Jewish man who experienced it, whereas Huckleberry Finn is a work about life
in our South during slavery written by a white man and using language that is very often
offensive to minorities, particularly when used by a white person. This, I think, puts it in
a class by itself.
What if there are no minorities at all in the school? I still think it's terribly important to
think about how a book such as Huckleberry Finn is taught, and I'm not sure it should be
taught any differently at all. I think if it were taught differently because the s chool is,
let's say, a totally white school, that school will not be ready to teach that book if the
community changes, and communities do change. I think the sensitivity always has to
be there.
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
6 of 7
I remember reading an article and using it with students, called, "Two Generations of
Pain." In this article, a mother described her experience as an African American student
in the fifties, the only African American student in a classroom when Huck Finn was
taught, a memory that she had almost repressed until her own son had the same
experience. At that point she became a mother who went to the school department to
have that book removed from the required list. Her son, again, was the only African
American student in the class, and the teacher required him to read aloud the part of
Jim. Now, that stunned me. That is why I don't think helping teachers be more effective
teaching controversial material should wait for community uprising.
Ferris: Right.
Methelis: I think that should be the attitude about all the literature. It should be taught
with historical context, it should be taught with sensitivity. One should be just as
concerned about the white students in the classroom as any other student. In that
article, "Two Generations of Pain," the mother had felt that white students were feeling
entitled because her son was feeling demeaned and that there was a seesaw going on
there‐‐that as her son's feelings of self‐esteem were being diminished, that their
feelings were being raised. That s houldn't happen. There is no white character in the
book that should raise anyone's feelings of importance. Something is happening in the
classroom that isn't right if something like that occurs.
Ferris: Like Huck Finn, there are dozens of other books, such as I Know Why the Caged
Bird Sings by Maya Angelou and Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, that have been
censored from high school libraries and curricula. What role should a teacher or a
school play in a community that wants to ban books?
Methelis: Well, I haven't had that experience personally. The only experience I've had in
a long career are two requests by a parent that a child not be required to read a book.
One was The Great Gatsby and the other was The Turn of the Screw.
One parent had heard that Gatsby glorified murder and adultery. The other parent felt
that The Turn of the Screw dealt with the supernatural, which she felt was not a good
influence. So parents' concerns come up in different ways.
But the role of the school in society has changed. Parents are no longer willing to say,
"We are sending our child to school and the teachers are always right and the schools
are always right." Parents want and are certainly going to have much more input into
what happens in the schools.
I think that the schools and parent groups must communicate because it is the good of
the child that we have to be concerned with here, not the ownership of the child.
Especially with Huckleberry Finn, we shouldn't talk about owning people, that the child
belongs to the school and the parents have no rights. That's not the world today. But I
think sometimes parents have to be educated along with the students, and educators
have to be educated along with the parents and students. Without this working
together, books will be banned‐‐books, I think, which are much more valuable than
those which are put in their place.
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
Taming Huck Finn
7 of 7
To me, Huck Finn is important for many reasons, one of which is that it provokes more
questions than it provides answers. This idea of questioning I think is very
importantÑthat the students question, try to understand, discover there might not be
only one answer but several, and also discover that there is some unfinished business
and that perhaps the ending of the book, unsatisfactory as it is to so many readers,
reflects that unfinished business.
Ferris: As we go into the next century and millennium, we have our work cut out for us in
trying to deal with the roles of teaching in our schools around the nation. What words of
wisdom or counsel do you have for what is needed to do a better job for all our
students?
Methelis: Well, we are at a point now where we are very concerned about test scores. I
would just caution that we be careful that our concern for test scores does not cause us
to overlook the purpose of education‐‐the love of learning, the excitement in opening
up new doors. We don't want to restrict what is being taught to what is being tested,
because in the end we can only test so much, and we want to make sure that important
ideas that perhaps can't be put into a multiple‐choice question or even a short‐answer
essay are considered. We don't want to put our schools in the position of reducing
creative discourse, critical thinking, for the sake of having the school with the highest
test score. I'm not against testing. I'm not against accountability. I'm not against the
idea that there is a minimum that everybody needs to know. I just would like to make
sure that we don't stop at the minimum.
Ferris: Here at the Endowment we are seeking to focus on our classrooms, especially
K‐12, around the nation. You are an example of what we would love to see in every
classroom. I want to thank you.
Methelis: Thank you so much. NEH is doing some great work, and I have benefited from
some of that work, much to my happiness. It was wonderful speaking with you.
Humanities, January/Febuary 2000, Volume 21/Number 1
4/10/2009 5:32 PM
The Questia Online Library
1 of 1
http://www.questia.com/reader/printPaginator/425
The Case Against Huck Finn
John H. Wallace
The Issue
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, is the most grotesque example of racist trash
ever written. During the 1981-82 school year, the media carried reports that it was challenged in
Davenport, Iowa; Houston, Texas; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and, of all places, Mark Twain
Intermediate School in Fairfax County, Virginia. Parents in Waukegan, Illinois, in 1983 and in
Springfield, Illinois, in 1984 asked that the book be removed from the classroom -- and there are
many challenges to this book that go unnoticed by the press. All of these are coming from black
parents and teachers after complaints from their children or students, and frequently they are
supported by white teachers, as in the case of Mark Twain Intermediate School.
For the past forty years, black families have trekked to schools in numerous districts throughout the
country to say, "This book is not good for our children," only to be turned away by insensitive and often
unwittingly racist teachers and administrators who respond, "This book is a classic." Classic or not, it
should not be allowed to continue to cause our children embarrassment about their heritage.
Louisa May Alcott, the Concord Public Library, and others condemned the book as trash when it was
published in 1885. The NAACP and the National Urban League successfully collaborated to have
Huckleberry Finn removed from the classrooms of the public
-16Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com
Publication Information: Book Title: Satire or Evasion?: Black Perspectives on Huckleberry Finn. Contributors: James S. Leonard editor, Thomas A. Tenney - editor, Thadious M. Davis - editor. Publisher: Duke University Press. Place of Publication: Durham, NC.
Publication Year: 1992. Page Number: 16. This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be
further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.
4/10/2009 6:02 PM
1 of 1
schools of New York City in 1957 because it uses the term "nigger." In 1969 Miami-Dade Junior College
removed the book from its classrooms because the administration believed that the book creates an
emotional block for black students which inhibits learning. It was excluded from the classrooms of the
New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois, and removed from the required reading list in the state of
Illinois in l976.
My own research indicates that the assignment and reading aloud of Huckleberry Finn in our
classrooms is humiliating and insulting to black students. It contributes to their feelings of low
self-esteem and to the white students' disrespect for black people. It constitutes mental cruelty,
harassment, and outright racial intimidation to force black students to sit in the classroom with their
white peers and read Huckleberry Finn. The attitudes developed by the reading of such literature can
lead to tensions, discontent, and even fighting. If this book is removed from the required reading lists
of our schools, there should be improved student-to-student, student-to-teacher, and teacherto-teacher relationships.
Nigger
According to Webster's Dictionary the word "nigger" means a Negro or a member of any dark-skinned
race of people and is offensive. Black people have never accepted "nigger" as a proper term -- not in
George Washington's time, Mark Twain's time, or William Faulkner's time. A few white authors,
thriving on making blacks objects of ridicule and scorn by having blacks use this word as they, the
white authors, were writing and speaking for blacks in a dialect they perceived to be peculiar to black
people, may have given the impression that blacks accepted the term. Nothing could be further from
the truth.
Some black authors have used "nigger," but not in literature to be consumed by children in the
classroom. Black authors know as well as whites that there is money to be made selling books that
ridicule black people. As a matter of fact, the white child learns early in life that his or her black peer
makes a good butt for a joke. Much of what goes on in the classroom reinforces this behavior. Often
the last word uttered before a fight is "nigger." Educators must discourage the ridicule of "different"
children.
4/10/2009 6:02 PM
1 of 1
In the Classroom
Russell Baker, of the New York Times ( 14 April 1982), has said (and Jonathan Yardley, of the
Washington Post [ 10 May 1982 ], concurred),
Kids are often exposed to books long before they are ready for them or exposed to them
in a manner that seems almost calculated to evaporate whatever enthusiasm the
students may bring to them.... Very few youngsters of high school age are ready for
Huckleberry Finn. Leaving aside its subtle depiction of racial attitudes and its complex
view of American society, the book is written in a language that will seem baroque,
obscure and antiquated to many young people today. The vastly sunnier Tom Sawyer is a
book for kids, but Huckleberry Finnmost emphatically is not.
The milieu of the classroom is highly charged with emotions. There are twenty to thirty unique
personalities with hundreds of needs to be met simultaneously. Each student wants to be accepted and
to be like the white, middle-class child whom he perceives to be favored by the teacher. Since students
do not want their differences highlighted, it is best to accentuate their similarities; but the reading of
Huck Finn in class accentuates the one difference that is always apparent -- color.
My research suggests that the black child is offended by the use of the word "nigger" anywhere, no
matter what rationale the teacher may use to justify it. If the teacher permits its use, the black child
tends to reject the teacher because the student is confident that the teacher is prejudiced.
Communications are effectively severed, thwarting the child's education. Pejorative terms should not
be granted any legitimacy by their use in the classroom under the guise of teaching books of great
literary merit, nor for any other reason.
Equal Protection and Opportunity in the Classroom
To paraphrase Irwin Katz, 1 the use of the word "nigger" by a prestigious adult like a teacher poses a
strong social threat to the black child. Any expression by a white or black teacher of dislike or
devaluation, whether through harsh, indifferent, or patronizing behavior, would tend to have an
unfavorable effect on the performance of black
4/10/2009 6:03 PM
1 of 1
children in their school work. This is so because various psychological theories suggest that the black
students' covert reactions to the social threat would constitute an important source of intellectual
impairment.
Dorothy Gilliam, writing in the Washington Post of 12 April 1982, said, "First Amendment rights are
crucial to a healthy society. No less crucial is the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal
protection under the law."The use of the word "nigger" in the classroom does not provide black
students with equal protection and is in violation of their constitutional rights. Without equal protection,
they have neither equal access nor equal opportunity for an education.
One group of citizens deeply committed to effecting change and to retaining certain religious beliefs
sacred to themselves are members of the Jewish religion. In a publication issued by the Jewish
Community Council ( November 1981), the following guidelines were enunciated regarding the role of
religious practices in public schools: "In no event should any student, teacher, or public school staff
member feel that his or her own beliefs or practices are being questioned, infringed upon, or
compromised by programs taking place in or sponsored by the public school." Further, "schools should
avoid practices which operate to single out and isolate 'different' pupils and thereby [cause]
embarrassment.". 2
I endorse these statements without reservation, for I believe the rationale of the Jewish Community
Council is consistent with my position. I find it incongruent to contend that it is fitting and proper to
shelter children from isolation, embarrassment, and ridicule due to their religious beliefs and then deny
the same protection to other children because of the color of their skin. The basic issue is the same. It
is our purpose to spare children from scorn, to increase personal pride, and to foster the American
belief of acceptance on merit, not color, sex, religion, or origin.
The Teacher
Many "authorities" say Huckleberry Finn can be used in our intermediate and high school classrooms.
They consistently put stipulations on its use like the following: It must be used with appropriate
planning. It is the responsibility of the teacher to assist students in the understanding of the historical
setting of the novel, the characters being depicted, the social context, including prejudice, which
existed
4/10/2009 6:03 PM
1 of 1
at the time depicted in the book. Balanced judgment on the part of the classroom teacher must be
used prior to making a decision to utilize this book in an intermediate or high school program. Such
judgment would include taking into account the age and maturity of the students, their ability to
comprehend abstract concepts, and the methodology of presentation.
Any material that requires such conditions could be dangerous racist propaganda in the hands of even
our best teachers. And "some, not all, teachers are hostile, racist, vindictive, inept, or even neurotic,"
though "many are compassionate and skillful." 3 Teacher attitudes are important to students. Some
teachers are marginal at best, yet many school administrators are willing to trust them with a book
that maligns blacks. Huckleberry Finn would have been out of the classroom ages ago if it used "dago,"
"wop," or "spic."
When "authorities" mention the "historical setting" of Huckleberry Finn, they suggest that it is an
accurate, factual portrayal of the way things were in slavery days. In fact, the book is the outgrowth of
Mark Twain's memory and imagination, written twenty years after the end of slavery. Of the two main
characters depicted, one is a thief, a liar, a sacrilegious corn-cob-pipe-smoking truant; the other is a
selfdeprecating slave. No one would want his children to emulate this pair. Yet some "authorities"
speak of Huck as a boyhood hero. Twain warns us in the beginning of Huckleberry Finn, "Persons
attempting to find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it
will be banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." I think we ought to listen to Twain
and stop feeding this trash to our children. It does absolutely nothing to enhance racial harmony. The
prejudice that existed then is still very much apparent today. Racism against blacks is deeply rooted in
the American culture and is continually reinforced by the schools, by concern for socioeconomic gain,
and by the vicarious ego enhancement it brings to those who manifest it.
Huckleberry Finn is racist, whether its author intended it to be or not. The book implies that black
people are not honest. For example, Huck says about Jim: "It most froze me to hear such talk. He
wouldn't ever dared to talk such talk in his life before. Just see what a difference it made in him the
minute he judged he was about free. It was according to the old saying, 'give a nigger an inch and he'll
take an ell.' Thinks I, this is what comes of my not thinking" (chap. 16). And in another section of the
book, the Duke, in reply to a question
4/10/2009 6:03 PM
1 of 1
from the King, says: " Mary Jane'll be in mourning from this out; and the first you know the nigger that
does up the rooms will get an order to box these duds up and put 'em away; and do you reckon a
nigger can run across money and not borrow some of it?" (chap. 26).
Huckleberry Finn also insinuates that black people are less intelligent than whites. In a passage where
Huck and Tom are trying to get the chains off Jim, Tom says: "They couldn't get the chain off, so they
just cut their hand off and shoved. And a leg would be better still. But we got to let that go. There ain't
necessity enough in this case; and, besides, Jim's a nigger, and wouldn't understand the reason for it"
(chap. 35). On another occasion, when Tom and Huck are making plans to get Jim out of the barn
where he is held captive, Huck says: "He told him everything. Jim, he couldn't see no sense in most of
it, but he allowed we was white folks and knowed better than him; so he was satisfied, and said he
would do it all just as Tom said" (chap. 36).
Twain said in Huckleberry Finn, more than one hundred years ago, what Dr. W. B. Shockley and A. R.
Jensen are trying to prove through empirical study today. 4 This tells us something about the power of
the printed word when it is taught to children by a formidable institution such as the school.
Huckleberry Finn even suggests that blacks are not human beings. When Huck arrives at Aunt Sally's
house, she asks him why he is late:
"We blowed a cylinder head." "Good gracious! anybody hurt?" "No'm. Killed a nigger."
"Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt." (Chap. 32)
There are indications that the racist views and attitudes implicit in the preceding quotations are as
prevalent in America today as they were over one hundred years ago. Huckleberry Finn has not been
successful in fighting race hate and prejudice, as its proponents maintain, but has helped to retain the
status quo.
The Black Student
In 1963 John Fisher, former president of Columbia Teachers College, stated:
The black American youngster happens to be a member of a large and distinctive group
that for a very long time has been the object of special
4/10/2009 6:03 PM
1 of 1
political, legal, and social action.... To act as though any child is separable from his
history is indefensible. In terms of educational planning, it is irresponsible.
Every black child is the victim of the history of his race in this country. On the day he
enters kindergarten, he carries a burden no white child can ever know, no matter what
other handicaps or disabilities he may suffer. 5
The primary school child learns, almost the minute he enters school, that black is associated with
dirtiness, ugliness, and wickedness. Much of what teachers and students think of the black child is color
based. As a result, the black pupil knows his pigmentation is an impediment to his progress.
As early as the fifth grade, the black student studies American history and must accept his ancestors in
the role of slaves. This frustrating and painful experience leaves scars that very few educators, writers,
and especially English teachers can understand. We compound these problems for black children when
we force them to read aloud the message of Huckleberry Finn. It is so devastatingly traumatic that the
student may never recover. How much pain must a black child endure to secure an education? No
other child is asked to suffer so much embarrassment, humiliation, and racial intimidation at the hands
of so powerful an institution as the school. The vast majority of black students have no tolerance for
either "ironic" or "satirical" reminders of the insults and degradation heaped upon their ancestors in
slavery and postslavery times.
Dorothy Gilliam ( Washington Post, 12 April 1982) makes a good case for protecting the rights of
students when she says, "Where rights conflict, one must sometimes supersede the other. Freedom of
speech does not, for example, allow words to be deliberately used in a way that would cause someone
to suffer a heart attack. By the same token, the use of words in ways that cause psychological and
emotional damage is an unacceptable exercise of free speech."
Racism
If indeed, as Huckleberry Finn's proponents claim, the book gives a positive view of blacks and has an
antislavery, antiracist message, then the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Citizens Council
must see something different. Most of the hate mail received when a
4/10/2009 6:04 PM
1 of 1
school in northern Virginia restricted the use of the book was from these groups.
It is difficult to believe that Samuel Clemens would write a book against the institution of slavery; he
did, after all, join a Confederate army bent on preserving that peculiar institution. Also, he could not
allow Huck to help Jim to his freedom. It seems he was a hodgepodge of contradictions.
Huckleberry Finn is an American classic for no other reason than that it ridicules blacks to a greater
extent than any other book given our children to read. The book and racism feed on each other and
have withstood the test of time because many Americans insist on preserving our racist heritage.
Marguerite Barnett ( 1982) points out:
By ridiculing blacks, exaggerating their facial features, and denying their humanity, the
popular art of the Post-Civil-War period represented the political culture's attempt to deny
blacks the equal status and rights awarded them in the Emancipation Proclamation. By
making blacks inhuman, American whites could destroy their claim to equal treatment.
Blacks as slaves posed no problem because they were under complete domination, but
blacks as free men created political problems. The popular culture of the day supplied the
answer by dehumanizing blacks and picturing them as childlike and inferior. 6
In this day of enlightenment, teachers should not rely on a book that teaches the subtle sickness of
racism to our young and causes so much psychological damage to a large segment of our population.
We are a multicultural, pluralistic nation. We must teach our young to respect all races, ethnic groups,
and religious groups in the most positive terms conceivable.
Recommendations
This book should not be used with children. It is permissible to use the original Huckleberry Finn with
students in graduate courses of history, English, and social science if one wants to study the
perpetration and perpetuation of racism. The caustic, abrasive language is less likely to offend students
of that age group because they tend to be mature enough to understand and discuss issues without
feeling intimidated by the instructor, fellow students, or racism.
4/10/2009 6:04 PM
1 of 1
My research relating to Huckleberry Finn indicates that black parents and teachers, and their children
and students, have complained about books that use the word "nigger" being read aloud in class.
Therefore, I recommend that books such as Huckleberry Finn, The Slave Dancer, and To Kill a
Mockingbird be listed as racist and excluded from the classroom.If an educator feels he or she must
use Huckleberry Finn in the classroom, I would suggest my revised version, The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn Adapted, by John H. Wallace. The story is the same, but the words "nigger" and "hell"
are eradicated. It no longer depicts blacks as inhuman, dishonest, or unintelligent, and it contains a
glossary of Twainisms. Most adolescents will enjoy laughing at Jim and Huck in this adaptation. 7
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Martin Deutsch, Irwin Katz, and Arthur R. Jensen, Social Class, Race, and Psychological
Development ( New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1968) 256-57.
Jewish Community Council of Greater Washington, Guidelines on Religion and the Public School (
Washington, D.C., 1981).
Robert D. Strom, The Innercity Classroom ( Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1966) 104.
[ Wallace's reference here is to doctrines of biological determinism, especially to the notion that
some racial groups are genetically superior, in certain ways, to other groups --ED.]
Harry A. Passow, Education in Depressed Areas ( New York: Teachers College P [Columbia U],
1963) 265.
Documentation on this statement by Marguerite Barnett (possibly from a dissertation) is not
currently available.
For additional reading on the subject of racial considerations in education, see James A. Banks and
Jean D. Grambs, Black Self-Concept: Implications for Education and Social Science ( New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1972); Robert F. Biehler, Psychology Applied to Teaching ( Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1971); Gary A. Davis and Thomas F. Warren, Psychology of Education: New Looks ( Lexington,
Mass.: Heath, 1974); Marcel L. Goldschmid, Black Americans and White Racism ( New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1970); Donnarae MacCann and Gloria Woodard, The Black American in
Children's Books ( Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1972).
-24-
Questia Media America, Inc. www.questia.com
4/10/2009 6:04 PM
Phillip Barrish ‐ The Secret Joys of Antiracist Pedagogy: Huckleberry...
http://muse.jhu.edu.weblib.lib.umt.edu:8080/journals/american_i...
Copyright © 2002 The Johns Hopkins University Press. All rights reserved.
American Imago 59.2 (2002) 117‐139
Access provided by The University of Montana Libraries
[Access article in PDF]
The Secret Joys of Antiracist Pedagogy:
Huckleberry Finn in the Classroom
Phillip Barrish
"Never say 'nigger' again. Never have I heard this word spoken by a white
person—or a black one, for that matter—without feeling terribly angry and
uncomfortable. Too much history and hostility are conjured up by this word. . .
. I don't care how you use it. I don't care if you're quoting some horrible white
racist you abhor— do not say it, and confront those white people who do."
—M. Garlinda Burton, Never Say Nigger Again!
"Before change is possible, that is, we need to recognize how we get our
enjoyment."
—Dennis Foster, Sublime Enjoyment
This essay explores what I believe to be an unavoidable paradox encountered by white liberal
professors who set out to practice antiracist pedagogy in mostly, but not entirely, white classrooms. The
paradox derives from the inevitability of the professors' (and, often, their students') citing, and thus in a
sense performing, the blatantly racist past—most emblematically, the racist past compressed within the
word "nigger"—even while trying to move beyond its influence. This performative citing of the past occurs
within a purportedly antiracist psychic and socioinstitutional "present," but one that retains its identity as
antiracist by turning away from its own dependence upon racial hierarchies and exclusions.
Among other aims, I hope here to offer a new purchase on certain oft-recognized dilemmas involved
in teaching Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (1885), a brilliant and seminal American novel
in which the word "nigger" appears over 200 times. To do so, I investigate several implications of a
rupture between the nonracist space usually presumed within Huck Finn classrooms and the realities that
both undergird and [End Page 117] permeate that educational space. At moments, this break comes
perilously close to dissolving the presumed reasons for being of a liberal arts classroom. I will suggest,
however, that the moments in which such a dissolution most immediately impends—often when the word
"nigger" is spoken by a white person—can also produce an inarticulate, even unconscious excitement, at
least for the professor who is supposed to guarantee the meaning and validity of the educational
process. Drawing on the Lacanian concept of jouissance, I argue that this excitement is experienced by
the psyche as overwhelming and unmanageable. In the latter portions of this essay, I analyze some of
my own "symptomatic" experiences teaching Huck Finn, as well as other evidence, to suggest that one
way this excitement can be channeled is through fantasied scenarios of domination and victimization.
Impossible Antiracism
1 of 13
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
2 of 13
I will begin exploring the paradoxical inevitability of white liberal teachers' citing the racist past even
while trying to move beyond it through a consideration of M. Garlinda Burton's Never Say Nigger Again!
An Antiracism Guide for White Liberals (1994). Burton, who is regional director of the United Methodist
News Service, identifies herself as an African-American working in a very liberal but predominantly white
environment. Characterizing her text as a "handbook, a question-and-answer book, a guidebook," Burton
addresses an audience of "white people who think they don't need a book on racism" (2). She offers
many cogent insights about liberal white racism, but I will focus here on her title as well as the genre of
her work.
First, how is Burton's title, with its exclamation point, to be understood? Should it be construed as an
injunction? "Never say nigger again!" Or should it, rather, be taken as a promise of self-help? "Buy this
book, follow its guided steps, and you will never say nigger again—guaranteed!" The latter reading would
cast saying "nigger" as an unfortunate addiction or compulsion, parallel to, say, overeating or falling in
love [End Page 118] with unsuitable partners. In this therapeutic paradigm, the addictive practices in
question may provide acute enjoyment in response to a deeply felt need in the short term, but they can
never lead to satisfaction. Reading the title as a Franklinesque promise of the self-improvement to be
achieved if one has the necessary discipline is supported not only by Burton's description of the book as
a "guide" but also by its bulleted and numbered lists. These provide questions to ask oneself, do's and
don'ts, and strategies for various social situations (how to handle an older relative who uses racial slurs,
for instance).
On the other hand, the discursive passage inside the book from which the title's main phrase is drawn
supports the other possible interpretation—that is, as a strict Thou Shalt Not commandment, which firmly,
even angrily, underlines that never means never, no matter what. The phrase appears, in bolded type, as
number four on a list of rules that Burton asks white people to remember "When You're Talking about
Us":
4 Never say "nigger" again. Never have I heard this word spoken by a white
person—or a black one, for that matter—without feeling terribly angry and
uncomfortable. Too much history and hostility are conjured up by this word. . .
. I don't care how you use it. I don't care if you're quoting some horrible white
racist you abhor— do not say it, and confront those white people who do. Say
"the n-word" or "a racial slur" if you have to; it may sound silly or stilted, but
you may save a relationship with an African-American friend or colleague. If a
black friend says she doesn't mind you saying it, she's lying. (33-34; italics in
original)
Although it may seem to be an overly easy deconstructive point, it is nonetheless worth noting the
irony that Burton's very articulation of this rule entails breaking her own prohibition. Despite her insistence
that no one, white or black, should ever say "this word," Burton's book repeats it at least five times.
Indeed, "nigger" appears as the bolded heading of the quoted paragraph, in the table of contents, on
the title page, on the back cover, and in a large, prominent typeface on the [End Page 119] front cover.
Any potential purchaser or reader must voice the word to him- or herself when encountering the book. In
requesting it through Inter-Library Loan, I myself had to cite the title on a form; and had I wanted to
obtain the book immediately, I would have had to call area bookstores, requiring me to speak the
forbidden word into the phone.
This double bind—one should never say the "n-word," yet articulating this "never" involves citing and
reciting the word both to oneself and to others—is more than an inconsequential language game. Like an
evil incantation that always works, no matter where, how, or by whom it is spoken, it performatively
1
"conjure[s] up" a "history and hostility" that are "too much," overwhelming any and all local contexts.
Moreover, Burton herself is sufficiently concerned about the citation paradox to try to head it off when
she italicizes "do not say it" even if quoting "some horrible white racist" with abhorrence. Yet, as we have
seen, she finds it impossible not to repeat the word herself, and her book's very presence requires her
target audience to repeat it as well. 2
Thus, the necessity of citing the word "nigger" inserts the antiracist white speaker into an aporia,
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
3 of 13
which toes the breaking point of a fundamental fracture. 3 One is caught between spaces (psychic as
well as socio-institutional) that nurture a notion of progress in American race relations and the pervasive
and persistent realities that still inform and even help to shape those same spaces. The liberal ideal of
progress holds that America's racial problems are not yet (and may never be) fully resolved, but they
have historically improved and will continue to do so, even if progress is always halting and uneven. In
this view, despite the continuing inequalities of the 1990s, race relations in that decade were much closer
to American ideals of democracy and justice than they were a century earlier, when systemic lynchings,
Jim Crow segregation, and myriad other forms of economic and political oppression were directed
against African-Americans.
I am not arguing against this balanced and commonsense idea of progress, which I largely share. But
I do maintain that this idea must strive to exclude—even though it finds itself constitutively unable to do
so—certain psychic and material [End Page 120] realities that threaten to deconstruct it. Moreover, to
walk the knife's edge of this unresolvable tension can yield a vertiginous enjoyment, or jouissance, to
white liberals.
Jouissanceand the Real
Although sometimes associated with sexual ecstasy, the elusive Lacanian term jouissance has been
suggestively explicated by Joan Copjec (1994, 122-23) as "a pleasure in the real." In Lacanian theory,
the "real" is by no means synonymous with "reality." The "real" comprises that which cannot be
assimilated within—but also can never fully be denied or excluded by—a given system of "reality," a
structured "symbolic order." Although the real cannot "fit" within our symbolic (articulable) reality, neither
does it have a free-standing existence outside of or beyond the order of reality. Rather, the "real" marks
the internal limit of a given system of reality and prevents it from ever achieving full consistency and
transparency.
As a "pleasure in the real," jouissance does not connote the joy of discovering or comprehending
some aspect of reality. Rather than marking knowledge or understanding, jouissance for Copjec arises
"precisely there where we do not know. . . . Jouissance is a kind of 'secondary gain' obtained where
knowledge fails" (1994, 123). The intensity of jouissance is stimulated when a not quite comprehensible
or assimilable "real" and the normal reality that we can comprehend and symbolize collide. The sensation
of jouissance at once registers that we have reached an internal seam where language and
understanding fail, and compensates us for that failure. Dennis Foster (1997) differentiates the "sublime
enjoyment" of jouissance from garden-variety pleasures: "I use the term to distinguish an experience of
intensity, of a loss of ego control and boundaries (which may be felt as horror or delight), from those
'pleasures' of satisfaction, of ego gratification" (161).
Two recent news events, one local to the University of Texas at Austin (where I teach) and the other
a story that received national coverage, serve to illustrate my contention [End Page 121] that within the
symbolic reality of white liberalism the word "nigger" often functions as the trigger for just the kind of
"intensity" that Foster describes. Together, these two events suggest that within white liberal culture the
word acts as a do-not-touch button that nonetheless keeps getting pressed. Its activation releases
sensations of "horror or delight" due to a loss of control and breaking of bounds. The jouissance
provoked by white liberal speakings of "nigger," however, is quickly repackaged by the media into a more
readily consumable masochistic scene of fantasied white male suffering.
"Diversity" Events
During the "diversity" portion of a new-employee orientation in 1999, the University of Texas's white
Director of Housing and Food Services commented, "When I worked up North, I heard 'nigger' as often
or more than I do down here." An assistant later explained that her boss had used the word as an
"example." Several offended employees, however, took the word to have been uttered in retaliation
against an African-American cook whom, just moments before, the administrator had noticed reading a
newspaper while he was speaking. The majority of lower-ranking housing and food-service workers at
the University are African-American or Latino. The administrator apologized the next day for any
unintended offense caused by his having spoken the word, emphasizing his personal and professional
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
4 of 13
stand against racism as shown by a "10-Point Organizational Diversity Plan" implemented under his
supervision. He conceded in somewhat frustrated disappointment that, in future, "I won't be as strong
with my message" (Grisales 1999, 1A).
Barely a week before the above incident, the District of Columbia's African-American mayor made
national headlines by accepting the resignation under pressure of a white city official who had used the
word "niggardly" during a budget discussion with a black aide. This white official, the director of the
Office of the Public Advocate, had very strong liberal credentials and was the only openly gay person in
the District [End Page 122] administration. He was later rehired. Here, the incident did not revolve
around whether a racial slur had been spoken with hostile intent, as at the University of Texas event.
Instead, the conflict was over whether a racial slur had been uttered at all. As many commentators
hastened to point out, the Old English derivation of "niggardly" appears to be entirely separate from the
etymology of "nigger," which goes back to the Latin "niger," or black. If the two words are unrelated both
etymologically and semantically, can the very sound of "niggardly" nonetheless function as a performative
speaking of the racial slur?
It is impossible at this distance to judge what conscious or unconscious intentions may have motivated
the white aide's choice of words in Washington, just as we cannot be certain whether the administrator in
Austin intended his use of the epithet "nigger" to serve antiracist or racist purposes. (Of course, there is
always the possibility that the administrator "intended" both meanings at the same time, with one intention
being more conscious than the other.) In both of these incidents, however, a white speaker was at some
level failing to grasp that the liberal space in which he presumably thought he was using a particular word
was surrounded and permeated by a "real" that rendered that space incoherent.
At the University of Texas's "diversity" event, the white administrator—by articulating his ten-point
organizational plan, by sponsoring the session at which he spoke, and perhaps even by choosing the
"example" that he did—was operating within a commitment to keep moving forward on racial matters.
Those African-American listeners who were offended by his language no doubt recognized these
laudable intentions. Yet the listeners also attended to another structure traversing, even propping up, this
progressive framework—that is, the historically familiar scene of a white boss disciplining workers of
color (here an African-American male for reading, no less). 4 The administrator's utterance of "nigger"
marked the moment at which the listeners became unable or unwilling any longer to cooperate in
overlooking the disjunction between the official context and the event's "real" racial structure.
This "real" ensured that, at least from one vantage point, the word performatively "meant" racist
insult. One might [End Page 123] think that the administrator should have been more aware of the
asymmetries of power that complicated (to say the least) his intentions to symbolize and enact the
Division of Housing and Food Service's opposition to racism. Yet no matter how hard he tried, it was not
possible for this speaker fully to take the permeating racial real into account—to fit its constraints
successfully into his liberal vision of how we must all work together to overcome the evil of racism.
The incidents at the University of Texas and in the District of Columbia together underscore the
almost uncanny inescapability in white liberal discourse of the word "nigger" and all that it conjures up. In
a further definition of the "real," Foster (1997) says that it "names some stain, an obscurity in every
representation. . . . It is what can be neither understood nor ignored and therefore is never a source of
satisfaction" (12). America's continuing history of racist violence and injustice constitutes an ever-present
real (see Spillers 1997; Lane 1998a). At unpredictable moments, this real will "stain," clog, or implode
liberal representation in ways that do not yield the "satisfaction" of understanding, let alone resolution.
But did the speakers in either of these incidents derive jouissance—a "surplus of enjoyment"—from
uttering the words that revealed an incoherence in the positions from which they spoke? Who can say?
Rather than speculate about private sensations, I think it is more instructive to ponder the national press
response to the forced resignation of David Howard, the D.C. official. This will enable us to elucidate the
social and psychological dynamics at play in texts by several commentators who took avowedly
"antiracist" positions on the eruption that stained the liberal space inside Howard's office.
Howard reportedly said, "I will have to be niggardly with this fund because it's not going to be a lot of
money," during a budgeting dispute with an African-American aide. The latter heard him as having said
"nigger" and angrily left the meeting. After the aide complained to Mayor Anthony Williams, Williams met
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
5 of 13
with Howard and accepted his resignation. Several days later, Howard was rehired. Many journalists and
public figures disagreed with the mayor's initial termination of Howard's employment. ("Seems to me the
mayor has been [End Page 124] niggardly in his judgment on this issue," then NAACP chair Julian Bond
wryly told the Associated Press.) By contrast, others concurred with Howard himself, who admitted that
he had "used poor judgment in using that word" and who told the Washington Post that he hoped his own
mistake would serve as "a signal flag to all of us" (Weeks 1999, C1). But I have not come upon even one
mainstream editorial page that echoes Howard's own assessment. On the contrary, most editorials and
columnists blame the black mayor for having accepted Howard's resignation.
Interestingly, outrage has been expressed (Parker 1999) not only on behalf of David Howard but on
behalf of the word "niggardly" itself, which has a "long-honored" history of usage by canonical British
writers from Shakespeare to Dickens. The editors of the Boston Globe, for example, found it "sad to
think that a brave word could die from disuse because of ignorance compounded by hair-trigger
sensitivities" (Editorial 1999b, A18) In a syndicated column from the same paper, conservative libertarian
white columnist Jeff Jacoby saw the need to defend both Howard and the "venerable English word"
against "other people's ignorance of English" (1999, A15). For Jacoby, Howard had been "thrown to the
wolves." Reporting that one of Howard's "black friends" had described him to the Washington Post as
"the most gentle, purest guy you'd ever want to meet," Jacoby emphasized that "the victims of mindless
racial resentment so often are." In his final paragraph, Jacoby admonished his readers that "people
everywhere are laughing about this incident. But at the heart of it is the trashing of a decent man, and
there's nothing funny about his pain."
The racist and colonialist fantasy into which Jacoby inserts the District of Columbia incident is not
difficult to recognize. The "purest" white "gentle" man and the "venerable English" language have both
been mindlessly attacked by dark-skinned "wolves" aligned with "ignorance" and, as Jacoby adds,
"idiocy." An editorial in the Atlanta Constitution summons the same imagery of a bestial attack when it
says that those responsible for Howard's resignation were engaged in "a peculiar and predatory form of
race-baiting" (Editorial 1999a). Jacoby himself identifies with the "victim." Immediately prior to bringing
[End Page 125] forward Howard's black friend as a character witness on his behalf, Jacoby recounts a
time when he was himself "denounce[d] as a racist" because he revealed that "the Jacoby family cat" is
named Jemima ("—because the cat is named Jemima," he repeats in exaggerated disbelief).
The Jouissance of White Male Victimhood
Jacoby's vision of the D.C. event—the essentials of which are shared (albeit in less vivid language) by
several other newspaper columns and editorials (Editorial 1999c; Feagler 1999; Neuharth 1999)—
demeans the offended African-American listener as both subhuman and murderously dangerous. (The
S.A.T. strikes again: David Howard told a New York Times reporter that he learned the word "niggardly"
as a junior in high school when preparing for the exam.) Yet interwoven with racist aggressivity, a
powerful masochistic impulse also animates Jacoby's vision of the event. His column moves with
increasing fervor towards the "pain" that is its last word and in which Jacoby himself, identifying with the
wounded Howard, seems to luxuriate. Moreover, the public humiliation involved in "trashing" a decent man
is amplified by a large circle of imagined laughing spectators.
In Taking It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism, and Contemporary American Culture, David
Savran (1998) has traced the postwar "ascendancy of a new and powerful figure in U.S. culture: the
white male as victim" (4). Savran's analysis ranges from hipsters of the 1950s to far-right militias of the
1990s. Prominent throughout this terrain, Savran demonstrates, are "masochistic fantasies" of white
masculinity. These fantasies have arisen, he argues, largely in response to relatively modest economic
and political advances achieved by white women and minorities since World War II and to the decline
since the 1970s in the real wages of working-class and lower middle-class white men. For Savran, white
men who imagine themselves as suffering victims ultimately do so as part of a strategy by which they
seek to retain their "cultural hegemony" and their "enormous economic, political, and social power" (37).
[End Page 126]
Savran's description of white-male-as-victim fantasies provides an explanatory context for the
mainstream reactions to Howard's losing his job for having said "niggardly." To defend the "venerable"
English language against the "ignorance" of racial others is also to defend a cultural hegemony. To
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
emphasize the tragedy of Howard's resignation and, moreover, to position the D.C. mayor as the stupidly
culpable agent is implicitly to undercut African-Americans who supervise white professionals. Yet what
about the perverse pleasure of masochism? Is it connected to jouissance? Do the scenarios of white
male pain provoked by the D.C. event derive their energy from the overwhelming excitement that, as I
have argued, can arise in the disjunction between liberal reality and an underlying racist real?
When recalling his own experience as a "decent man" victimized by "mindless" charges of racism,
Jacoby mentions that the name of his cat, for which he was attacked as a racist, came up in a column
that he wrote criticizing the motor voter law. Trying to show the potential for abuse in a system that
allows people to register to vote when renewing their driver's licenses, Jacoby claimed that he had
succeeded in registering his cat Jemima as a voter in three states. Angry readers, Jacoby relates in a
tone of injured innocence, "called and wrote to denounce me as a racist—because the cat is named
Jemima."
Although Jacoby does not say so, the motor voter law aimed to make voter registration more
accessible to working-class and especially minority citizens. So Jacoby's attempt to ridicule this law was
also an indirect attack on an attempt to increase African-Americans' access to the franchise. The "real"
structure of Jacoby's registering "Jemima" to vote included the racial dynamics of the debate about the
motor voter law. It also included the history, going back to Reconstruction, of the deployment of scorn
and demeaning animal imagery against African-Americans' civic aspirations. (See, for example, The Birth
of a Nation.) Now, whatever conscious awareness Jacoby may have had about the real context in which
he first disclosed his cat's name (and in this case I suspect a relatively high degree of consciousness),
that context could not be acknowledged in a column bemoaning the fate of a "pure" white man, [End
Page 127] whether David Howard or Jacoby himself, trashed by mindless resentment.
Jacoby's column is thus necessarily fractured between its representations of white male innocence
and its participation in a continuing history of white racist disenfranchisement of African-Americans. The
friction between these two aspects of the column—between its would-be "symbolic" meanings and its
unacknowledged "real"—generates an explosive charge or jouissance that is, I suggest, displaced into
the masochistic fantasy of white male "pain" with which Jacoby concludes. Fantasies of pain and
humiliation can be disturbing. But as scenes that are freestanding and coherent, and possess the virtue
of psychic familiarity, they are easier to manage than the more traumatic dissolutions adumbrated by
jouissance. 5
Huck Finn and the Antiracist Teacher's Enjoyment
An ever-growing body of secondary literature focuses on the pedagogical challenges posed by the
more than 200 appearances of the word "nigger" in Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Mark Twain's novel
"is generally acknowledged as the literary work most frequently taught in U.S. colleges and high schools,"
but struggles continue over how best to deal with the racial epithet that appears on almost every page
(Leonard 1999, 1). In contrast to the aversion evinced by some students, parents, and secondary-school
teachers, the currently dominant approach to the problem among literary scholars is to treat the word as
an especially loaded focal point for a more general question about Twain's text: "Does Huckleberry Finn
Combat or Reinforce Racist Attitudes?" (see Graff and Phelan 1995). However, this seemingly
even-handed question is something of a set-up, since the great majority of critics will answer that, taken
as a whole, Huck Finn does indeed "combat racist attitudes." Those who argue that Twain's novel serves
primarily to "reinforce racist attitudes" are far fewer and tend not to consider themselves primarily as
academics (see Smiley 1996; Lester 1992; Wallace 1992).
Many scholars (Smith 1992; Kaplan 1995; Fishkin 1993, 1996) go so far as to view Twain's novel as
an unambiguous [End Page 128] and uniquely powerful indictment of a racist culture. They see Twain's
use of "nigger" as always occurring, in effect, within ironic quotation marks. They argue that he revels in
the word not merely out of historical verisimilitude but because he wishes to undercut or hollow out
late-nineteenth-century stereotypes. The task of the teacher of Huckleberry Finn then becomes to help
students recognize the implicit quotation marks around the offensive word and to understand the
subversive work that they perform. As Jonathan Arac (1997) has pointed out, however, there is no
guarantee that readers will "get" Twain's supposed irony (33). Nor is there any certainty that the
appearances of "nigger" in the text will, or even should, be taken as synecdoches for Twain's larger
6 of 13
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
7 of 13
"message" regarding race and racism.
Arac traces the fascinating process by which Adventures of Huckleberry Finn achieved
"hypercanonicity" in the contexts of the Cold War and the Civil Rights movement. In the 1950s and '60s,
Twain's novel came to be revered as the literary expression of America's democratic spirit both in the
academy and in liberal culture generally. From the 1950s on, Arac shows, Huck Finn has been vigorously
defended by scholars and editorialists alike against any charges that it might function to support racism
or racist values, in the classroom or anywhere else.
Among other effects of Huck Finn's hypercanonization, Arac (1997) believes that the widespread
"idolatry" of the book "has served, and—remarkably—continues to serve, as an excuse for well-meaning
white people to use the term nigger with the good conscience that comes from believing that their usage
is sanctioned by their idol . . . and is made safe by the technique of irony" (16). Thus, "even though
Huckleberry Finn is claimed as a talisman of racially progressive thought and action, one of its major
effects is actually to license and authorize the continued honored circulation of a term that is both
explosive and degrading" (28). Arac documents, for example, how many writers have praised the
humanity Twain gives to "Nigger Jim" despite the fact that this offensive sobriquet nowhere appears in
the novel itself (24-28).
As a teacher, I hope that my own approach to the novel has stopped short of idolatry. But when it
comes to the word [End Page 129] "nigger" I have tended to resort to the Twain-uses-it-in-ironicquotation-marks approach. I have drawn students' attention, for instance, to the famous moment in
Chapter 32 when, in response to Huck's fib about a steamboat and an explosion, Aunt Sally Phelps asks
him if anybody was hurt and he answers, "No'm. Killed a nigger." Here, it is relatively easy to argue that
Huck's literally dehumanizing use of the word is part of his clever attempt to play into Aunt Sally's
assumptions about an expected visitor (whom Huck is pretending to be). Especially because of its slightly
overdone neatness —Huck's response can be felt as a punch line in patter that continues with Aunt
Sally's saying, "well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt"—it makes sense to see the
moment as showing Huck's canny reading of Aunt Sally's likely prejudices, and thus to read his use of the
epithet under the sign of irony.
I have not given up raising pedagogical questions about how "nigger" may function ironically in Twain's
novel. After 1996, however, when Hopwood v. Texas eliminated affirmative action at the University of
Texas, teaching Huck Finn in my very largely white American literature classes has become increasingly
fraught for me. Since Hopwood, I have tried to devote a full class session to having a "metadiscussion"
about the word "nigger." Because I often focus on close textual analysis, I regularly find myself reading
the word aloud or asking a student to do so. In addition, the word will sometimes be used in paraphrases
of or references to Twain's text, usually by students, but occasionally by me. In such cases, even when
we don't twitch our fingers in the air, our unspoken presumption is that the word is being spoken with
extra implicit quotation marks around it to show that it is being cited from the text or from "back then,"
rather than emanating from ourselves. During our "metadiscussions," I ask my students to consider how
the word operates in Twain's book as well as in its socio-linguistic contexts both during the 1840s (when
the book is set) and during the 1880s (when it was written). In addition, however, I want them to reflect
on what actually happens when "we" sound and re-sound "nigger" at the turn of the twenty-first century.
The University of Texas lost the Hopwood case on appeal to a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court, a ruling
that has so far [End Page 130] withstood all attempts at further review. Losing the case meant that
public universities in Texas had to cease the practice of affirmative action in admissions, financial aid, and
hiring. 6 One especially controversial aspect of the Fifth Circuit panel's ruling was its disregard of
Supreme Court precedent with respect to the "diversity" rationale for affirmative action. As articulated by
Justice Lewis Powell in Bakke v. California (1978), the diversity rationale holds that the educational
benefits provided for all students by the presence of a racially and culturally diverse student body can
legally justify giving race some weight in the admissions process. Dissenting justices on the Fifth Circuit
characterized the majority's disregard of Justice Powell's "diversity" opinion as an "unprecedented and,
we suggest, impertinent step," but as of this writing it still stands. 7
After the 1996 Hopwood decision, the importance and meaning of having a "diverse" student body
were much debated on campus, as was the question of what role racial discrimination still played at the
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
8 of 13
University. In this context, my highlighting of the need to perform the word "nigger" when analyzing Huck
Finn had an ulterior aim. I hoped to provide a concrete demonstration of the importance of diversity in
college education by leading my white students to note and reflect upon the classroom's pervasive hue
and how this might limit the reach of our discussion both of Twain's novel and of its contemporary
relevance. I hoped to foster an experience-based insight about how a lack of diversity could impede their
own learning and growth. As for those few students of color who might be in the class, beyond hoping
that they wouldn't be offended I found myself unable to think coherently about what educational value, if
any, they might derive from this discussion. In fact, since my "lesson" paradoxically relied upon
deemphasizing the presence of nonwhite students in the classroom—of which I was nonetheless acutely
aware—I was certainly guilty of reducing the problem of racism to the question of what white people
8
think or feel.
I have just presented this scene of antiracist pedagogy with rational, intellectualized detachment.
However, when I am leading my classes in analytic discussions of the word "nigger" [End Page 131] my
physical and emotional temperature is hot, not cold. I feel my face getting heated and often intensely
wish that I could transport myself elsewhere. I squirm at my white students' foolish or "inappropriate"
remarks, including: "the word is only used for a joke these days"; "black people use it among themselves
all the time"; "my grandparents still use that word but they don't know any better." I sweat under my
arms as I try to counter that the word continues to possess demeaning implications. Why am I, the
ostensibly liberal and conscientious teacher, in such a state?
It is easy to identify where at least some of my awkwardness and embarrassment come from. In the
first place, who am I to speak about this topic? Secondly, since many of the white students assume that
racism lies safely in the past and plays no role in their own lives and minds, how do I challenge their
remarks that appear almost transparently racist—or at least blind to their own race privilege—without
seeming to claim a holier-than-thou status? Thirdly, and most uncomfortably of all, if there are AfricanAmerican students in the room, who may or may not be contributing to the class discussion, what are
they thinking and feeling? Have I made a horrible mistake in forcing them to sit through this? Do they feel
ambushed, as if now they "should" say something on a topic that they may have no desire to discuss in
this context? Have I made these students angry at me or ensured that they will be more than usually
self-conscious about coming to my class for the next several weeks?
To me these sessions always feel stressful and frustrating, sometimes almost unbearably so. But I
also experience them as uniquely intense. They twist my viscera and sensitize the surface of my skin. I
leave with churning feelings, mostly of guilt, confusion, and shame, as well as a sort of depressive
helplessness. It is a dictum of Freudian thought, however, that where there is guilt there is also
unconscious desire. What does it mean that I feel as if I've been caught red-handed in some shameful
act every time I embark on a pedagogical attempt to discuss the word "nigger"? What secret desire
might underlie the guilt? It goes beyond, I think, excitement at breaking a taboo, at the repeating out loud
of a forbidden word (which, of course, I know quite well before class that I will do). [End Page 132]
What strikes me now, as I look back over the pattern I have described, is that for all the care and
planning that goes into these sessions, when I walk out of my classroom, exhausted, I'm overwhelmed by
one question: What was I just doing in there? I have not, it is clear, had the teacher's gratifying
experience of achieving knowledge and understanding regarding some aspect of reality with my students.
As Copjec puts it, jouissance arises "precisely there where we do not know" (1994, 123) Part of my
acute discomfort when discussing the word "nigger," I suspect, comes from the sensation of a collision
between my own symbolic position as liberal professor and the racial real of my university, my
classroom, and my own psyche.
Regarding the Lacanian concept of the "real," Foster observes that what operates as the internal
blockage or limit for a given reality is not "general or universal . . . the same everywhere for all people."
Every structured reality will have its own "real," which depends on the "particular qualities in the forms of
symbolic representation at work for a given subject" (1997, 12). For the symbolic system that governs
my avowedly antiracist classroom at a prestigious and predominantly white state university—a university
recently forced by a federal court to discontinue affirmative action— the inassimilable real begins with the
crazy persistence of racial exclusion. This persistence, which is visible as soon as one becomes
conscious of the overwhelming whiteness in the room but remains invisible as long as whiteness
continues to be taken for granted or unmarked, can be called "crazy" because, as Nathan Glazer (1997)
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
9 of 13
has trenchantly commented, it simply doesn't make sense some thirty-five years after the Civil Rights
movement is supposed to have changed America.
Indeed, the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling in Hopwood categorically denied that affirmative action was still
necessary to compensate for the University of Texas's admitted history of racial discrimination. Since the
late 1960s, the Court emphasized, the University has officially welcomed diversity and has, moreover,
devoted resources, including "a significant amount of scholarship money," to minority recruitment and
retention programs. The Court noted that "the vast majority of the faculty, staff, and students at the law
school had absolutely [End Page 133] nothing to do with any discrimination that the law school practiced
in the past." 9 Given the University's long-running efforts to make up for past racism, and that it is now
peopled almost entirely by those who had nothing to do with past practices of segregation, most of
whom regard those practices with revulsion and anger, the court demanded, how could it make sense to
depict the University of Texas as an institution that participates in or perpetuates racism? Yet one has
only to open one's eyes (and look, for instance, at the staff from the highest-ranking administrators to the
custodial workers) to see that a real of racist hierarchy and exclusion still persists.
Uttering the word "nigger" in my liberal, almost entirely white classroom cannot help but engage this
real, from which, moreover, everyone in the dominant group continues to profit. Within what Foster calls
the particular "forms of symbolic representation at work for a given subject," I would specify the
inassimilable real further as the unwillingness—or the inability—of most white people in the room,
including myself, fully to recognize and to imagine surrendering that unfair profit. 10
Moreover, if, as M. Garlinda Burton argues, the word "nigger" inevitably conjures up the violent
history of white supremacy grounded in the degradation of black people, then speaking the word in a
class inevitably causes that history to collide with the liberal (arts) tenets ostensibly underlying our
discussion. We operate under the assumption that all voices deserve to be heard, that our class
discussions should be governed by fairness, rationality, and mutual respect. 11 Yet the history of white
supremacy has helped in multiple ways to shape my own and other universities. The University of Texas
was founded in 1883, during the post-Reconstruction heyday of white racism. This was also the year that
Twain finished writing Huckleberry Finn, with its racially charged language. Several statues
commemorating the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, which date from that same post-Reconstruction
period, remain on campus. 12
It might seem relatively easy to separate the University of Texas at Austin's objectionable and
obviously dated statues and building names from its mission, which defines itself in relation [End Page
134] to the Enlightenment values of reason, truth, fairness, neutral expertise, civilization, service, and
progress. And it might seem the merest common sense to claim that the racism of many of the
University's founders does not intrude into the practices of my own classroom. After all, the goal of my
teaching is to empower students and to improve society through offering guidance in the tools and
protocols of critical thought. Yet it has been a key insight of recent work in critical race theory that these
Enlightenment ideals emerged from, and have historically been interpreted within, contexts that also
accepted white supremacy as common sense. Might not such ideals be, as Gary Peller (1995) puts it, "a
manifestation of group power, of politics?" (133). Regarding American higher education, Peller asks
whether "myriad features of the day-to-day aspects of institutional life constructed or maintained during
segregation might have reflected deeper aspects of a culture within which the explicit exclusion of blacks
seemed uncontroversial?"
As I have argued, an encounter with the disjunction between one's own organizing "reality" and a
pervading racist "real" yields a hot charge, not unlike putting one's finger into wires that one thought were
"dead" and experiencing an electric shock. Regarding media responses to the D.C. incident, I suggested
that one place this charge might go is into sadomasochistic fantasies organized around having or not
having power. The almost rhythmic incantations of "nigger" during discussions of Twain's novel likewise
evoke a sadomasochistic scenario, at least for me as a teacher. To adapt Freud's famous phrase, "a
child is being beaten," the syntax of which allows for mobile fantasied identifications with the positions of
victim, abuser, and observer, "a word is being said," and said, and said again, whenever Huck Finn is
taught.
But if sadomasochism does come into play here, what are its specific vectors? As a Jewish New
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
10 of 13
Yorker, I probably take some pleasure in being able to view my Caucasian Christian students (than
whom I sometimes feel more marked or less "white") in the humiliating position of discovering themselves
to be more discursively naive, more crudely provincial than I am. They don't know enough not to toss off
remarks such as [End Page 135] "black people use it among themselves all the time" or "the word is
only used for a joke these days." As for any black students in the class, my guilt tells me that I must be
enjoying something of the voyeur's sadism, especially if they remain silent. Throughout the discussion I
glance covertly in their direction. I enjoy the voyeur's sense of safety because, ultimately, I feel that the
word "nigger," no matter how many times it is said, can never really touch or hurt me: I am white.
Apparently at odds with the sensation of invulnerability just mentioned, however, I think that there is
also a masochistic (and narcissistic) sense of myself as a noble victim. I take pride in sacrificing
pedagogical safety and comfort by taking the risk of staging such discussions, in being oppressed by
anxiety about my students' feelings, and even in the humiliation of my self-exposure. There is at least a
frisson, moreover, both in feeling myself "forced" to repeat the "n-word" and in listening to my students
recite it back to me in turn. But the masochism here is, by definition, light. These discomforts leave no
welts. The one day each term devoted to discussing the word becomes, at least for me, a session of
stinging, but finally limited and controlled, encounters with the real.
I recognize that the present essay may seem to promote skepticism about liberal white antiracist
pedagogy, at least as practiced within privileged educational contexts. Put most pessimistically: if such
pedagogy does not go beyond bumping repeatedly against the racist real that continues to subtend the
place of its own enunciation, then what's the point? Nonetheless, I hope that by gaining a better
understanding of how I "get my enjoyment" I will be able to develop renewed and, yes, recharged
possibilities for participation in social change. Above all, I hope to have contributed to a conversation.
Department of English
University of Texas
Austin, Texas 78712
[email protected]
Notes
1. For alternative perspectives on citations of this word, see Naylor (1995), who addresses its use by
African-Americans, and most recently the important book by Randall Kennedy (2002), who argues that
"to condemn whites who use the N-word without regard to context is simply to make a fetish of nigger"
(51). Among the examples he adduces of whites who use the word even as they perform not only
nonracist but antiracist actions is Lyndon Johnson's referring to Thurgood Marshall as a "nigger" when
nominating him as the first African-American to serve on the Supreme Court. Rather than attempting to
determine whether a given use of the n-word should or should not be considered "wrong" from a
progressive standpoint, however, I wish to investigate moments in which even unintentional enunciations
can force two contradictory contexts into simultaneous visibility.
2. As Judith Butler (1997) analogously observes, "The critical and legal discourse on hate speech is
itself a restaging of the performance of hate speech" (7).
3. Even if one were to make a point of religiously substituting "the n-word," this break into what
Burton terms "stilted" speech would call attention to the occluded word as a material object. The 1992
Bush campaign's introduction of the "L-word" as an all-purpose label for what the Republicans opposed
was a technique not for erasing the word "liberal" from voters' consciousnesses, but rather for
foregrounding it in a subliminal fashion. Given the semantic association between the "L-word" and
"n-word," moreover, it does not seem to be accidental that the same 1992 Bush campaign sought to
indict Michael Dukakis as soft on crime by using the notorious Willie Horton commercials.
4. A generally unremarked dimension of the space defining the D.C. event is likewise the fact that the
District of Columbia, whose residents are mostly black, remains the only area within the continental
United States without a voting representative in Congress.
5. Zizek (1998) calls jouissance "traumatic" because it is "structurally inassimilable into [the subject's]
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
11 of 13
symbolic universe" (154).
6. The "ten-percent law," passed by the legislature in response to Hopwood, guarantees admission to
the University of Texas for students graduating in the top ten percent of the state's high schools.
Combined with increased recruitment efforts, the law has managed to restore the number of minorities
matriculating to the University's undergraduate colleges to pre-1996 levels. (This number is, however, still
significantly below the percentage of minorities in the state.) The enrollment of African-Americans in
professional and graduate schools remains lower than it was before Hopwood. For complex reasons, the
population of English majors is far less diverse than that of the University as a whole. Ironically, even the
moderate success of the ten-percent law in improving racial and ethnic diversity in public colleges is
tacitly predicated on the continuing de facto segregation of many Texas high schools.
7. "Dissent from failure to grant hearing en banc," cited from http://www.utexas.edu/hopwood
/index.html. Within the next year or so, the "diversity rationale" of affirmative action will probably be
addressed by the United States Supreme Court when it considers appeals of two lawsuits involving
admissions at the University of Michigan.
8. For descriptions by Afro-Americans of what it felt like for them (or their children) to study or teach
Huck Finn in predominately white classes, see Mensh and Mensh (2000).
9. Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir). March 18, 1996: "Opinion Reversing and
Remanding," cited from http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/94/94-50569-cv0.htm
10. For a superb account of the "profit" in whiteness, see Lipsitz (1998). Wiegman's (1998)
examination of "the hegemony of liberal whiteness" and its fantasy of a "postsegregationist antiracist
white subject" dissects how attempts by white academics and activists (for example, those involved in
the magazine Race Traitor) to dismantle whiteness as a form of racial privilege inevitably founder on the
unacknowledged "impossibility of white antiracism" (147).
11. For a forceful critique of these assumptions in the context of composition classes, see Jarratt
(1991). Also useful in a pedagogical connection is Fox (2001).
12. For a discussion of seemingly "dated" monuments in locales ranging from Austin to Moscow, see
Levinson (1998).
References
Arac, Jonathan. 1997. "Huckleberry Finn" as Idol and Target: The Functions of Criticism in Our
Time. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Burton, M. Garlinda. 1994. Never Say Nigger Again!: An Antiracism Guide for White Liberals.
Nashville: James C. Winston.
Butler, Judith. 1997. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.
Copjec, Joan. 1994. Read My Desire: Lacan against the Historicists. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Editorial. 1999a. Another N-Word Controversy. The Atlanta Constitution. 2 February, p. A12.
Editorial. 1999b. The Last Word. The Boston Globe. 30 January, p. A18.
Editorial. 1999c. Obsessing Over the "N Word." The Hartford Courant. 3 February, p.A14.
Feagler, Joe. 1999. Ignorance Was Trigger of 3-Syllable Time Bomb. The Cleveland Plain Dealer. 1
February, p. 2A.
Fishkin, Shelley Fisher. 1993. Was Huck Black?: Mark Twain and African-American Voices. New
York: Oxford University Press.
———. 1996. Lighting Out for the Territory: Reflections on Mark Twain and American Culture. New
York: Oxford University Press.
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
12 of 13
Foster, Dennis. 1997. Sublime Enjoyment: On the Perverse Motive in American Literature.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fox, Helen. 2001. When Race Breaks Out: Conversations about Race and Racism in College
Classrooms. New York: Peter Lang.
Glazer, Nathan. 1997. We Are All Multiculturalists Now. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Graff, Gerald, and James Phelan, eds. 1995. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: A Case Study in
Critical Controversy. Boston: Bedford.
Grisales, Claudia. 1999. Hoelting Words Offend Some Staff. The Daily Texan. 5 February, p. 1A.
Jacoby, Jeff. 1999. It Wasn't the N-Word. The Boston Globe. 30 January, p. A15.
Jarratt, Susan. C. 1991. Feminism and Composition: The Case for Conflict. In Patricia Harkin and
John Schilb, eds., Contending with Words: Composition and Rhetoric in the Postmodern Age. New
York: Modern Language Association, pp. 105-23.
Kaplan, Justin. 1995. Born to Trouble: One Hundred Years of Huckleberry Finn. In Graff and Phelan
1995, pp. 348-59.
Kennedy, Randall. 2002. Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. New York: Pantheon.
Lane, Christopher. 1998a. Introduction to Lane 1998b, pp. 1-37.
———. ed. 1998b. The Psychoanalysis of Race. New York: Columbia University Press.
Leonard, J. S. 1999. Making Mark Twain Work in the Classroom. Durham: Duke University Press.
———. Thomas A. Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis, eds. 1992. Satire or Evasion? Black
Perspectives on "Huckleberry Finn." Durham: Duke University Press.
Lester, Julius. 1992. Morality and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. In Leonard, Tenney, and Davis
1992, pp. 199-207.
Levinson, Sanford. 1998. Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Lipsitz, George. 1998. The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from
Identity Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Mensh, Elaine, and Harry Mensh. 2000. Black, White, and Huckleberry Finn: Re-Imagining the
American Dream. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Naylor, Gloria. 1995. Mommy, What Does "Nigger" Mean? In Susan Bachmann and Melinda Barth,
eds., Between Worlds: A Reader, Rhetoric, and Handbook. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 234-37.
Neuharth, Al. 1999. Niggardly Not Racist but Thin-Skinned Are. USA Today. 12 February, p. 15A.
Parker, Kathleen. 1999. Look in Dictionary before You Squawk. USA Today. 3 February, p.A13.
Peller, Gary. 1995. Toward a Critical Cultural Pluralism: Progressive Alternatives to Mainstream Civil
Rights Ideology. In Kimberle Crenshaw et al., eds., Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed
the Movement. New York: New Press, pp. 127-58.
Savran, David. 1998. Taking It Like a Man: White Masculinity, Masochism, and Contemporary
American Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Smiley, Jane. 1996. Say It Ain't So, Huck: Second Thoughts on Twain's "Masterpiece." Harpers
Magazine, 292(January):61-67.
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
Smith, David L. 1992. Huck, Jim, and American Racial Discourse. In Leonard, Tenney, and Davis
1992, pp. 103-20.
Spillers, Hortense. 1997. "All the Things You Could Be by Now, If Sigmund Freud's Wife Was Your
Mother": Psychoanalysis and Race. In Elizabeth Abel, Barbara Christian, and Helene Moglen, eds.,
Female Subjects in Black and White: Race, Psychoanalysis, Feminism. Berkeley: University of
California Press, pp. 135- 58.
Wallace, John. 1992. The Case Against Huck Finn. In Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 1992, pp. 16-24.
Weeks, Linton. 1999. Caught in a Verbal Vortex: One Word Leaves a Lot Still to be Said about
Former D.C. Official David Howard. Washington Post. 29 January, p. C1.
Wiegman, Robyn. 1999. Whiteness Studies and the Paradox of Particularity. boundary 2: An
International Journal of Literature and Culture 26(3):115-49.
Zizek, Slavoj. 1998. Love Thy Neighbor? No, Thanks. In Lane 1998b, pp. 154-75.
13 of 13
4/10/2009 6:08 PM
Project MUSE ‐ Children's Literature Association Quarterly ‐ Shylock...
1 of 5
http://muse.jhu.edu.weblib.lib.umt.edu:8080/journals/childrens_lit...
Children's Literature Association Quarterly
Volume 12, Number 1, Spring 1987
E‐ISSN: 1553‐1201 Print ISSN: 0885‐0429
DOI: 10.1353/chq.0.0558
Shylock, Huckleberry, and Jim:
Do They Have a Place in Today's High Schools?
James Gellert
The debate over censorship in high school English classes has been a contentious and protracted one. Two particular
staples of high school curricula, The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn, have long been targeted by those who
would censor literature on the basis of ethnic, religious or racial concerns. Although objections to these works have
been addressed in numerous forums, including the Quarterly, both warrant further investigation for two reasons. First,
in spite of well reasoned defenses of the works, the call to ban them from high schools continues to be heard. Secondly,
the most pertinent aspect of the works relative to the censorship question, their literary quality, has not been fully
explored. In the following paper I wish to investigate the history of censorship in relation to The Merchant of Venice and
Huckleberry Finn, their place in high school English curricula, and how that place can be best realized in the classroom.
Some familiar with Shakespeare's play and Twain's novel might assume that active lobbying against the two works is
an exercise confined to past decades. In reality, both The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn are at this time
subjects of censorship campaigns. While the most ubiquitous and celebrated form of censorship in both our high schools
and society in general is directed against obscenity, the two foci of this study are invariably cited for their potential to
evoke racial, ethnic or religious prejudice. The Merchant of Venice has been censured by the Anti‐Defamation League of
the B'nai B'rith on the grounds that it contains characterizations which could be interpreted as anti‐Semitic. As early as
1931 the play was eliminated from the high school English programs in Buffalo and Manchester, New York because it
was viewed as fostering intolerance (Banned Books 121, 18). More recently, in March of 1980, an ad hoc citizen's
review committee in Midland, Michigan recommended that the play be removed from the English curricula of the
town's two high schools, labelling it "anti‐Semitic and offensive to Jews" (Intellectual Freedom 76). A similar
controversy, initiated by a group of concerned parents, occurred in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. This particular
incident reflected the emotion and hyperbole common to such disputes; one protester detected a causal link between
Shakespeare's work and the European holocaust (Chronicle Journal 4-6).
Huckleberry Finn has suffered under the anti‐prejudice rubric as well. Some one hundred years ago, just after its
publication, the Public Library in Concord, Massachusetts banned Huckleberry Finn as "trash and suitable only for the
slums." In 1905, both Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn were excluded from the children's room of the Public Library in
New York City as "contaminating to ingenuous youth" (Banned Books 49-50). Early negative reviews of Huckleberry
Finn, such as that in February of 1885 by literary critic, Robert Bridges, emphasize not the possible racism of the book,
but the coarseness and indelicacy of specific scenes such as those depicting Pap's delerium tremens, Huck's contrived
murder and the Grangerford‐Shepherdson feud (Critical Heritage 126-27). By 1957 the emphasis of the disapprobation
had shifted, and in that year New York City dropped Huckleberry Finn from its list of approved books for junior and
senior high schools partly due to the frequent use of the term "nigger" and the characterization of Jim (Banned Books
50). The controversy surrounding the racism theme continues today, and according to an article in the New York Times
dated January 1, 1984, challenges to the book on this basis have surfaced in Houston; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; Fairax
County, Virginia; Winnetka, Illinois and Davenport, Iowa, to name a few.
It is critical that teachers, parents and civil libertarians recognize that both The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry
Finn do contain extremely sensitive material. To dismiss the subject of censorship as beneath discussion is to display a
4/10/2009 6:10 PM
2 of 5
myopia not unlike that shown by those who would condemn the books out of hand. Each work must be approached
individually. Indeed, the key to presenting the works to today's students is to conceive of them as imaginative creations,
and particularly, to emphasize how the two most controversial characters, Shylock and Jim, are consistent with these
imaginative creations. In addition, it is critical that both works be viewed in an historical context, for their themes and
characters were undoubtedly influenced by the social and cultural milieu in which they were written. Today's students
must be aware of this context in order to make informed and thoughtful judgements about the works.
There is little doubt that, in general terms, Shakespeare's portrayal of Shylock is consistent with the prevailing
negative caricature of Jews in England in the 1590's. At that time, to the majority of the English citizenry, Jews
represented not so much an immediate threat but, as John Russell Brown terms it, an image of "a fabulous and
monstrous bogey belonging to remote times and places" (Merchant of Venice xxxvii). One of the few concrete
manifestations of these anti‐Semitic superstitions was the persecution and execution in 1594 of Dr. Roderigo Lopez, a
Portuguese Jewish physician to Queen Elizabeth, for his alleged complicity in a plot against her [End Page 40] majesty's
person. More typical than active persecution were the exaggerated representations of Jews on the public stage, perhaps
no more clearly indicated than through the sensationalized portrayal of the exuberant, goating Barabbas in Marlowe's
Jew of Malta, a play performed only a few years before The Merchant of Venice. Shakespeare's personal views on Jews are
impossible to divine, although our primary repository of evidence on the question, The Merchant of Venice itself,
suggests that he consciously shaped Shylock to transcend the hyperbolized bogey‐man myth. Of paramount importance
then, is that while Shylock is generally cast in response to the typical Elizabethan perception of Jews, it does not follow
that the play is anti‐Semitic (Brown xxxix). To interpret Shylock as a narrowly conceived, stylized miser is to overlook
the significance of the total work as a finely woven piece. If such limited critical insights were applied elsewhere,
Macbeth might be read as a condemnation of overly ambitious Scots and Othello as a racial slur against Moors.
Unlike the case with Shylock's creator, there is sufficient external evidence revealing Mark Twain's position on
racism and the American black. In the most comprehensive study of Twain's relationship with the South and prejudice
against blacks, Arthur G. Pettit presents a convincing argument that Twain's feelings on racial discrimination moved in a
discernable direction, and that Twain evolved "from conscious bigot to unconscious bigot to one who became fully
aware of his bigotry, fought it, and largely overcame it" (Pettit 9). Consistent with this perceived evolution of Twain's
views, is Pettit's opinion that Huckleberry Finn is, in one sense, the writer's "most intense denunciation of the five
Southern institutions he had long singled out for special condemnation: slavery, violence, bigotry, ignorance and Sir
Walter Scot's jejune romanticism." Furthermore, Mark Twain appears as essentially iconoclastic in his support for the
black in the context of a widespread mistreatment of the race in the post‐bellum South (Pettit 76, 135-36.)
Although both historical context and authorial positions are of value to high school students of literature, they are
only so when considered in concert with the most crucial of all considerations: the literary quality of the works
themselves. While there are obviously many aspects of both works which would ultimately be treated in most high
school English classes, I intend to emphasize those points most relevant to the censorship question. In particular, I will
examine the controversial characters of Shylock and Jim within the context and structure of the overall works.
To be sure, in the contrasting worlds of idealized Belmont and mercantile Venice, Shylock is, on the surface at least, a
villain. He is scheming, miserly and legalistic. Certainly the more sympathetic Christians in the play regard him as evil,
and Shakespeare has Shylock voice his intentions in his initial soliloquy as to where the basis for his enmity for Antonio
rests:
If I can catch him once upon the hip
I will feed fat the ancient grudge I bear him.
(I.iii.41‐42)
And so, Shylock the Jew is, at the outset, a heartless usurer lying in wait for vulnerable Christians. But as the play
develops, Shakespeare adds a complex dimension to Shylock's characterization, one which demands a holistic analysis
of Shylock the man. He is a victim of bigotry, he suffers under his racist enemies, and his justified reactions to them are
recorded in some of Shakespeare's most moving speeches:
He hath disgrac'd me, and hind'red me half a million, laugh'd at my losses, mock'd at my gains, scorned my
nation, thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies,—and what's his reason? I am a Jew.
Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same
food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled
by the same winter and summer as a Christian is?—if you prick us do we not bleed? if you tickle us do we not
laugh? if you poison us do we not die?
(III.i.48‐60)
4/10/2009 6:10 PM
3 of 5
It is true that given his jaundiced view of the world, Shylock's pain finds only one recourse; but that view is inspired
more by Christian duplicity than by any gratuitous anti‐Semitic bent on Shakespeare's part. Antonio, the model of
friendship in relation to Bassanio, is arbitrarily contemptuous towards Shylock. Another worthy of Belmont, Gratiano, is
openly vindictive. The elopement of Shylock's daughter Jessica with the Christian Lorenzo seems sadistic in the context
of the play, and in one commentator's eyes, does much to metamorphose Shylock from the stereotype of a comic Jew to a
"lamentable victim of Christian bigotry and license" (Palmer 422). Even the saintly and idealized Portia resorts to
legalistic equivocation in her notorious quibble in the trail scene.
What is clear is that Shakespeare is less concerned with an isolated depiction of a prototypical Jew than with an
analysis of a comprehensive relationship among numerous characters, one of whom is a Jew. He is a Jew; he is also a
man who is both sensitive and pathetic, and a character who contributes greatly to Shakespeare's exemplum on the
hypocrisy of those who would profess a superior moral vision. To miss this aspect of Shylock is to underplay one of the
essential dimensions of the play; namely, its ironic structure. As John Palmer cogently argues in his analysis of Shylock,
the ironic framework underscores an inhumanity in both Jew and Christian, and Shylock "presented in the grotesque
framework of a plot intended to throw into relief the least engaging qualities of his race, becomes the most tragic
representative of a persecuted minority" (343).
As in the case of The Merchant of Venice, at the crux of the racial questions posed in Huckleberry Finn, is Twain's use of
irony. Arthur Pettit's list of the Southern institutions most loathed by Twain is, in one sense, a compendium of the moral
questions addressed in Huckleberry Finn. Twain's treatment of slavery, bigotry and the concomitant attendant evils
renders his well‐known disclaimer at the beginning of the book, in which all persons attempting to uncover a moral
"will be banished," patently untenable. The disclaimer is more than merely untenable, however. It is a consciously
transparent subterfuge which signals the ironic tone of the work. As [End Page 41] T. S. Eliot observed some three
decades ago, the irony inherent in the book makes the morality the more powerful, and Twain's indictment against
slavery the more convincing (302). Lionel Trilling echoes Eliot's perceptions on the irony in the novel, and specifically
emphasizes the satiric brilliance of Huck's personal struggle. Huck, notes Trilling, solves his dilemma of conscience not
by doing "right" but by doing "wrong" (342). Nowhere is the tone of irony more evident than when Huck attempts to
"pray a lie," turn in Jim, and thus cleanse himself of sin. Huck fails to do the "proper thing" by betraying Jim, which
morally, of course, is the right thing, and Huck consigns his soul to hell. Pettit terms Twain's use of irony here "the most
ingenious" in the novel, since in it, a "poor white boy behaves like a Christian by rejecting Christianity, does right by
doing wrong, and, in doing so, widens the gap between himself and the respectable, religious, and righteous South"
(118).
In sharp contrast to those critics who view Jim as a dignified, noble figure in Huckleberry Finn, novelist Ralph Ellison
sees him stigmatized as a product of the minstrel tradition, wearing a "stereotype mask" behind which—and only
behind which—we see the humanity of Jim. According to Ellison, Twain wrestled with the social influences of the
reconstruction era and the literary ones of the oral folk tradition, and finally bowed "to the white dictim that Negro
males must either be treated as boys or 'uncles'—never as men" (421‐22).
In a comprehensively detailed extension of Ellison's minstrel theory, Fredrick Woodard and Donnarae MacCann
argue that not only was Twain socialized by the minstrel tradition, he plays upon the concept to such an extent in the
novel that the anti‐slavery theme becomes compromised (4, 10). Significantly, Woodard and MacCann also note Twain's
use of irony in the book, and suggest that the irony inherent in the ludicrous topsyturvy features of the story such as
Jim's threatening to steal his own children are teachable to adolescent English classes (8). Although there might be
disagreement on the degree to which Twain exploits the minstrel tradition in the novel, Woodard and MacCann's
caution that any critical analysis of the book "must, of necessity, include the book's racism and its ties to the minstrel
tradition" is a valid point which must be recognized (11).
Perceptions such as those of Ellison and Woodard and MacCann might be beyond most first‐time readers of the novel
in high school. However, the discomfort experienced by blacks when they encounter Jim is, as Ellison notes, a common
reaction and is relevant to this discussion. In an article written in response to Ellison's piece as "the most eloquent
statement of the objections of a Negro reader to Mark Twain's characterization of Jim," Daniel G. Hoffman opines that
Jim transcends the limited role inferred by Ellison, and reiterated by Woodard and MacCann. Instead, he contends that
the color symbolism and the minstrel associations are a conscious part of Twain's use of irony, and that on the raft, alone
with Huck, he lives in "intrinsic human dignity" (432). What Hoffman suggests is that elements of the book be weighed as
parts of an organic, cohesive unit. He convincingly argues that Jim's characterization, in all of its aspects, is first and
foremost, one part of this larger whole. Jim's place in that larger whole is the underpinning of the morality in the book,
and Huck's realization that Jim is at once a humane individual and a man entitled to the same freedoms "as any cretur
4/10/2009 6:10 PM
4 of 5
that walks this earth," is the moral climax of Huckleberry Finn. Twain's characterization of Jim represents a statement on
all men's desires, and what Huck comes to see in Jim is echoed in a statement made by Kenneth B. Clark in his 1963
book, The Negro Protest:
If one dares to probe beneath the surface of the various forms of the present Negro protest to find the common
compelling force, one will probably find that it is a rather simple and universal human desire. It is the desire to
be respected for one's self—the desire to be seen and to be reacted to as an individual human being; the desire to
be free of the shackles of being lumped, categorized, and stigmatized as an inchoate mass. The Negro has no
more or less virtues of frailties than those found in other human beings. He is an individual who varies as much
in courage and cowardice or ambivalence as do other human beings. He reacts to injustices and cruelties with
the same patterns of accommodation, intimidation, rebellion, or philosophy as do others—He is an individual. If
life is to be tolerable for him he must be respected as an individual.
(50‐51)
Twain's humanizing of Jim incorporates a strategy which strongly echoes Clark's emphasis on both the virtues and
frailties of the black. This strategy is most evident where Jim's pathetic tale of his abusing his deaf and dumb four year
old underscores his capacity for both cruelty and remorse. Jim admits his essential human fallibility, and it is in that
universal condition that he is accepted by Huck and the reader (see Pettit 113).
Critical debates such as those waged by Ellison and Hoffman are seldom a palatable diet for many young high school
students. Nevertheless, it seems conclusive that, given the inherent artistry of each work, the resources available to
teachers today and the inevitable emergence of the very religious and racial issues these works address, both The
Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn do have a place in the English curriculum of today's secondary school student.
The Merchant of Venice should be studied as an organic, dramatic piece. In addition to the requisite careful treatment
of the text itself and the use of secondary critical materials, the teacher of The Merchant of Venice can use filmed versions
which give clear deference to the sensitive racial and religious issues of the play. One example of such a production, in
which the actor playing Shylock, the director and the producer were all Jewish, is a 1981 BBC television version. The
teaching potential of a production such as this one which was designed to emphasize Shylock's humanity is revealed in
the comments of reviewer‐critic, Marion Perret:
By emphasizing the good and bad in the characters, this production constantly makes us feel, then think about
our feelings in a way that prevents uncritical response. . . . The BBC production is shaped so that at the end of the
scenes containing the famous pleas, [End Page 42] we feel not that Jews are bad and Christians are good, but
that the humanity of anyone who tortures another is flawed. This production is prejudiced against cruelty, not
against Jews
(145, 163).
Similar materials can be used for teaching Huckleberry Finn. In this way, the subtle nuances of literary structures and
theme can be made more comprehensible to high school students.
One question yet remains. At what level should students study The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn? Although
it is obvious that a set age at which all students will appreciate the stylistic complexities and the moral questions raised
by the two works cannot be definitively determined, those who have researched cognitive development suggest that the
minimum meaningful age for exposure to the levels of cognition and the orientation of conscience required to
appreciate ideas which involve inferring universal ethical standards is approximately thirteen. Although caution must
be exercised in applying Kohlbergian theory to literary works for the very reason that their moral implications are
inextricably suffused in the works, the research of such educators as Piaget, Erikson and Kohlberg would at least
generally recommend reserving the works for the high school years. Certainly the teaching of The Merchant of Venice to
twelve year olds, or Huckleberry Finn as a sequel to Tom Sawyer in grade eight—and I have encountered both
situations—is hardly a responsible option.
Yet to categorically identify an age at which The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn should be taught is not only
simplistic, but obscures a more fundamental concern. Perhaps the question is not so much one of the age of the student
but rather how irony can be taught in the classroom. The complexities of the structural ironies of The Merchant of Venice
and Huckleberry Finn are probably unintelligible to students unfamiliar with irony in its simpler forms, such as dramatic
irony and verbal irony. However, both can be taught in the high school. Few students are oblivious to the nuances of
everyday ironies in which verbal presentation belies intent, and many are amenable to the dramatic irony inherent in
speeches such as Mark Antony's oration for his assassinated Caesar. Thus works such as Andersen's The Emperor's New
Clothes and Orwell's Animal Farm can be used to prepare the student for the subtler workings of structural irony in The
Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn.
4/10/2009 6:10 PM
5 of 5
In conclusion, let me state that I do not intend to suggest there is no place for scrutiny of high school programs by
groups and organizations outside of the school. A recent cause célèbre in Eckville, Alberta, Canada, where a high school
teacher and a former mayor of the town was fired for teaching his students that the holocaust did not occur came to light
through just such scrutiny. However, each situation must be judged on its merits. With due consideration given not only
to when students should study the works, but also with a dedication to teaching the stylistic relevancies of the works,
and with a sensitive, balanced treatment of both primary and secondary materials by informed teachers, the conditioned
reflex responses to The Merchant of Venice and Huckleberry Finn can be overcome. With such treatment, we would hope
the controversial works would meet no more resistance than Swift's A Modest Proposal would meet in Ireland or
Fugard's Siswe Bansi is Dead in black South Africa.
James Gellert
James Gellert teaches children's literature in the Department of English at Lakeland University in Thunder Bay, Ontario,
Canada.
References
Bridges, Robert. "Mark Twain's Blood‐Curdling Humor." Rev. of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain. Life Feb. 26, 1885. Rep. Frederick Anderson, ed. Mark Twain: The Critical Heritage.
London: Routledge, 1971.
Brown, John Russell, ed. Introduction. The Merchant of Venice by William Shakespeare. 1955. London: Metheun, 1976.
Clark, Kenneth B.The Negro Protest. Boston: Beacon, 1963.
Eliot, T. S. "Huck Finn; A Critical Essay." 1950. Sheila Egoff, G. T. Stubbs, and L. F. Ashley, eds. Only Connect: Readings on Children's Literature. New York: Oxford UP, 1969.
Ellison, Ralph. "Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke." 1958. Scully Bradley, et al., eds. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism. New
York: Norton, 1977. See also Taimi Ranta. "Huck Finn and Censorship." ChLA Quarterly 8 (Winter 1983): 35, for background on Ellison's original thoughts on Jim in the novel, his
later disclaimer and the subsequent critical debate on his position.
Grief, N. "Shakespeare: Author‐Bigot." Thunder Bay Chronicle 25 June 1983: 5.
Haight, Ann Lyon, ed.Banned Books 387 B.C. to 1978 A.D. New York: R. R. Bowker, 1978.
Hoffman, Daniel G. "Black Magic and White in Huckleberry Finn." Ed. Sculley Bradley, et al. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism.
New York: Norton, 1977.
Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, (July 1980): 76.
Palmer, John. Political and Comic Characters of Shakespeare. London: Macmillan, 1964.
Perret, Marion. "Shakespeare and Anti‐Semitism: Two Television Versions of The Merchant of Venice." Mosaic 16 (Winter/Spring 1983): 145‐163.
Pettit, Arthur G.Mark Twain and the South. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1976.
"Think Back Too." New York Times 1 Jan. 1984: E 12.
Trilling, Lionel. "The Greatness of Huckleberry Finn." Ed. Sculley Bradley, et al. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds and Sources, Criticism. New York:
Norton, 1977.
Woodard, Fredrick and Donnarae MacCann. "Huckleberry Finn and the Tradition of Blackface Minstrelsy." Interracial Books for Children Bulletin 15: 4‐13. [End Page 43]
Copyright © 1986 Children's Literature Association
© 2009 Project MUSE®. Produced by The Johns Hopkins University Press in collaboration with The Milton S. Eisenhower
Library.
4/10/2009 6:10 PM
1/16/2011
Send Huck Finn to College - NYTimes.c…
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for
distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any
article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.
January 15, 2011
Send Huck Finn to College
By LORRIE MOORE
Madison, Wis.
EVER since NewSouth Books announced it would publish a version of “The Adventures of
Huckleberry Finn” with the “n-word” removed, reaction has split between traditionalists
outraged at censorship and those who feel this might be a way to get teenagers, especially
African-American boys, comfortable reading a literary classic. From a mother’s perspective, I
think both sides are mistaken.
No parent who is raising a black teenager and trying to get him to read serious fiction for his
high school English class would ever argue that “Huckleberry Finn” is not a greatly problematic
work. But the remedy is not to replace “nigger” with alternative terms like “slave” (the latter
word is already in the novel and has a different meaning from “nigger,” so that substitution just
mucks up the prose — its meaning, its voice, its verisimilitude). The remedy is to refuse to teach
this novel in high school and to wait until college — or even graduate school — where it can be
put in proper context.
“Huckleberry Finn” is not an appropriate introduction to serious literature, and anyone who
cannot see that has never tried putting an audio version of it on during a long car trip while an
African-American teenager sits beside her and slowly, slowly slips on his noise-canceling
earphones in order to listen to hip-hop.
The derogatory word is part of the problem, but not the entirety of it — hip-hop music uses the
same word. Of course, the speakers are different in each case, and the worlds they are speaking
of and from are very distant from one another. The listener can tell the difference in a second.
The listener knows which voice is speaking to him and which is not getting remotely close.
No novel with the word “kike” or “bitch” spelled out 200 times could or should be separated —
for purposes of irony or pedagogy — from the attitudes that produced those words. It’s also
impossible that such a novel would be taught in a high school classroom. And if it were taught,
student alienation might very well contribute to another breed of achievement gap.
“Huckleberry Finn” is suited to a college course in which Twain’s obsession with the 19thnytimes.com/2011/01/…/16moore.html…
1/3
1/16/2011
century theater of American hucksterism — the wastrel West, the rapscallion South, the
economic strays and escapees of a harsh new country — can be discussed in the context of Jim’s
particular story (and Huck’s).
An African-American 10th grader, in someone’s near-sighted attempt to get him newly
appreciative of novels, does not benefit by being taken back right then to a time when a young
white boy slowly realizes, sort of, the humanity of a black man, realizes that that black man is
more than chattel even if that black man is also full of illogic and stereotypical superstitions.
Huck Finn refers to himself as an idiot and still finds Jim more foolish than himself. Although
Twain has compassion for the affectionate Jim, he has an interest in burlesque; although he is
sensitive to Jim’s heartbreaking losses, he is always looking for comedy and repeatedly holds
Jim up as a figure of howling fun, ridicule that is specific to his condition as a black man.
The young black American male of today, whose dignity in our public schools is not always
preserved or made a priority, does not need at the start of his literary life to be immersed in an
even more racist era by reading a celebrated text that exuberantly expresses everything crazy
and wicked about that time — not if one’s goal is to get that teenager to like books. Huck’s voice
is a complicated amalgam of idioms and perspectives and is not for the inexperienced
contemporary reader.
There are other books more appropriate for an introduction to serious reading. (“To Kill a
Mockingbird,” with its social-class caricatures and racially naïve narrator, is not one of them.)
Sherman Alexie’s “Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian,” which vibrantly speaks to
every teenager’s predicament when achievement in life is at odds with the demoralized
condition of his peer group, is a welcoming book for boys. There must certainly be others and
their titles should be shared. Teachers I meet everywhere are always asking, How can we get
boys to read? And the answer is, simply, book by book.
One reader’s sensitivity always sets off someone else’s defensiveness. But what would be
helpful are school administrators who will break with tradition and bring more flexibility,
imagination and social purpose to our high school curriculums. College, where the students have
more experience with racial attitudes and literature, can do as it pleases.
Lorrie Moore is the author, most recently, of the novel “A Gate at the Stairs.”
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/16moore.html…
2/3
1/16/2011
nytimes.com/2011/01/…/16moore.html…
3/3
"Huck Finn": Born to Trouble
Author(s): Katherine Schulten
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The English Journal, Vol. 89, No. 2, Our Love Affair with Literature (Nov., 1999), pp.
55-60
Published by: National Council of Teachers of English
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/822140 .
Accessed: 14/02/2012 20:13
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The English Journal.
http://www.jstor.org
o
eOBm
"b
?T-
Huck
Finn:
Born
to
Trouble
KATHERINE SCHULTEN
n 1995, a group of AfricanAmerican students in Cherry Hill, New Jersey-eleventh
graderswho had previouslybeen A students-suddenly began failingtests and quizzes
in their English class. As long as TheAdventuresof HuckleberryFinn was being taught,
they said, they would no longer do the work.U Before assigningit, their teacher had not
mentioned that the book was controversial,nor had she noted the 200-plus instances of the
word "nigger"in the novel. As a result, says one AfricanAmericanstudent, no one was prepared for the power of the word in class. White students would nervously"snicker"or "turn
around and stare" at the few AfricanAmerican
students when the word was read aloud. The
AfricanAmericanstudents,for their part, felt too
self-consciousto speakup or ask their teacherfor
help. Instead,they went home and told their parents. Long frustratedwith the lack of multiculturalcontent in the district'scurriculain general,
their parentsdecided it was time to act. If nothing
changed in CherryHill, one parent recalled,"we
knewwe'd have a firestormon our hands."
This is the story of how the Cherry Hill
school districtrespondedto the formalchallenge
the parentsultimatelybroughtagainstHuckFinn.
Insteadof ignoringthe protestsor takingthe novel
off readinglists and libraryshelves,as manyother
schooldistrictshavedone, this schooldistrictchose
to bringparents,students,teachers,administrators,
andscholarstogetherto negotiatea solution.It took
nearlya yearof emotionaldebateto do it, but in the
end they found a way to teach HuckFinn that addressedeachgroup'sconcerns.AndCherryHill as a
whole, they say,is strongerfor it. The relationship
between the minoritycommunityand the schoolis
strongerand closer."[That's]one of the best things
that came out of this,"says the same parentwho
worriedat first that there would be a "firestorm."
AssistantSuperintendentRichardLevy agrees."It
hasbeen a win-winfor everyone,"he says.
In 1998 staff from public televisionstation
WGBH in Boston heard a presentationabout the
CherryHill experienceat an educationconference.
At the time,WGBHwasbeginningworkon Culture
Shock,a seriesof fourdocumentariesaboutcontroversialartthatwill airon PBS in January/February
2000. One of the films,Bornto Trouble:
Adventures
examines
the
of HuckleberryFinn,
historyof debate
thathas followedthe novelfromthe time it wasfirst
publishedin 1885 to the present.WGBH chose to
feature the CherryHill story as a case study in a
teacher'sguide for the film.The guide recountsthe
storyof the CherryHillchallengeandits resolution,
explainshow CherryHill managedto bringso many
differentgroupsto consensus,and includesan expanded and adaptedversionof the classroomcurriculum.Althoughteachersof HuckFinn will find
the storyespeciallyhelpful,WGBHhopesthateducatorswho are facing challengesover any kind of
controversialmaterialcan learnfrom this community'sexperience.
When WGBH's Educational Print and Outreach Department first asked me to write the
teacher'sguide, I was secretly sure that I would
ENGLISH
journaL
me, but it never could have happenedif the other
people hadn'tbeen so open-minded.
WhatHappenedin CherryHill
MarkTwain.Courtesy of The MarkTwainProject, The Bancroft
Library.
go to Cherry Hill and find more problems than
solutions. As a former English teacher who had
taught Huck Finn many times, I just didn't believe that a curriculumwritten by a committee as
a response to political pressure could possiblybe
worthwhile.At worst I expected it to sacrificeintellectual rigor for well-meaning but simplistic
exercises on multicultural harmony. At best I
thoughtit mightbe high-mindedbut dull. Instead
what I foundwas a curriculumthatis not only sensitivelywritten and intellectuallychallenging,but
also imaginativeand engagingfor students.Huck
Finn had been put in a new context, one that explores the controversy-and with it issues of race,
stereotyping,power,heroism,andself-definitionby embeddingthe traditionalwaysof teachingthe
novel in a richhistoricaland culturalframework.
For severaldaysin Februaryand Marchof
this year I interviewed the different groupsandprofessorsteachers,parents,administrators,
who put the CherryHill curriculumtogether. In
additionto observingit being taught in classes at
the two CherryHill high schools, I took students
andteachersasideandaskedthem whatthey really
thoughtaboutthe curriculum.And whatwas most
remarkableabout the whole experiencewas how
often each group mentioned how much respect
they had come to have for the other groups,especiallygiven how far apartthey had been at the beginning.This is an excellent unit and a wonderful
answerto the community'sdilemma,they all told
0
november1999
CherryHill, New Jersey,is a middle-classcommunity located just across the Delaware River from
Philadelphia.A suburbthatwas nearlyall white in
the early1980s,it is now 20 percentAfricanAmerican, Latino, and Asian. Like many communities,
CherryHill hashadto learnhow to integratedifferent culturesand how to raise consciousnessabout
the perspectivesof minoritiesin a placewhere,until
issues"were onlysomerecently,so-called"minority
to
read
about
in
the
thing
newspaper.In 1996,when
Hill
and
their children first conCherry
parents
fronted teachers and administrators,neither side
believedthey'dever find commonground.
"Thegroupof us andthe teacherssat across
from each other,diametricallyopposed, and there
was so much tension you could cut it with a knife,"
remembers Pat McCargo, parent of one of the
students and a member of the CherryHill Minority Civic Association (CHMCA), the group that
eventually brought the official challenge to the
boardof education.
Concerned about intellectual freedom,
teachers
declared that they would never
many
teach a book as a "tool for politicalpurposes."If
parentswere allowedto dictate how to teach this
book, the teachersasked,where would they draw
the line? But as students rose to speak and told
their teacherswhat they hadn'tbeen able to sayin
class,that readingHuckFinn madethem feel conspicuousand ashamed,"we could actuallysee the
teachersputtingthemselvesin the kids'shoes,"says
parent Bill McCargo."Whatwe found wasn't so
he adds. "At
much racism as misunderstanding,"
last
understood."
they finally
long
For all the groups,the mostimportantthing
to come out of that firstmeetingwas an agreement
thatno one wantedto ban the book.Therewas also
consensusthat studentlearningwas the firstpriority, beyond the philosophicalquestionsof censorship and intellectual freedom. As parent Danny
Elmorecommentedat the time, "If[students]shut
down,we haven'tdone anything."
A committee representingeach group was
formed,anda readinglistaddressingthe controversy
was created. Three AfricanAmericanprofessors
fromnearbyVillanovaUniversity,each an expertin
Africanstudies,AfricanAmericanhistory,or nineteenth centuryliterature,were invitedto workwith
the committee.In the end, it was decided that not
only would a new curriculumbe written,but all
CherryHill teacherswishingto teach the novel in
the futurewould be requiredto attend a one-day
workshopgiven by the Villanovaprofessors.There
theywouldbe giventhe historical,cultural,andliteraryresourcesto see the novelin a new light.
As a former English teacher who
had taught Huck Finn many times,
I just didn't believe that a
curriculum written by a committee
as a response to political pressure
could possibly be worthwhile.
On the night in 1997 when the committee
presentedits finalreportto the boardof education,
camefromstationsallover
televisionphotographers
New Jersey."Theywere expectinga big fight,"says
RichardLevy."Whatthey foundwas a resolutionto
a verychallengingproblem."
Creatingthe Curriculum
The CherryHill curriculumwas primarilydeveloped by English teachers Matthew Carr and
Sandy Forchion. They worked throughout the
summerof 1997 to balancethe interestsof all the
groups while creating something that would remain true to the meaning of the novel and, most
importantly, would work in the high school classroom. Sandy's position was unique: "I was a black
English teacher who was against censorship but
who had despised the way Huck Finn was taught
to me when I was in school." Matt says that his desire to get involved hinged on learning early on
that this challenge to Huck Finn was "not just
some current 'PC' thing" but an issue that had
been raised continuously over the last forty years.
"I realized this was long-term and had caused
deep-rootedangerand pain,"he says.
The CHMCA officiallyobjected to Huck
Finn on the groundsthat "theprejudicialeffect of
the racialcharacterizationsoutweigh any literary
value that the book might have."This objectionis
sharedby most of the challengesbroughtagainst
the book since 1957, when the NAACP charged
that HuckFinn contained"racialslurs"and "belittling racialdesignations."Since then, the book has
been called "racist"for both the pervasiveuse of
the word "nigger"and its portrayalof blacksthat is
consideredstereotypicaland demeaning.
CherryHill parentshad additionalworries.
Most importantly,they were concerned that Jim
wouldneverseem like a truehero to AfricanAmerican childrenbecausehe does not resistslavery.As
Sandynotes, "Jimis not heroicto blackkids.In the
end he is being controlledby a whiteboy.He is not
a man, he is an emasculatedman. They [the students]wantto see Nat Turner."
"Wetriedto translatethe parents'concerns
into our curriculum,"says Sandy."Welooked for
demeaningareas,placeswhere studentsmightfind
the portrayalof blackslaughable."Theythen countered these passageswith documentsfromthe period that give additionalbackground.They believe
studentswill be less likelyto dismissJim'ssuperstitions as simple-minded,for example,if they understandthem in the contextof slavelife and religion.
Endingthe unitwith a lookat slavenarratives,such
as FrederickDouglass'sautobiography,Narrative
of the Life of Frederick Douglass, helps students
look at formsof resistanceand opens a discussion
aboutwhether"wearinga mask,"as Jimdoes, is as
valida formof resistanceas anyother.
The resulting curriculum (see appendix)
was writtenspecificallyto respondto these objections. MostEnglishteacherswill recognizethatthe
heartof the curriculumstill dealswith most of the
literaryaspectsof HuckFinn thathavetraditionally
been taught. The curriculum is divided into six sections and can be taught, depending on the needs of
the class, as a six to eight week unit. Each section
contains its own bibliography, with recommended
readings for teachers and students; a series of discussion questions; and a variety of hands-on classroom activities. (Huck Finn In Context:A Teaching
Guide presents the complete curriculum,as adapted
by WGBH, and includes an extensive bibliography
and teaching tips.) Instructors can choose from a
ENGLISH
journaL
range of resources and activitiesfor each major
topic coveredin each section.
taught.Althoughshe is only halfwaythroughthe
curriculumat this writing,Sandybelieves they've
changedtheirminds.She sees an intense"thoughtin
New
the
the
Classroom
Curriculum
fulness"on the faces of most of her studentsthatis
Using
markedlydifferentfrom the way they seemed to
Becauseit is onlyin its firstyearof use, the Cherry
experienceotherbooks."Isee them lookingat me,
Hill teachers emphasize that their curriculumis
noddingtheir heads, attentivein a differentway,"
still "awork in progress,"but in the classes I obshe notes. "Oneyoungladyapproachedme aftera
served, students seemed eager and interested. class [on the historicalroots of racism]and said,
"Knowingaboutthe controversybeforehandis def'Therereallyis a lot to this,isn'tthere?'AndI know
initelymakingme morecuriousas I read,"one stu- justwhatshe means."
dent saidas his classbeganthe unit.
AfterI interviewedMattCarr'sjuniors,one
Although some students complained that of the firstgroupsof studentsto finishthe new curthe controversyseemed overblownin the firstplace riculum,the mainweaknessI detectedwasthatthe
("We don't get enough credit for understanding connectionsbetween the different sections were
things.We could have read it without all of this," not necessarilyclearto the students.(Thishasbeen
one commented),manyseemed to appreciatethe
addressedin the WGBH version of the curricurichercontextof the new curriculum.One student lum.) But Matt now
reportsthat his students,retold me it was the first time in his predominantly
at
the
end
of
the yearon two semestersof
flecting
white school experiencethat he thoughtseriously Americanliterature, HuckFinn and Narrative
say
about race. As they read the novel, he said, "I reof the Lifeof FrederickDouglasswere the mostinmemberlookingaroundthe classroomfor the first
terestingandeffectivetextsthey readallyear.They
time andthinking[howit mightfeel to reada book] also seem to have made connectionsthat are befrom a differentbackgroundbesides white."Anyond what Matthad hoped. "Onekey thingwe've
other studentsaid,"Ithinkthe impactof this book workedon all
Americanconyearis the particularly
is in the discomfortthe readersfeel... HuckFinn
of
self-definition-that
[America]is the place
cept
is perfectto readif it'staughtcorrectly.In this class where
of
can
take
control
yourself,of language,
you
we learnedthroughsympathy."
and shapeyourown destiny.Teaching[thesetexts]
In Sandy'sclass several students-African in this new context
reallyallowedthem to see that.
American,white, and Asian-said, after learning Manyof them spoke of Huck and FrederickDouaboutthe controversy(butbeforereadingthe book
glassas metaphorsfor reclaimingthe sense of self,"
itself), that they thought the book should not be
Mattsays.
AlthoughCherryHill teacherssay they will
continueto "tinker"with the curriculum,they also
saythey are "verysatisfied"with how it hasworked
in the classroomits firstyear.Nearlyall the teachers in the districtseem to feel the new curriculum
is both rich and balanced,even thoughsome have
declined to teach the book. One of these teachers
butwon'tteach
findsthe new curriculum"brilliant"
the bookbecause,he says,"Ifwe takeawaythe En-
"Huckon Raft."Illustrator:Elliott Banfield for WGBH.
m
novemBer 1999
glish teacher's ability to apply judgment to a work
of literature, we're just delivery machines. .. we
might as well be on videotape."
Although Matt and Sandy sympathize with
this point of view, Sandy says, "For me it's hard to
understand those teachers who don't want to
change, even after kids come to you and say they're
hurt and want to stay out of class. How can you not
find a way to address that?" Other teachers felt
strongly enough about Huck Finn remaining in the
high school canon to try the new curriculum.As
Marge Kraemer,English teacher at Cherry Hill
West, puts it, "I'dratherchange my approachto a
novel thanlose the rightto teachit."
And at least one teacher who was initially
wary of what she saw as "sensitivitytraining"is
now grateful."I'mglad I had to do this,"she says.
"I didn'tthinkI needed [the workshop],but it did
makeme more sensitive.Racismis the worstproblem in our society.I wantto teachthe kidsto be heroes the way Huck is a hero when he tearsup that
letter and realizesthat Jim is a man. Like Huck,
they haveto learnto makedecisionsby themselves,
no matterwhatour societysays."
Notes
1. CultureShock,which will air on PBS in January/
February2000, is a seriesof fourdocumentariesthatexamines
andcelebratesthe artsandtheirrolein society.Bornto Trouble:
Adventuresof HuckleberryFinnpresentsthe 100-yearold historyof the controversysurroundingthe novel.TheShockof the
Nude:Manet'sOlympialooksat the scandalthatsurroundedthe
Paris1865 exhibitionof one of Manet'smost famouspaintings.
TheDevil'sMusic:1920sJazz exploresthe resistancejazzfaced
in its earlyyearsandhow it cameto be acceptedas anAmerican
classic.HollywoodCensored:Movies,Morality& the Production Codelooksat the impactof moviesandwhetheror not their
contentcanreflector causesocialbehavior.
2. Huck Finn in Context:A TeachingGuide will be
availablefree in October1999 fromWGBH,EducationalPrint
andOutreach,125WesternAvenue,Boston,MA02134.(ACultureShockteacher'sguideis alsoavailable.)
A HuckFinncoursepack, containingthe guide, the videotapeof Born to Trouble:
Adventuresof HuckleberryFinn, and reprintsof the recommendedreadingsfor the curriculumwill be availablein February2000 at cost by writingto WGBHat the aboveaddress.
Works Cited
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of Frederick
Douglass, an American Slave. 1845. The Classic
Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis Gates Jr. New
York:Penguin, 1987. 245-331.
Jacobs, Harriet.Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl. 1861.
The Classic Slave Narratives. Ed. Henry Louis
Gates Jr.New York:Penguin, 1987. 335-515.
Selected Bibliography of Articles
and Books Used in the "Huck Finn
in Context" Curriculum
Champion, Laurie, ed. The Critical Response to Mark
Twain's "HuckleberryFinn." Ed. Laurie Champion. New York:Greenwood Press, 1991.
Dudley, William, ed. African Americans: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego: GreenhavenPress, 1997.
Gates, Henry Louis Jr., ed. The Classic Slave Narratives.
New York:Penguin, 1987.
Goodheart, Lawrence, ed. Slavery in American Society.
Lexington,MA:D.C. Heath & Co., 1992.
Johnson, Claudia Durst. Understanding "Adventuresof
HuckleberryFinn":A Student Casebookto Issues,
Sources, and Historical Documents.Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1996.
Jordan,Winthrop.The White Man'sBurden:HistoricalOrigins of Racism in the United States. New York:Oxford UP, 1993.
Leonard, James S., Thomas A. Tenney, and Thadious M.
Davis, eds. Satireor Evasion?BlackPerspectiveson
"HuckleberryFinn."Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1992.
Mintz, Steven, ed. AfricanAmericanVoices:The Life Cycle
of Slavery. St. James, NY:BrandywinePress, 1993.
1-28.
Mullane, Deirdre, ed. Crossing the Danger Water: Three
Hundred Yearsof African-AmericanWriting.New
York:Doubleday, 1993.
KATHERINESCHULTENtaught high school English in
Brooklyn,New York,for ten years. She is currentlyan educationalconsultantfor Venturesin Education.
APPENDIX: THE "Huck Finn in Context" Curriculum
Section I: Exploring the Controversy
Essential as an introductionto the curriculum,this section uses discussionquestions and activitiesto preparestudents before
they read the novel for the racialissues they will encounter.It also includes a brief historyof the controversyand an introduction to issues of censorshipand intellectualfreedom;a suggested lesson on the word "nigger"and its connotations(which
can also be used with any other work in which epithets are an issue); and activitiesthat connect the
controversyover Huck
Finn to other arts controversies.
Section II: Behind the Mask: Exploring Stereotypes
This section tackles the charge that Jim is more a stereotype than a fully realized character.Students look at the historical
roots of AfricanAmericanplantationstereotypessuch as "Sambo"and "Nat"throughreadingsor by
watching MarlonRiggs's
ENGLISH
journaL
classic documentaryEthnic Notions. To add a contemporaryangle, one of the activitiessuggests that students comparesome
of these stereotypeswith currentportrayalsof AfricanAmericans.
Section III: The Development of Character in Huck Finn
The conventionalapproachto teaching Huck Finn assumes that Huck is the hero and center of the storyand considersJim
primarilyin relationto Huck and his moralgrowth.Althoughboth Huck and Jim are thoroughlyexploredin this section, students are here asked to consider a new paradigm-that Jimis the centralcharacter,the one who humanizes Huck and allows
him, in the words of MaghanKeita,one of the Villanovaprofessors,"torise to heroic proportions."Studentsassess Jimby applying what they have learned about stereotypes,and throughactivitiesin which, for example,they write or role play scenes
from Jim'spoint of view ratherthan Huck's.
Section IV: The Novel as Satire
This section exploressatireas a literarydevice throughthe lens of the controversy.Questions about authorialintent, Huck as
narrator,and Twain'ssatire as commentaryon a slaveholdingsociety are all considered in thinkingabout whether or not the
novel is racist.Students also look closely againat the use of "nigger"in the novel.
Section V: Reclaiming the Self: the Legacy of Slavery
The CherryHill teachers feel that ending the unit with slave narrativessuch as Douglass'sNarrativeof the Life of Frederick
Douglass or Incidentsin the Life of a Slave Girl by HarrietJacobsis essentialto teachingthe novel in a fullercontext. Manyof
the teachers say it is one of the most successfulaspects of the unit. Students respondvery stronglyto Douglass or Jacobsand
use their writingsto look back at Twain'snovel. Activitiesconcentrateon bringingout the rich connectionsbetween the texts.
Section VI: Final Projects
To wrap up the unit, students choose final projects from a varietyof possibilities, from putting MarkTwainor the book on
trial, to writing an updated Huck and Jim story,to makinga presentationto a board of education for or againstthe book, to
tracingthe legacy of slaverytoday.
m
novemBer
1999
The Nigger Huck: Race, Identity, and the Teaching of Huckleberry Finn
Author(s): John Alberti
Reviewed work(s):
Source: College English, Vol. 57, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 919-937
Accessed: 14/02/2012 20:15
College English.
919
THE NIGGER HUCK: RACE, IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING OF
HUCKLEBERRY FINN
John Alberti
is ofparabecame
WhatAfricanism
in, theliteraryimagination
for,andhowitfunctioned
a
look
at
todiscover
close
it maybepossible
mountinterestbecause
literary"blackthrough
Whatis it for?Whatpartsdo
ness,"thenature-eventhecause-ofliterary"whiteness."
detheinventionanddevelopment
of whatis loosely
playin theconstruction
of whiteness
as "American"?
scribed
ToniMorrison,Playingin theDark:Whiteness
andtheLiteraryImagination
Well,if everI struckanythinglikeit, I'ma nigger.It wasenoughtomakea bodyashamed
of thehumanrace.
MarkTwain,Adventures
Finn
ofHuckleberry
helleyFisherFishkin'srecentbook, WasHuckBlack?,exploresthe influenceof
African-Americanculture and language on the creation of Huckleberry Finn
as both novel and character. In explaining her approach, she points out that
until recently, "by limiting their field of inquiry to the periphery,"white scholars "have missed the ways in which African-Americanvoices shaped Twain's creative imagination at its core" (4). She links her study of Twain to the more general
"need to revise our understanding of the nature of the mainstream American literary tradition" and credits Twain with helping to "open American literature to the
multiculturalpolyphony that is its birthright and special strength" (4, 5). This effort
to overcome the cultural separation and segregation in the study of American
literature has many of its roots, as Fishkin points out, in the work of AfricanAmerican scholars and critics, and constitutes one of the central aims of multiculturalism. Fishkin's work is testament to the freshness of insight such an approach
brings to the study and teaching of even the most heavily interpreted of texts.
If, however, as Fishkin argues (following Ralph Ellison and Toni Morrison),
HuckleberryFinn can be used to demonstrate the interrelatedness of white and black
American culture, the book is also profoundly about separation and the construcJohn Alberti is an assistant professor of American literature at Northern Kentucky University. He is
the editor of The Canonin the Classroom:PedagogicalImplicationsof CanonRevisionin AmericanLiterature
(1994) and the Instructor's Guide to the second edition of the Heath Anthologyof AmericanLiterature.
He is currently working on the application of rhetorical and cultural studies approaches to multicultural
pedagogy.
COLLEGE ENGLISH,
VOLUME 57, NUMBER 8, DECEMBER 1995
920
COLLEGE ENGLISH
tion of racial difference, issues evoked by the brutal epithet that haunts the pages
of this supposedly All-American epic: "nigger."Indeed, the emergence of the latest movements toward multiculturalism in general and the modern study of
African-American culture in particular-the historical developments that make a
book like Fishkin's possible-parallels historically the controversy begun in the
1950s over Twain'suse of the term "nigger"in HuckleberryFinn. Rather than try to
explain the term away or simply condemn the book, I want to look at the use of
"nigger"in HuckleberryFinn as central to the operation of this text in American culture and the American classroom and to regard HuckleberryFinn as a kind of meditation on the word "nigger," as an attempt by Twain to explore the construction
and maintenance of racial identity. My goal, however, is not to come to a determination of some essential quality of the book or author (was Twain or is Huckleberry
Finn "racist"?)but instead to see what this approach tells us about our own historical and pedagogical moment as part of the reception history of the book-its enshrinement as an American "classic"and its subsequent appearance as a standard
required text in the classroom. In asking, for example, why Huck is unable to relinquish the word "nigger" in referring to Jim, in spite of the supposed growth of
their friendship, I also want to ask how particular readers respond or have responded to that word. Most specifically, what do the excuses and explanations offered in justification of Twain's use of the word "nigger," the attempts to control
the discussion of how race operates in the novel and in the classroom, tell us about
the investment Huck and his white critics, teachers, and readers have in the book
and in the word, and what implications does such an analysis have for discussions
of race in the classroom?
Although dismissed by some as an example of a newly faddish "political correctness," the controversy over the use of "nigger" in HuckleberryFinn goes back
almost forty years and is in many ways a product of the efforts at school desegregation brought about by the civil rights movement and the Supreme Court ruling
in Brown v. Board of Education. The changing demographic and political realities
created by these historical developments brought a new group of readers and critics into formerly all-white educational institutions. For many black schoolchildren,
particularlyin integrated or semi-integrated classrooms, the insistent repetition of
the term "nigger" in HuckleberryFinn caused pain, anger, and humiliation, and led
organizations like the NAACP and other sympathetic parties to question the purpose of requiring children to read the work.
Responses from the academic establishment to such challenges ranged from
the puzzled to the dismissive. A classic move in defense of the book, then and now,
has been to lump all nonacademic critics of the book together as extremists and
"censors" (Robert Sattelmeyer, for example, refers ominously to "organized
groups" [3] who have attacked the novel), thus equating the complaints about the
book's "coarseness"from the genteel bourgeois trustees of the Concord Public Li-
RACE, IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
braryin the 1880s with more recent objectionsbased on race and civil rights.
Clearly,though,such blanketdismissalsobscurereal and importantdifferencesin
historicalcontextandpoliticalreality.The bookhasbeen defendedagainstcharges
of racism,for example,by the likes of George Will and RonaldReagan,readers
and "decency"
whose generaladvocacyof school texts that promote"patriotism"
concerns
of the ninein
with
the
moralistic
common
seem
to
have
more
might
teenth-centuryConcordlibrarycommitteethanwith moderncivil libertarians(it
is also hard to imagineany other situationin which conservativecommentators
would defendthe inclusionin school curriculaof a workthat containedover two
hundredinstancesof any other brutalobscenity,regardlessof the overallartistic
purposeof the work).
voicesinto the criticaldiscusOne resultof the entranceof African-American
sion of the book has been to point out the arrogance,ignorance,and naiveteof
Finn. PeachesHenry, for example,
many otherwisesubtle readersof Huckleberry
shows how the defensesof the book offeredby Nat Hentoff,JustinKaplan,and
Leslie Fiedlerin reactionto the controversyover the term "nigger""illustratethe
incapacityof non-blacksto comprehendthe enormousemotionalfreightattached
to the hate word 'nigger'for each blackperson"(30). Robert Nadeau'scondeFinnis a MoralStory"is typscendingremarkin his "TheAdventures
ofHuckleberry
ical: "Butit might help to explainto those students[who objectto the term]that
in slavestatesthe wordwasmerelythe ordinarycolloquialtermfor a slave,andnot
necessarilyabusive"(141). The largerimplicationof Nadeau'sremarks,that slavery itselfwas"notnecessarilyabusive,"raisesnew questionsinsteadof defusingthe
controversy.It is alsoa pedagogicalcommentthatseemsstrangelydistantfromthe
demographicrealitiesof the contemporaryAmericanclassroom.
Manyotherrecentcritics,bothwhite andblack,havealsopointedto the level
of white fantasyinvolvedin discussionsof the characterof Jim and more specificallythe relationshipbetweenHuckandJim.HaroldBeaverandForrestRobinson,
in particular,
eachpointto the sentimentalnaiveteof whitereaderswho simplytake
Jim's declarationof affectionfor Huck at face value, thus ignoring the fact that
throughoutthe bookJim is involvedin his own plansfor escapeandthatHuck alwaysremainsa threatto those plans.Beaver'sand Robinson'smore skepticalperspectives,for example,makeus regardJim'sstatementin chapter16 that he was
secretly"a-listenin'to all de talk"while Huck lied theirway out of the unwanted
attentionsof two men in a skiffas a sign of Jim'scautionandsuspicionas much as
his attentivenessandgratitudetowardHuck (128).
The increased albeit piecemeal integration of American education since the
1950s, however, has given many older Twain scholars pause. The prominent Twain
scholarJames Cox admits that he would now have second thoughts about teaching
HuckleberryFinn: "I know in my heart that, if I were teaching an American literature course in Bedford Stuyvesant or Watts or North Philadelphia, I might well
921
922
COLLEGE ENGLISH
find myself choosing TomSawyer or A ConnecticutYankeerather than Huckleberry
Finn to represent Mark Twain" (388). The assumption, though, is that this story
would somehow be easier to teach in a racially homogeneous (that is, all white)
class, or that it was easier to teach when such homogeneity could be counted on in
the classroom. The controversy over the use of "nigger"in HuckleberryFinn, however, should make us question this assumption as well and ask why the word wasn't
a "problem"before. After all, racism may be a problemfor African-Americansand
other people of color, but it is a problem of white Americans, and classroom practice shows that the term "nigger,"along with Twain'scharacterizationofJim, is just
as problematic in a predominantly or all white classroom as it is in an integrated or
predominantly black classroom, if not more so.
The question of Jim's dialect provides an example of what I mean. There is a
long critical history in response to Twain'sexplanatorynote at the front of the book
concerning his attempts at recreating regional-and racial-dialects in Huckleberry
Finn. The strongest such efforts (Fishkin; Smith; Woodard and MacCann) not only
explore the various sources available to Twain but also directly confront the question of how Twain's love of minstrel shows-what Twain called "the real nigger
show-the genuine nigger show, the extravagantnigger show"-influenced his creation of the character of Jim (qtd. Bell 127). Critics have argued whether and to
what extent Twain's portrayal of Jim manages to transcend or ironically transform
the minstrel aspects ofJim's character,but pedagogical practice brings up a performative aspect of the question that complicates any discussion of Twain'sirony. Put
simply, in teaching the novel every instructor must decide how to read aloud Jim's
character.Jim's is the most heavily marked, most obviously "nonstandard"dialect
in the book, and first-time readers will often express their difficulty in understanding him. In reading aloud, the instructor must decide how to perform this racially
coded dialect. In effect, a white instructor reading out loud a white writer's comic
attempts at depicting what Twain calls "the Missouri Negro dialect" runs the risk
of becoming a kind of minstrel performer him or herself, whatever the racial demographics of the classroom (although such demographics will surely affect how
an individual instructor approaches this problem).
There are no easy or obvious answers to this pedagogical dilemma. One stratof
egy, course, is to make this problem a part of class discussion, and the more helpful defenses of HuckleberryFinn advocate seeing the novel as a teaching opportunity,
as a chance for opening in the classroom a dialogue about racism. However, the
multicultural classroom raises questions about what exactly we can learn about
racism from HuckleberryFinn. Thomas Inge's response is instructive both for its dismissive tone and for the assumptions embodied in it about who the novel is being
taught to:
To the sensitivereader,suchcharges[of racism]are amazing,becausethe novel remainsin Americancultureone of the worksmost challengingto racialbigotry,so-
RACE,
IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY
FINN
cialandpoliticalhypocrisy,andmoralcompromise.There is anintegrityat the heart
of the novel that cannothelp but touch the reader,and if any workof art has the
powerto exerta positiveinfluence,then surelythis one does. (ix-x)
Aside from the loaded term "sensitive reader,"this response makes us wonder just
what this positive influence might be-and most important, who is supposed to be
influenced. This only makes sense if we presuppose a white readership that needs
lessons in the immorality (or even existence) of racial bigotry, or that needs to learn
to see African-Americansas fully human. At the same time, Inge's response might
seem to suggest that readers who do raise questions about the impact of "nigger"
in the classroom are guilty of being both insensitive and too sensitive.
Nat Hentoff's defense of the novel provides another example of the often contradictory messages given in recommending the novel as morally instructive. In a
Nightline debate over whether the book should be required classroom reading,
Hentoff invokes the teaching defense: the novel explores questions of racial discrimination that should be at the heart of American education ("Huckleberry
Finn:
Literature or Racist Trash?").When faced with the question of whether in fact most
or many teachers are adequately prepared to lead such a discussion, Hentoff concedes the point, offering an anecdote about a teacher in Texas who tried to initiate
such a discussion by asking the class "What is a nigger?"The class response was for
all of the white students to turn their heads and silently look at the few black students. Hentoff admits that such an approach is disastrous and suggests that the
teacher should have been summarily fired. This is a curious response indeed from
a First Amendment advocate, and one not likely to persuade other teachers to follow his suggestion that they make race a focus of class discussion.
By framing his defense of HuckleberryFinn in didactic pedagogical terms, Inge
also opens the question of whether HuckleberryFinn is in fact "one of the works
most challenging to racial bigotry" in American literature. If such a challenge is
what we want, any number of works might also fit the bill: The Narrative of the Life
ofFrederickDouglass,Incidentsin theLife of a Slave Girl, InvisibleMan, Beloved.Moreover, HuckleberryFinn is especially problematic in fulfilling this morally exemplary
function because the title characterand first-person narratorhimself pointedly fails
to transcend racism by the novel's end.
The epigraph from Toni Morrison suggests a different approach to the text,
one that views it not as an exemplary challenge to bigotry, however much it can be
made to fit that purpose, but as a key text in the exploration of the attractions of
bigotry and racism, an exploration tied to the reasons "nigger" remains so attractive to Huck in the text and has troubled so few white critics of the book. The hapless teacher in Hentoff's anecdote was getting at an important question-or rather,
if she made a mistake, it was in limiting the question, for the question "What is a
'nigger'?"is inextricably bound up in the question "What is a white person?" and
these questions perhaps make more sense as a translation of Huck's conflict into the
923
924
COLLEGE ENGLISH
contemporary American classroom than more abstract considerations of how the
novel exposes a kind of ahistorical "social and political hypocrisy."
Addressing these questions in the text means discussing the subject positions
of readers-in particular,those of teachers and students in the classroom. One way
to begin is by asking just what we mean when we identify ourselves or others according to racial codes, whether "white," "black,""yellow,""brown,"or "red,"in
the first place. One of the remarkable aspects of the construction of whiteness in
the United States is the way it allows people to find some kind of kinship across
barriersof time, language, religion, and social class solely on the basis of perceived
racial unity. I teach at a predominantly white, working-class school, and I am always struck by the immediate identification many "white" students have with the
"white" characters in texts which are otherwise difficult and historically distant,
works such as Cabeza de Vaca'sRelationsor the captivity narrative of Mary Rowlandson. This identification occurs even when the use of the social marker "white"
may be anachronistic, even when students are separated from these characters by
barriers of gender, ethnicity, and language, and even when they may be critical of
the actions of these "white" characters.
This same identification holds true when my students read HuckleberryFinn.
When considering the relation between Huck and Jim, most students will immediately align themselves on one side or the other of the color line, even when denouncing prejudice or bigotry. In fact, such an alignment is often a necessary
precondition of making any such judgments. All this of course should not be surprising, but it is significant how little this aspect of the reception of the novel was
discussed before various "resistingreaders"(to borrowJudith Fetterley's term) such
as Ralph Ellison brought attention to it. If HuckleberryFinn is going to serve as a
means of discussing race in the classroom, then we must start with the constructions of race we bring to the class: How do we define ourselves racially?If you define yourself as "white," how do you know that's what you are, and what do you
mean by such a definition? What investment might Huck or his readers have in
maintaining a color line in the novel, even while supposedly coming to recognize
Jim's "humanity"?For in spite of lessons Huck seems to learn in the novel and the
actions he takes ("humbling"himself before Jim; swearing to help Jim at the cost
of his own salvation), Huck never overcomes the use of the term "nigger."Asking
questions about why this is so, what benefits Huck derives from maintaining this
racial distinction, ties in with a discussion of what that term would mean both to
Twain's 1880s audience and to readers today.
Neil Schmitz has pointed out that in spite of their partnership, Huck and Jim
"have different ideas of where they want to go and what their flight means, points
of view that come increasingly into conflict in the first part of the novel" (100),
since in "a very real sense, Jim's freedom means the termination of [Huck's] own,
the abandonment of the raft and the river for concrete realities in Illinois" (105).
RACE,
IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY
FINN
While Huck's goal may seem simply escapist, Jim's escape is inherently political
and social: he wishes to change the legal and cultural definition of his personhood
and those of his wife and children. To do this in the narrow sense involves crossing
into a "free"state, but as the imposition of Jim Crow during Reconstruction made
clear, a larger sense of freedom would involve the reconstruction of social categories of race, status, and power, and such a definition of freedom would create a
larger, more complex dilemma for Huck and, by extension, for any "white"readers
identifying with Huck: the loss of their "white" identity. Simple friendship is one
thing, but social and political solidarity with Jim would threaten Huck's status as
"white," a position particularly vulnerable because of Huck's own marginal class
status. In helping Jim, Huck at the same time is trying to avoid becoming a "nigger" himself.
Anxiety over racial identity has always been a defining feature of the historical
construction of racism in the British American colonies and later the United States.
Such anxiety is in fact the strongest evidence that race is indeed a social construct,
subject to historic variations and thus alwaysinherently unstable. It is crucial to understand and take into account the material basis of both the initial construction of
the racial ideology of the U.S. and its historical development and transformation,
not only for interpreting HuckleberryFinn in the narrow sense but also for examining how various readers, both professional and amateur,have found and find themselves implicated in the novel's concern with racial identity. Most crucially,we need
to look at how the construction of race theory and the development of racism in
the West was linked to efforts to justify slavery not only by creating a permanent
servant class but also by creating an ideological barrierbetween work seen as "slave"
labor and the work of indentured servants and other menial workers. Indeed, the
first explicitly race-based slave laws in seventeenth-century Virginia were drafted in
part to counteract confederacies, both political and sexual, among African and European indentured servants (Zinn 31; Morgan).
Thus, from the beginning, the construction of race has served to counteract
tensions arising from class inequalities and to prevent class solidarity."[R]acialprivilege could and did serve as a compensation for class disadvantage"for workers classified as "white,"and the legal abolition of slavery could only intensify the need to
mollify workers now finding themselves in potential competition with AfricanAmericans (Fredrickson, WhiteSupremacy87). Fredrickson goes on to describe how
the creation of "a powerful set of anti-Negro attitudes"in order to justify race slavery could, after the Civil War, still serve "the psychological needs of white groups
in a competitive free-labor society" (The BlackImage 41). Indeed, these needs have
been among the most important factors contributing to the persistence of racism
to this day, but they are more than psychological; they also carry with them a material dependence on the benefits of racial privilege, however marginal these benefits may be at times.
925
926
COLLEGE ENGLISH
Thus, the identification along racial lines that students and teachers make with
fictional charactersand historical actions necessarily involves this question of racial
privilege, even when such identification is used as a means of criticism. A student
writing in response to The Narrative of the Life of FrederickDouglassthat she feels
"ashamed for what we did to the slaves" condemns the actions of a group of people she nevertheless claims solidarity with, solely on racial grounds. The opposite
reaction often encountered in class, the appeal to historical distance ("I don't have
any slaves, I'm not responsible for what happened back then, therefore racism isn't
my problem") reveals in its defensiveness a desire, however unconscious, to maintain "white" status and its concomitant privilege while seeming to deny any such
identification.
Keeping this inexorable cultural dynamic linking the construction of race and
economic privilege in mind, let us consider the pedagogical implications of discussing the status of marginal "white"figures in HuckleberryFinn by looking at Pap
Finn's rant about what he sees as the erosion of racial privilege. Many critics have
cited these passages as unequivocal denunciations of racism in HuckleberryFinn,
since the overstated illogic of Pap's argument clearly marks him as an object of
Twain'ssatire. It is significant, though, that Pap is not only condemning "that nigger" but also the white government that allows a black man to cross the boundary
between free and slave:
"Here'sa govmentthatcallsitselfa govment,andlets on to be a govment,andthinks
it is a govment,andyet'sgot to set stock-stillfor sixwholemonthsbeforeit cantake
aholdof a prowling,thieving,infernal,white-shirtedfreenigger.. ." (34)
Pap's racist harangue in fact develops out of his complaints against another "whiteshirt," Judge Thatcher, who is denying Pap his "property"in the person of Huck
and thus his chance to be "one of the wealthiest men in this town, if I could git my
rights" (33). Instead, the "law backs that old Judge Thatcher up and helps him to
keep me out o' my property" (33). Pap's anger, then, has two targets, one based in
class, the other in race.
Equally important to note in Pap's speech is that the "nigger"in question is in
fact described by Pap as "a mulatter, most as white as a white man" (33). Susan
Gilman's reading of Pudd'nheadWilsonfocuses on how the figure of the mulatto in
that work exposes anxieties over race and social control not only in Twain's contemporary audience but also in Twain himself, and her analysis has clear implications for the reading and teaching of HuckleberryFinn:
[Twain'suse of doubleness]raise[s]a fundamentalquestion:whetherone can tell
people apart,differentiateamongthem. Withoutsuch differentiation,socialorder,
predicatedas it is on division-of class, race, gender-is threatened.Thus Mark
Twain,championof the subversive,alsochampionedthe lawas one agentof control
thatresolvesconfusionsaboutidentity,restoringandenforcingthe fundamentaldistinctionsof society.(5)
RACE, IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
The object of Pap's scorn, then, creates anxiety in Pap through a variety of mixed
signals: legally "black,"the man is an "old gray-headed nabob" with a "gold watch
and chain, and a silver headed cane," who is a "p'fessorin a college, and could talk
all kinds of languages" (33-34). The professor, then, brings Pap's class anger and
the race hatred he uses as compensation for that anger into what is for Pap an intolerable conflict, a conflict he mitigates through alcoholism and child abuse.
The point of such an explication of Pap's speeches is to demonstrate how this
passage can be used to draw important connections between Pap's marginal class
status and his racism, as well as the contradictions inherent in his racial selfidentification: his simultaneous condemnation and envy of class privilege in the
person ofJudge Thatcher and his subsequent identification on the basis of race with
those he perceives as denying any such identification with him in return. Clearly,
the complexity of the analysis necessary to elicit an understanding of Pap beyond
simple repugnance should make us wary of the easy assumption that the simple assignment of HuckleberryFinn will automatically and inevitably challenge the attitudes of students-particularly white-identifying students-toward race.
In fact, even such a close reading presupposes a kind of distance from Pap, not
only in historical terms but also in terms of personal implication in the logic of race,
as if Pap's concerns with status, both economic and social, are not also shared by
the students in our classes, and by ourselves as teachers. As I implied above, many
student readers of Pap react to him with disgust and show little desire to consider
his case more deeply. We might want to read this condemnation of Pap as an indicator of how alien a figure he is to many students, but a closer analysis of that disgust allows us to see how in many ways the racial issues raised by Pap hit closer to
home than they do in the supposedly more sympathetic figure of Huck. The reactions of some white-identifying students to Pap, for example, indicate a desire to
see Pap as atypical, not a true representative of "white people," while some students, particularlybut not exclusively students identified as "nonwhite,"will recoil
from Pap as precisely all too typical of "white" attitudes. Thus, our students' dismissal of Pap as a racist, a point on which we may easily find unanimity, can in practice prevent a more consequential discussion of the construction of race, namely
one that focuses on the connections between wishing to retain "white"status while
dismissing Pap from the white race and Pap's own confusion about whether to see
Judge Thatcher as a class enemy or a racial compatriot.
Such an approach also helps us to understandwhy Huck has been and remains
such a controversial role model. Before arguing about whether Huck's behavior is
exemplary or not, we need to understand how concerns over status and race not
only propel the narrativeof the text but also provide the context for student reader
responses. If Huck is torn between conflicting loyalties in HuckleberryFinn, the
conflict is not only between self and society, or, in Twain'sterms (as echoed in the
title of Henry Nash Smith's famous essay), between a "sound heart and a deformed
927
928
COLLEGE ENGLISH
conscience." Huck's two options-aiding Jim in his escape or turningJim in-represent two different sources of personal empowerment. Helping Jim escape is not
just an act of friendship; as Huck realizes, it is a profoundly political and revolutionary act, branding Huck as a "low down Ablitionist" (one of the few overtly political references in the work), and involving him not just in the eradication of race
slavery, but in efforts at the social reconstruction of race (52). Turning Jim in will
win him not only the approbation of the white community, but it will also secure
his white status and clarify his own position as a non-slave.
Throughout the novel, Huck is nothing if not class-conscious. Mark Egan
points out that "Huck's terminology... is worth noting as evidence of social attitudes. 'People' are reasonably affluent whites-Tom Sawyer'sfamily, for example.
'Folks,' on the other hand, are destitute, like Pap Finn. Niggers, of course, are neither folks nor people" (112). I would modify the classification of "people" and
"folks"with two even more class-laden terms that Huck uses repeatedly: "quality"
and "trash."Pap is an example of "trash"ludicrously hoping to become "quality,"
and I would suggest that the condemnation of Pap among white readers stems as
much from his "trash"status as his overt racism. In contrast, many (though not all)
of my white-identifying students have to be coaxed to recognize the racism of the
Phelpses, the more prosperous family farmers who nonetheless imprison Jim. Although SarahPhelps's conversation with Huck about a fictitious steamboat accident
is often correctly cited as part of the book's critique of racism (after being told by
Huck that the boat "blowed out a cylinder-head" Mrs. Phelps asks " 'Good gracious! Anybody hurt?' 'No'm. Killed a nigger.' 'Well, it's lucky; because sometimes
people do get hurt' " [279]), in classroom practice such an admission of callousness
does not prevent many white-identifying students from still seeing Sarah Phelps as
basically kind and decent. In other words, these students are more likely to make
excuses for the petty-bourgeois Phelpses ("they didn't know any better") than they
are for the obviously "white trash" Pap. Similarly, many students overlook the repeated beatings Huck suffers at the hands of Sarah Phelps as simply "discipline,"
supposedly unrelated to Pap's obvious abuse of him.
Jim is also aware of the power of these white class differences, as is most famously seen in one of the text's overtly pedagogical moments, where Jim chastises
Huck for playing a trick on him when they had become separated on the river and
lost in the fog: "En all you wuz thinkin 'bout wuz how you could make a fool uv
ole Jim wid a lie. Dat truck dah is trash;en trash is what people is dat puts dirt on
de head er dey fren's en makes 'em ashamed"(95). The upshot of this lesson is that
Huck decides to apologize, but only after thinking about it for fifteen minutes, and
he describes the apology as "humbl[ing] myself to a nigger" (105).
The question, then, for Huck as well as the student readers of the novel is one
of identification, and this question-not only which characters we as readers find
RACE,
IDENTITY,
AND THE
TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY
FINN
ourselves identifying with in the novel but how indeed we identify ourselves and
are identified socially-proves a more salient pedagogical question than whether we
think the book is "racist"or not. As teachers, we might ask ourselves the related
question of whether our pedagogical practices serve to reify or to unsettle hierarchical questions of race (or gender or class). One argument raised in relation to the
satirical elements of HuckleberryFinn in the classroom is that students, particularly
elementary and secondary school students but college students as well, are incapable of the ironic interpretation necessary to become the "sensitive reader"Inge
refers to above. One response, of course, is to say that such training in responding
to irony is the responsibility of the teacher, and that is certainly true as far as it goes.
But the example of the very different reactions of white-identifying students to the
racism of Mary Phelps and to that of Pap represents not so much an inability to
recognize irony as an unwillingness to recognize irony, or to consider the implications of that irony: the question not just of why Huck doesn't follow through on his
apprehension of the fictitiousness of race, but of why he might not want to. To consider a reading of HuckleberryFinn that asks the reader to question his or her own
investment in the construction of racial identity-and thus racial privilege-goes
beyond the recognition of formal techniques of irony. It requires first of all the
foregrounding of racialidentity as a question, not in the clumsy sense of simply asking "What is a nigger?" but in the more fundamental sense of investigating how we
come to have racial identities in the first place, and how those identities function as
markers of class status.
The issue of Huck's class mobility ties in directly as well with a similar issue in
the lives of many student readers, particularly college students from "nontraditional" backgrounds, whether defined in terms of race, ethnicity, class, or gender,
who view their own educations primarily in economic terms, as both a means to
and promise of middle class ("quality")life, a goal certainly ambivalent enough in
itself but also increasingly problematic in practicalterms, given the economic realities of the 1990s. Debates about affirmativeaction, for example, can be read as indicating among some white-identifying students distinctly Huck-like ambivalences
about completely renouncing racial privilege in the name of equal opportunity or
even class solidarity. Social class also provides us a more concrete way of understanding Huck's comments about his inability to reform and conform to the expectations of Miss Watson and the Widow Douglas. Rather than referring to any
internal moral capacity (or lack thereof), Huck's "wickedness"can be seen as a code
term for his class status, and Huck is torn, in classic American fashion, between an
embedded but repressed understanding that such class divisions are an ineluctable
consequence of birth in a hierarchical society and the ideology of unfettered class
mobility that works as a solidifying force in the construction and maintenance of
racial categories:
929
930
COLLEGE ENGLISH
Well, I triedthe best I couldto kindersoftenit up somehowfor myself,by sayingI
wasbrungup wicked,andso I warn'tso muchto blame;but somethinginsideof me
keptsaying,"Therewasthe Sundayschool,you couldagoneto it; andif you'da done
it they'da learntyou, there,that peoplethat acts as I'd been actingaboutthat nigger goes to everlastingfire."(269)
Yet we have to wonder if Huck really can become "quality"anymore than Pap can,
if his attempts to do so would amount to much more than the masquerade conducted by the equally low-born Duke and Dauphin, who in the end are unable to
fool those "proper"members of the middle class, the doctor and the lawyer, during the Phelps deception.
Huck's repeated internal meditations, then, on the usefulness of trying to imitate the "quality"can be read, as they often have been, as examples of either Huck's
pragmatism or his adherence to the pleasure principle, but we can also read them
as class analyses prompted by his consideration of confederacy with Jim: "Well
then, says I, what's the use you learning to do right, when it's troublesome to do
right and ain't no trouble to do wrong, and the wagesisjust thesame?"(128; emphasis
mine). When he first arrives on Jackson's Island, Huck describes himself as becoming "boss,"a position formerly claimed by Pap. His confrontation with the runaway slave Jim thus forces Huck to choose between two ambitions: striving to
become a "boss"in the "white"world, or allying with Jim and risking classification
as a "nigger."
Huck's "insights" about Jim's humanity (again, insights only to a white audience) thus provide as much racial anxiety as revelation. When Huck concludes, for
example, on the basis of Jim's crying over his children that "I do believe he cared
just as much for his people as white folks does for their'n," we can certainly recognize the irony here (particularlygiven how badly most white people treat their children in this novel) (201). More than simple irony or the exposure of hypocrisy,
however, Huck's comment can suggest a fundamental deconstruction of all categories of racial division. In Susan Gilman's words, "Insteadof a 'true self' and clear
standards of verification, what Twain discovered in his own fiction was the constructed and artificial character of essential social measures of identity-measures
that, as the history of race relations demonstrates, we nevertheless totally depend
upon" (95).
Clearly, the argument over whether HuckleberryFinn is racist or not will not
be solved through ever more subtle close reading. Toni Morrison suggests a different way of reading the text, one that moves the question of racism from something
a person or book might "have"to a cultural practice that forms the context of every
interpretive experience of HuckleberryFinn:
It is not whatJim seemsthatwarrantsinquiry,but whatMarkTwain,Huck,andespeciallyTomneedfromhim thatshouldsolicitour attention.In thatsensethe book
mayindeedbe "great"becausein its structure,in the hell it putsits readersthrough
RACE, IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
at the end, the frontaldebateit forces,it stimulatesanddescribesthe parasiticalnatureof white freedom.(57)
The term "nigger" is the verbal expression of that parasitical freedom, as much
today as in the 1880s (or 1840s), and therefore we can expand Morrison's question
about what Twain, Huck, and Tom need from Jim to include the reader in particular and the "white"critical tradition in general.
Rather than trying to determine exactly what the book "is" (racist or nonracist, historically determined or historically transcendent), we would be better
served by asking what different groups of people have wanted the book to be and
why others want the book in the classroom. If traditionally--at least in terms of
pedagogical practice-Huckleberry Finn has been seen as a book about "freedom,"
the controversy over how both the portrayal of Jim and the repetition of the term
"nigger" are received by different readers suggests that "freedom"is also a racially
coded term, and that in crucial ways the conditions of Huck's freedom are antithetical to those of Jim's, particularlyinsofar as Huck's desire for freedom includes
a desire to retain white privilege: "Huck'salmost Hamlet-like interior monologues
on the rights and wrongs of helping Jim escape are not proof of liberalism or compassion, but evidence of an inability to relinquish whiteness as a badge of superior-
ity"(Lester201).
That Huck'smonologueshaveoften been interpretedas proofsof compassion
or well-meaningalso suggeststhat the white freedomdesiredby manyof Huck's
white-identifyingreadershasbeen freedomfromresponsibilityfor or participation
in the constructionand maintenanceof race and racialoppressionin the United
States:"oneof the waysin whichwhitesavoidedconfrontationwith the humanity
of blackfolk was to see themselvesas kind to Afro-Americans,
focusingon their
own feelingof beinggood, decentpeopleratherthanon the feelingsof the enslaved
blacks"(Jones179). Furtheringthis belief in white "kindness"in termsof the reFinnhasinvolvedreadingsof the bookthatcondemn
ceptionhistoryof Huckleberry
and
racism
while
at
the
sametime carefullymaintainingthe color line. It's
slavery
to
note
that
the
interesting
phrase"niggerJim,"an identifierthat becamecommonplace in criticism of HuckleberryFinn (as in the famous Hemingway quote from
GreenHills ofAfrica: "If you read it you must stop where the Nigger Jim is stolen
from the boys" [22]), is itself an invention of the critical tradition; it appears
nowhere in HuckleberryFinn (the closest is Huck's reference to "Miss Watson's nigger, Jim" [20]), indicating that for many white readers, as for Huck, it was important that Jim maintain a "nigger" status, thus establishing with certainty the
"whiteness"of the reader, before "compassion"could safely be felt for Jim:
AlthoughHuck maybe "trash,"asJim often callshim, Huck'sprivilegeis certainly
the greatdegree
there,thanksto the socialstructure.Huckhimselffullyunderstands
of socialdistancethatseparateshim fromJim and,accordingly,findsit quiteeasyto
accepttheirdistantintimacy.(Mason37)
931
932
COLLEGE ENGLISH
The fact, then, that HuckleberryFinn has been turned into a signifier of white
liberal compassion has made any questioning of how race is handled in the text especially troubling for many white-identifying readers and teachers. Yet, as Toni
Morrison suggests, the power of the text for a modern audience lies in the very impurity of its representation of racial oppression. The argument over the use of the
term "nigger" in the novel may be the whole point: the emergence of criticism of
that term over the last two generations should force readers of the book to think
consciously about their own relationships to that term. This discussion is much advanced in the African-American community; for too long, however, white-identifying readers have failed to question their own investment in the term, a line of
inquiry which leads to questions about the social uses and misuses of the construction of racial identities in general.
Pedagogical and critical strategies, therefore, that address race in Huckleberry
Finn in particularand in American literature in general without addressing the construction of race serve to reify racialidentity and thus reinforce the black/white split
that functions as the crucial binary logic in the discourse of American racism, whatever specific condemnations of racism may be made along the way. This reinscription of the color line poses a particulardilemma for readers identifying themselves
or finding themselves socially identified as neither white nor black, readers often
referred to by the suggestive term "people of color." Gilman's discussion of Twain's
anxious fascination with how the figure of the mulatto potentially deconstructs the
functional and binary logic of racism has important implications here, particularly
when we remember that HuckleberryFinn appeared during the imposition of not
only Jim Crow but also the Chinese Exclusion Act. A pedagogical reading strategy
that implicitly insists that a Chicano or Chinese-American student, for example,
choose sides in terms of black or white in responding to HuckleberryFinn reinforces
without problematizing the perverse logic of American racial assimilation, whereby
members of ethnic minorities can be shunted back and forth across the color line
(think of Proposition 187 or the myth of the "model minority") in order to accommodate various dominant group political desires.
Newcomers to the United States quickly discover that whatever the ethnic and
class complexity of U.S. society, the bipolar racial logic of dark and light functions
as a key component of identity formation, both between identified groups and
within them. My classes in California, for example, contained many students who
had lived in the United States for just a few years. Introducing HuckleberryFinn to
these students turns the traditional humanist defenses of the text on their head: because any discussion of racism in the text, no matter how "critical,"must necessarily revolve around the freighted term at the heart of the controversy over the novel,
the very assignment of HuckleberryFinn works as recognition and at some level institutional authorization of the language of American racism itself. Thus a pedagogical act meant to condemn racism can only do so by invoking the entire
RACE, IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN
discursive system of racism, a system that also carries the injunction to line up on
one side or the other of the color line. This injunction carries this debate over
HuckleberryFinn beyond a confrontation between "black" and "white" students
considered as reified racial identities into an analysis of the bipolar color line as the
crucial fault line running through the complex discursive network of racial construction in the U.S. Such a recognition of the embeddedness of the novel in the
cultural logic of race and racism does not mean that HuckleberryFinn cannot or
should not ever be taught in any U.S. class at any time, but that any teaching of it
inevitably extends beyond the mythical level of the "text itself" to the level of discourse and ideology.
How then best to use HuckleberryFinn as a teaching opportunity to open a discussion about racial identity and racial oppression that doesn't merely reinforce
racial identity? A number of recent articles have offered detailed lesson plans and
strategies for approaching HuckleberryFinn in the classroom (Lew; Carey-Webb;
Hengstebek). All stress the need to place the novel into a social context by providing students with readings in both history and sociology, and all would clearly make
for interesting, socially responsible learning experiences (the recent critical edition
of Adventuresof HuckleberryFinn by Gerald Graff and James Phelan that includes
essays and documents related to the controversy over race is pedagogically promising in this regard). Yet the enormous amount of what we might, from a New Critical perspective, call source and background material needed to introduce the text
successfully into the classroom begs the question of just why it is so important to
get this text into the classroom. Instead, by implication these articles demonstrate
the ideological and pedagogical problems raised by a "masterpieces"approach to
literature instruction-that is, designating certain texts as classics and therefore required reading, and then dealing with the question of how to make the texts work
in the class. But the controversy over the representation of race in HuckleberryFinn
goes to the heart of the reception history which created its classic status, at least in
pedagogical terms, on the basis of the book's positive "moral"influence.
This reception history, then, provides the vital context we need to bring into
the classroom, but again not as separate from or supplementary to the analysis of
how the novel implicates its readers in terms of the construction of racial identity,
or perhaps only supplementary in the Derridean sense of the term, in that, as we
have seen, the establishment of HuckleberryFinn as a cultural/pedagogical icon has
itself been a part of the process of maintaining the color line in the twentieth century.
These pedagogical questions have relevance beyond the particularexample of
HuckleberryFinn to the case of any overdetermined canonical text, especially those
with their own notorious histories, histories that point to a similar implication in
the construction and reification of oppressive structures of differentiation. Feminist criticism has challenged the patriarchalstructuring of the dominant canon as a
933
934
COLLEGE ENGLISH
whole in this regard, but the critical/pedagogical point applies as well to supposedly isolated individual cases, such as the anti-Semitism informing TheMerchantof
Venice,The Sun Also Rises,or The WasteLand. Teachers introducing these texts into
their classes face the same basic question of pedagogical orientation raised by the
example of HuckleberryFinn: do I regard these texts as isolated and discrete textual
entities somehow infected by a strain of bigotry that can be eradicated through liberal faith and ever more ingenious (and ahistorical) close reading? Or do I consider
my teaching of these texts (whether as personal choice or as part of a set curriculum) as a cultural activity implicated in and a further extension of the construction
and maintenance of a larger hegemonic discourse of power and identity, processes
that include not only the discrete production of a text containing the particular
views of a specific author but also the canonization and institutionalization of that
text along with a set of interpretive practices to insure the maintenance of that
canonical status? As we have seen in the case of HuckleberryFinn, these practices
work both to reinscribe the canonical literary status of the text in question and to
confirm the dominant social status of the subject-positions inhabited by those who
regulate that interpretive practice, even when the results of such practice claim to
offer a critique of the oppressive ideologies represented in the text in question.
This second alternative suggests that in the classroom we approach the controversial status of Twain's text by asking ourselves two questions: how do we define racial identity, and why is this text considered required reading? One of the
points of this essay is to argue that these in fact become one question, and that any
institutionally sanctioned discussion of the text, whether on a television show, at an
academic conference, or in the classroom, is an intrinsic part of that process.
In the end, the controversy over HuckleberryFinn or any other "problematic"
text is not finally an interpretive argument, but a debate over what the ends of education should be. It is ironic to say the least that after praising HuckleberryFinn as
masterpiece on the basis of its treatment of race, many advocates of the book want
to dismiss out of hand any attempt to pursue further the questions about racial
identity raised by the reading of the book in a diverse classroom. The efforts to defend the book as providing a pedagogical opportunity to talk about race and racism
in the final analysis seem more interested in monitoring and limiting that discussion to a distinctly middle-class point of view, a view that both secures the racial
identity of the reader and affirms that reader's innate innocence and goodness
rather than exploring how the constitution of that racial identity implicates any
reader in the dynamics of race and class privilege. As Terry Eagleton argues, however,
What it meansto be a 'betterperson,'then, mustbe concreteandpractical-thatis
to say,concernedwith people'spoliticalsituationsas a whole-rather thannarrowly
relationswhichcanbe exabstract,concernedonlywiththe immediateinterpersonal
tractedfromthe concretewhole. (208)
RACE,
IDENTITY,
AND
THE
TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY
FINN
Yet pedagogical practice makes such "concrete and practical" considerations unavoidable;like it or not, it is impossible to read HuckleberryFinn in a contemporary
American classroom without talking about the term "nigger";to explain the term
away in the name of preserving the text as an indictment of racism is not a defense
of the text but an avoidance of it.
WORKS
CITED
Arac,Jonathan. "Nationalism, Hypercanonization, and HuckleberryFinn. "boundary
2 19 (Spring 1992): 14-33.
Beaver, Harold. HuckleberryFinn. Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1987.
. "Run, Nigger, Run." Champion 187-94.
Bernard
W. "Twain's'Nigger' Jim: The Tragic Face behind the Minstrel
Bell,
Mask." Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 124-40.
Carey-Webb, Allen. "Racism and HuckleberryFinn: Censorship, Dialogue, and
Change." EnglishJournal 82 (November 1993): 22-33.
Champion, Laurie, ed. The CriticalResponsetoMark Twain'sHuckleberry Finn. New
York:Greenwood P, 1991.
Cox, James. "A Hard Book to Take." Sattelmeyer and Crowley 386-403.
Douglass, Frederick. Narrative of the Life of FrederickDouglass,An AmericanSlave.
New York:Penguin, 1982.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory:An Introduction.Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P,
1983.
Egan, Mark. Mark Twain'sHuckleberry Finn: Race,Classand Society.Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities P, 1978.
Ellison, Ralph. "Change the Joke and Slip the Yoke." Shadowand Act. New York:
Random House, 1964. 45-59.
. "Twentieth-CenturyFiction and the BlackMask of Humanity."Shadowand
Act. New York:Random House, 1964. 24-44.
Fetterley, Judith. The ResistingReader:A Feminist Approachto American Fiction.
Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1978.
Fishkin, Shelley Fisher. WasHuck Black?Mark Twainand AfricanAmerican Voices.
New York:Oxford UP, 1993.
Fredrickson, George M. White Supremacy:A ComparativeStudy in Americanand
SouthAfricanHistory.New York:Oxford UP, 1981.
. The BlackImage in the WhiteMind: The Debateon Afro-AmericanCharacter
-and Destiny, 1817-1914. New York:Harper and Row, 1971.
Gilman, Susan. Dark Twins: Impostureand Identity in Mark Twain'sAmerica.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.
935
936
COLLEGE ENGLISH
Hemingway, Ernest. GreenHills ofAfrica.New York:Charles Scribner'sSons, 1935.
Hengstebek, Marylee. "HuckFinn, Slavery, and Me." EnglishJournal 82 (November 1993): 32.
Henry, Peaches. "The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry
Finn." Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 25-48.
Finn: Literature or Racist Trash?"Transcript of ABC News Nightline
"Huckleberry
4 February 1985. Champion 147-55.
Inge, M. Thomas, ed. Huck Finn Among the Critics:A CentennialSelection.Frederick, MD: U Publications of America, 1985.
Jones, Rhett S. "Nigger and Knowledge: White Double-Consciousness in Adventuresof HuckleberryFinn." Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 173-94.
Leonard, James S., A. Thomas Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis, eds. Satire or Evasion?BlackPerspectiveson Huckleberry Finn. Durham: Duke UP, 1992.
Lester, Julius. "Moralityand AdventuresofHuckleberryFinn." Leonard, Tenney, and
Davis 199-207.
Lew, Ann. "Teaching Huck Finn in a Multiethnic Classroom." EnglishJournal 82
(November 1993): 16-21.
Mason, Ernest D. "Attractionand Repulsion: Huck Finn, 'Nigger' Jim, and Black
Americans Revisited." College Language AssociationJournal 33 (September
1989): 36-48.
Morgan, Edmund. AmericanSlavery,AmericanFreedom:The Ordealof ColonialVirginia. New York:W. W. Norton, 1975.
Morrison, Toni. Playing in the Dark: Whitenessand the LiteraryImagination.New
York:Vintage Books, 1993.
Nadeau, Robert. "TheAdventuresof HuckleberryFinn is a Moral Story."Champion
141-42.
Robinson, Forrest. In Bad Faith: The Dynamicsof Deceptionin Mark Twain'sAmerica. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1986.
. "The Characterization of Jim in HuckleberryFinn." Champion 205-25.
Sattelmeyer, Robert, and J. Donald Crowley, eds. One Hundred Yearsof Huckleberry Finn: The Boy,His Book,and AmericanCulture.Columbia: U of Missouri
P, 1985.
Schmitz, Neil. "The Paradox of Liberation in HuckleberryFinn." Champion
99-107.
Smith, David L. "Huck, Jim, and Racial Discourse." Leonard, Tenney, and Davis
103-20.
Smith, Henry Nash. "A Sound Heart and a Deformed Conscience." Champion
61-78.
RACE,
IDENTITY,
AND THE TEACHING
OF HUCKLEBERRY
FINN
Twain, Mark (Samuel Clemens). AdventuresofHuckleberryFinn. Berkeley:U of California P, 1988.
Ed. Ger. AdventuresofHuckleberryFinn:A CaseStudyin CriticalControversy.
ald Graff and James Phelan. Boston: Bedford Books of St. Martin's P, 1995.
Williamson, Joel. New People:Miscegenationand Mulattoesin the UnitedStates.New
York:Free P, 1980.
Woodard, Fredrick, and Donnarae MacCann. "Minstrel Shackles and NineteenthCentury 'Liberality'in HuckleberryFinn." Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 141-53.
Zinn, Howard. A People'sHistoryof the UnitedStates.New York:Harper Perennial,
1980.
937
Racism and "Huckleberry Finn": Censorship, Dialogue, and Change
Author(s): Allen Carey-Webb
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The English Journal, Vol. 82, No. 7 (Nov., 1993), pp. 22-34
Accessed: 14/02/2012 20:16
The English Journal.
Racism
and
HuckleberryFinn:
Dialogue,
Censorship,
and
Change
Allen Carey-Webb
A masterpiece.
T. S. Eliot
One of the world's great books and one of the central
documents of American culture.
Lionel Trilling
All modern American literature comes from one
Finn. ... There
book by Mark Twain called Huckleberry
was nothing before. There has been nothing as good
since.
Ernest Hemingway
For the past forty years, black families have trekked
to schools in numerous districts throughout the
unwittingly racist teachers and administrators who
respond, "This book is a classic."
John H. Wallace
Huckleberry Finn may be the most exalted single
work of American literature. Praised by our best
known critics and writers, the novel is enshrined at
the center of the American-literature curriculum.
According to Arthur Applebee (1992, 28) the work
is second only to Shakespeare in the frequency
with which it appears in the classroom, required in
seventy percent of public high schools and seventysix percent of parochial high schools. The most
taught novel, the most taught long work, and the
most taught piece of American literature, Huckleberry Finn is a staple from junior high (where
eleven chapters are included in the Junior Great
Books program) to graduate school. Written in a
now vanished dialect, told from the point of view
of a runaway fourteen-year-old, the novel combines
melodramatic
boyhood adventure, farcical low
and
comedy,
pointed social satire. Yet at its center
is a relationship between a white boy and an escaped slave, an association freighted with the trag-
22
English Journal
Photo: John Bramley. ? The Walt Disney Company. All Rights
Reserved.
edy and the possibility of American history. Despite
a social order set against interracial communication and respect, Huck develops a comradeship
with Jim for which he is willing-against all he has
been taught-to risk his soul.
Huck Finn: Censorship and Sensitivity
Despite the novel's sanctified place and overtly
anti-racist message, since school desegregation in
the 1950s, African Americans have raised objections to HuckleberryFinn and its effect on their
children. Linking their complaints with the efforts
of other groups to influence the curriculum, we
English teachers have seen the issue as one of censorship, defending the novel and our right to teach
it. In so doing we have been properly concerned:
the freedom of professional classroom teachers to
design and implement curriculum must be protected as censorship undermines the creation of an
informed citizenry able to make critical judgments
among competing ideas. Yet, considering the objections to HuckleberryFinn only in terms of freedom and censorship doesn't resolve a potentially
divisive situation. For this we need to listen to objections raised to the novel, reconsider the process
of teaching it, and, most broadly, reflect on the role
of school literature in depicting, interrogating,
and affirming our national culture and history. I
believe that responsible teaching requires us to
enter into a dialogue with those who have objections to the novel. Doing so, I am convinced, leads
to important learning for ourselves and, above all,
for our students.
A "communication shut-down" is the way I
would describe what happened in November 1991
in a largely white suburb just next door to the
university in which I train English teachers. Black
student and parent concerns during the teaching
Finn led to a decision to immediately
of Huckleberry
remove the text from the classroom in the district's
two high schools. Required to read a brief statement to their students stating that the book had
been withdrawn, teachers were prohibited from
Finn or of reasons
further discussion of Huckleberry
for its removal until "more sensitive" approaches
were found. Local television and newspaper reporters learned of the story, and English teachers, students, parents, and administrators suddenly and
unexpectedly found themselves at the center of a
difficult and very public controversy. An impassioned meeting at the high school made the
nightly news. A subsequent meeting with the
school board was broadcast on the cable-access
channel. Expressing sentiments that might be echoed by many across the country, these teachers felt
that they had all along been teaching appropriately. One teacher told the local paper, "We have
shown a concerted effort to express what we call
sensitivity," and "we feel a very strong kinship to
this book because of what we believe it stands for."
Upset that their freedom in the classroom was impinged upon, these teachers were also confused
and pained that parents should find the text
and their methods insensitive. On the other side,
black students who raised concerns with teachers
about the book felt they had not been listened to,
and black parents concluded that a tight-knit
group of narrow-minded teachers had shut out
and demeaned their legitimate concerns. Some
white students were angry that the complaints of
the black students meant they couldn't finish reading the book. Some black students felt that long
friendships with white students were in jeopardy. In
sum, parents were angry with teachers, teachers
felt threatened and misunderstood, administrators
went in various directions but failed to follow policies already in place, and students were alienated
from the school and from one another. As of this
writing more than a year has passed, yet little has
changed. The novel has been reinstated, but teachers remain understandably nervous about using it,
unclear as to why blacks object to it, and uncertain
just how it should best be taught. As with similar
incidents that have occurred again and again
around the country, this controversy over HuckleberryFinn only exacerbated problems of interracial
communication and respect.
We can and must do better. Doing better begins
with a careful look at the complex racial issues
raised by the novel and an active listening to the
views of African Americans, teachers, scholars, writers, parents, and students. That HuckleberryFinn
draws the attention of black families should not be
a surprise. Since no text by a black--or any other
minority group member for that matter-has yet to
make it to the list of most frequently taught works,
HuckleberryFinn has a peculiar visibility. The novel
remains the only one in the common "canon" to
treat slavery, to represent a black dialect, and to
have a significant role for an African American
character. The length of the novel, the demands it
places on instructional time, and its centrality in
the curriculum augment its prominence. Add to
this the presence in the novel of the most powerful
November 1993
23
racial epithet in English-the word appears 213
times-and it is evident why Huckleberry
Finn legiticoncerns
African
American
mately
parents sending
their children into racially mixed classrooms.
Huck Finn: Satire or Evasion?
that justified the discomfort of the Negro reader.
He found Jim "a white man's inadequate portrait
of a slave" (72). (Ellison's essay "Change the Joke
and Slip the Yoke,"frequently referred to in Satire
orEvasion, is found in its entirety in Shadow and Act,
61-73).
SatireorEvasionconsiderably elaborates Ellison's
remarks. The contributors offer significant evidence that Twain himself was an avid fan of the
black-face minstrelsy. Bernard Bell, a professor of
English at the University of Massachusetts, quotes
from one of Twain's letters: "The minstrel used a
Satire or Evasion? Black Perspectives on Huckleberry very broad Negro dialect; he used it competently
Finn (Leonard, Tenney, and Davis 1992). This is a and with easy facility and it was funny-delightfully
book all teachers of Huckleberry
Finn ought to read. and satisfyingly funny" (1992, 128). When the
is
concerned
with the role of shows appeared to be dying out in the early twenticontributor
Every
Finn
in
the
classroom; most are profes- eth century, Bell points out, Twain lamented the
Huckleberry
sors at leading universities, some have high-school loss of "the real nigger show- the genuine nigger
show, the extravagant nigger
teaching experience. The diverse
and divergent essays in Satire or
show--the show which to me has
Evasion demonstrate the comno peer and whose peer has not
of
Twain's
the
arrived"
novel
and
(127). As his affection for
plexity
racial issues it raises. In addition
the minstrel show indicates, the
to the articles, Satire or Evasion
contributors point out, Twain's personal attitudes toward blacks were
contains a complete annotated
on
issues
of
race,
bibliography
contradictory. His father and uncle
the novel, and the classroom.
owned slaves, yet his wife was the
The collection begins with an
daughter of a prominent abolitionH.
the
ist. He fought briefly with the conWallace,
essay by John
black school administrator at
federate army, yet later in life paid
Mark Twain Intermediate School
a black student's way through Yale
in Fairfax, Virginia, who played a
Law School. Though he protested
in
role
the
debates
prominent
against lynching and discriminaover the novel in the early 1980s
tion, he loved minstrel shows and
Wallace's
is
fol(1992).
essay
"nigger jokes." In their essay Frelowed by others that take signifidrick Woodard and Donnarae Maccantly different and more subtle positions, but Cann, a professor and a graduate student at the
most contributors agree on several key points. University of Iowa, argue that Twain's affection for
First, they make a persuasive case that Twain's de- the minstrel show is fundamental to the portrayal
piction of Jim owes much to the popular nine- of Jim:
teenth-century black-face minstrel show where
The swaggering buffoonery of the minstrel clown
white actors darkened their skin to the color of
is represented early in the novel when Jim awakes
coal to render comic burlesques of African Ameriand finds his hat in a tree (one of Tom'stricks),and
then concocts a tale about witches and the devil.
can speech and manners. This insight is not en(145).
new:
Ellison
wrote
tirely
nearly fifty years ago Ralph
that "Twainfitted Jim into the outlines of the minThey argue that
strel tradition, and it is from behind this stereotype
The "stageNegro's"typicalbanter about wife troumask that we see Jim's dignity and human capacbles, profit making,spooks, and formal education is
ity-and Twain's complexity--emerge" (1964, 65).
echoed in episodes in Huckleberry
Finn, and their inWhile Ellison noted Twain's talent, he remarked
clusion can be tracedto a period when Twainwasin
on a fundamental ambivalence in Jim's portrayal
the midst of planning a new tour of stage readings.
HuckleberryFinn has also consistently attracted the
attention of prominent black scholars and writers
who, since the 1950s, have thought carefully about
the work and its role in the curriculum. As of 1992
we are fortunate to have much of their analysis
readily available in a paperback volume entitled
24
English Journal
Jim gives his impression of "King Sollermun" and his
harem in a minstrel-like repartee (chap. 14) and his
confusion about stock market profits is seen in a
farcical account of how Jim's stock-his cow-failed
to increase his fourteen dollar fortune when he "tuck
to specalat'n'" (chap. 8). Throughout the novel Jim
is stupefied by information that Huck shares with
him, as when they discuss Louis XVI's "little boy the
dolphin." (145)
tales about themselves, but blacks know better. (1992,
203)
In examining the conclusion of the novel, these
scholars are troubled by the way the developing
relationship between Jim and Huck abruptly seems
to lose its meaning as Huck accedes to Tom SawRhett
yer's cruel and senseless manipulations.
Jones, an English professor at Rutgers, writes,
The high adventures of the middle chapters, Huck's
admiration of Jim, Jim's own strong self-confidence,
and the slave's willingness to protect and guide Huck
are all, in some sense, rendered meaningless by the
closing chapters, in which Twain turns Jim over to
two white boys on a lark. (1992, 186)
"Whitepeople may want to believe
such fairy tales about themselves,
but blacks know better."
-Julius Lester
Jones views Huck's failure to speak up, his only
Several scholars in Satire or Evasion point out that
protest being to compare stealing "a nigger" to "a
in the sequels that Twain wrote to Huckleberry Finn watermelon, or a
Sunday school book," as Huck
( lom Sawyer Abroad and the unfinfinally rejecting Jim's humanity.
ished Tom Sawyer's Conspiracy) Jim
He points out that Huck
also appears as "the patient simplein the closing paragraph is careful to
ton" and "Huck and Tom amuse
tell the reader all about Tom and
themselves while risking Jim's dighimself, including Aunt Sally's plans
to adopt him. But the reader who is
nity and even his life" (152). In
interested in learning what Jim inthis view, even the affection Huck
tends to do, how he intends to rejoin
and the reader feel forJim fits with
his family, and what plans he has for
rk
T
the minstrel tradition where the
freeing them is left in the dark when
comic black characters are conHuck flatly concludes, "There ain't
r
genial and nonthreatening.
nothing more to write about." Huck
is not interested in the fate of JimWhile a couple of the contribumuch less that of his family-nor is
tors to Satire or Evasion develop
:- -Tom;
nor, evidently, was Twain. (190)
a~
tY
complex explanations of how the
end of the novel serves as "Twain's
Bell puts it simply:
Bernard
satire on the extremes to which
and meta"Twain-nostalgically
the defeated Confederacy went to
down
river
Jim
phorically--sells
for laughs at the end" (138).
keep the black population enslaved" (213), for the
most part these African American scholars and
Seen from the point of view of some of these
teachers are profoundly disappointed with Huck scholars, even the most cherished aspects of the
Finn's final chapters. Although Jim runs away early
book begin to appear ambiguous, compromised.
on in the book, his independence
is downplayed
Focusing on the portrayal of Jim in the latter part
because he never makes his own way to freedom; it of the book, particularly the testimony of the docis Miss Watson's benevolence rather than Jim's in- tor who recaptures Jim after Jim has risked freedom to stand by the injured Tom, Lester
telligence or courage that gains him his liberty.
Further, the believability of the deus ex machina comments,
freeing of Jim depends on an unsustainably innoIt is a picture of the only kind of black that whites
cent view of racial relations. Speaking of the public
have ever truly liked-faithful, tending sick whites,
knowledge that Jim is suspected of killing Huck,
not speaking, not causing trouble, and totally passive.
writer and English professor Julius Lester comHe is the archetypal "good nigger," who lacks selfments,
respect, dignity, and a sense of self separate from the
one whites want him to have. A century of white
Yet we are now to believe that an old white lady would
readers have accepted this characterization because
free a black slave suspected of murdering a white
it permits their own "humanity" to shine through
child. White people may want to believe such fairy
with more luster. (203)
"UCK
BLACK? ?
'
November
1993
25
Some of the scholars are even critical of Huck's
reasoning when he decides to "go to hell" for Jim.
Jones points out that when Huck considers "Jim's
love for him, Jim's humanity, and, most important,
the ways in which Jim has served Huck," he "concludes that Jim has done a great deal for him but
in none of his reflections does he consider Jim's
own needs, much less those of his wife and children" (188).
Shelley Fisher Fishkin puts forward a well-publicized argument in WasHuck Black?:MarkTwainand
Voices(1993) that Twain patterned
African-American
Huck's speech on that of black children, thus suggesting a close interrelationship between racial
identities in the novel. Her position is anticipated
in Satire or Evasion by Arnold Rampersad (1992),
Professor of English at Princeton, who makes the
Jimand Huck'sroles and human
possibilitiesare keptresolutely
separateand unequal.
case that Huck Finn, with its stress on folk culture,
on dialect, and on American humor, can be seen to
be "near the fountainhead" for African American
writers such as Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Ralph Ellison, and Alice Walker. Rampersad
explores issues of alienation in the novel, comparing Twain to Richard Wright, James Baldwin, and
Toni Morrison, yet he argues that the major compromise of the novel is not the ending, but thatJim
never gains the intellectual complexity of Huck,
never becomes a figure of disruptive alienation,
nor even seems capable of learning this from
Huck. "AssuredlyTwain knew that Huck's attitude
could be contagious, and that blacks had more
reason than whites to be alienated and angry"
(226), Rampersad writes. Consequently, despite
the close relationship that Huck and Jim develop
on the raft-and the possibility that Huck's own
language may owe something to black dialect-their roles and human possibilities are kept resolutely separate and unequal.
In her recent study of American fiction (1992,
Playing in the Dark: Whitenessand the LiteraryImagination), Toni Morrison--winner of the Pulitzer
Prize for Beloved, her own novel about slavery-Finn than the
goes further in criticizing Huckleberry
contributors to SatireorEvasion. Morrison believes
that in the novel there is a close "interdependence
of slavery and freedom, of Huck's growth andJim's
26
English Journal
serviceability within it, and even of Mark Twain's
inability to continue, to explore the journey into
free territory" (55). She is struck by two things in
the novel:
the apparentlylimitlessstore of love and compassion
the black man has for his white friend and white
masters;and his assumptionthat the whites are indeed whatthey saythey are, superiorand adult. (56)
According to Morrison,
Jim permitshis persecutorsto torment him, humiliate him, and responds to the torment and humiliation with boundless love. The humiliation comes
afterwe have experiencedJim as an adult, a caring
father and a sensitiveman. If Jim had been a white
ex-convictbefriendedby Huck, the ending could not
have been imaginedor written. (56)
What is above all disturbing about the novel, Morrison argues, is not its portrayal of Jim, "but what
Mark Twain, Huck, and especially Tom need from
him" (57). Rather than merely a white man's limited portrait of a slave, the novel demonstrates the
inadequacy of Euro-American utopian aspirations;
Morrison says Huck Finn "simulates and describes
the parasitical nature of white freedom" (57). In
her reading, then, the American dream of freedom
may well be embodied in Huck and Jim's time on
the river, but if so then that very dream itself is
fundamentally flawed, resting on a shedding of
social responsibility and a failure to examine relations of subservience.
Huck Finn: Text and Film
The racial problematics of HuckleberryFinn are
partly "corrected" in the recently released Hollywood version (1993). The film shuns the complexities of irony and satire that make understanding
the novel difficult. All points of view are simply and
directly argued; offending passages are cut away.
All 213 repetitions of the racial epithet are simply
eliminated. The Widow Douglas espouses an explicitly abolitionist position. Above all, Jim is a far
stronger character. His superstitiousness becomes
a self-conscious put-on, and rather than being
frightened of Huck and thinking him a ghost when
they meet on Jackson Island, it isJim who surprises
and frightens Huck. Running awaywith a plan and
a map, Jim exercises planning and foresight. Still
ridiculed by being dressed up as an "African"by
the Duke and King, Jim is for the most part more
articulate: he directly argues for the elimination of
slavery. Also enhancing the depiction of Jim is the
film's elimination of Tom Sawyer. Without Tom,
the scene in the second chapter where Jim is
mocked by stealing his hat disappears. The problematic final eleven chapters of the novel-where
Jim is a helpless and gullible figure for Tom's
scheming-are simply done away with. By making
Huck (instead of Tom, as in the novel) the injured
boy that Jim must save, the climax of the film becomes a reciprocating act of friendship, rather
than a deus ex machina revelation that Jim has all
along been free. Although far from examining slavery from an African American perspective or telling its full horror, the film does add scenes of a
plantation with a cruel overseer whipping slaves,
Jim among them. Huck views this brutality, consciously examines his own complicity in the system
of racial inequality, explicitly and determinately
rejects slavery as an institution, and personally
apologizes to Jim for his own complicity in slavery.
None of this is in Twain's novel. Rather than serving as a contemporary testament to Twain's greatness, the radically revised film simply points to
significant problems in the original text. After
watching the film with my school-age son, I had a
troubling and, for an English teacher, iconoclastic
thought: might this Hollywood production be
more effective with students than the novel itself?
already knew, and, simultaneously, the new texts
led us to fundamentally rethink our previous reading. For example, it wasn't until after reading
Douglass, Brent, and Turner that my students,
both white and black, were able to fully recognize
the stereotyping of UncleTom'sCabin.Stowe's black
characters only appeared as stock figures in a white
abolitionist imagination after we came to know the
intellectually questing Douglass, the trapped and
emotionally conflicted Brent, and the violent and
unrepentant Turner. Focusing on a historical
theme and putting the texts next to each other
encouraged students to make sophisticated judgments, write complex papers, and engage in increasingly meaningful discussions.
After reading and discussing Huckleberry
Finn in
the context of this class, my African American college students from first-year students to seniorsmany of them planning to become teachers
One student considered himself
so isolated as the only black person
in the classroom that he was unable
to share his reaction even privately
with his teacher.
themselves-were concerned about the use of
HuckleberryFinn in the high school, an institution
My own experience with students in the classroom they themselves had only recently left. Some of
would seem to verify that one's cultural back- these students talked about their own experiences
ground influences reactions to the novel. This last as the only or nearly the only African American
year (1992-93) I taught HuckleberryFinn in two student in an otherwise white classroom. In this
classes with racially different student populations, situation they resented being turned to as experts
with clearly different results. The first class, in the by their white teachers, and they were uncomfortfall, a college-level course, Black American Litera- able being stared at by their fellow students. One
ture, focused on the theme of slavery and included of the brightest and most outspoken students-a
a wide range of primary and secondary material popular college junior and an actor who had done
from the seventeenth century to the present. We stage appearances as Malcolm X-spoke of how as
studied depictions of slavery by black authors such a high-school sophomore he had read Huckleberry
as Olaudah Equiano, Frederick Douglass, Linda Finn, felt demeaned and angry in the process, and
Brent, Nat Turner, Langston Hughes, Ishmael yet considered himself so isolated by his situation
Reed, and Toni Morrison as well as white authors as the only black person in the classroom that he
Aphra Behn, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Caroline Lee was unable to share his reaction even privately with
Hentz, Herman Melville, and Mark Twain. We his teacher. What does it tell us about the challenge
viewed segments of Roots.Half of the students en- we teachers face in attempting to teach the novel that
rolled in the course were African American and such a student, in this case the son of two college
half were white, all from Detroit and medium-size professors, lacked confidence to raise the issue?
towns throughout Michigan. Given the historical
Just as I would if I were teaching a typical novel
and thematic integration of the course, each new in high school, I read several passages of the book
text we read was examined in light of what we aloud to the class to set up a discussion. One of the
Huck Finn: Culture and Classrooms
November 1993
27
passages was the paragraph where Tom and Huck
trick Jim in the second chapter. In this paragraph
the epithet occurs seven times. Although I read the
passage gently and as "sensitively"as I could, it was
clear that hearing the word come out of my mouth
made my African American college students bristle. One African American student (who was in fact
of a mixed racial background and thus particularly
acute on the question) was quite direct with me in
the discussion afterwards. He pointed out that
while this word may be used by blacks with other
blacks, it simply must not be used by whites. In his
opinion, while a black teacher might be able to
read HuckleberryFinn aloud, a white teacher, no
matter how "sympathetic," simply could not without offending black students.
Still trying to understand the issue of Huckleberry
Finn in the classroom, I taught the novel again
during the second semester, this time in a methods
class for fifth-year English majors who themselves
would soon be student teachers in high-school and
middle-school language-arts classrooms. In addition to reading Huckleberry
Finn we read Douglass,
Turner, Brent, and several of the essays from Satire
or Evasion. In contrast with the African American
literature class, nearly all the students in this methods class are of Euro-American background (as are
ninety-eight percent of all the education students
at our university). In this class there was one African American student. She told me after the course
was over that the only day she really felt completely
comfortable in the room was the day we had a
black professor and eight black students from my
course in the fall come to join us for a discussion
of the novel. Simply having more people of color
in the class and listening to their point of view had
a powerful impact on all the students. Up until that
day, they were confident that they would be able to
Finn in appropriate and sensitive
teach Huckleberry
after
that,
although nearly all of them deways;
cided that they would teach the novel, their final
projects indicated it would not be an easy task.
Teaching Huck Finn: Principles and Caveats
Finn after
Those who still want to teach Huckleberry
this
and
the
article
reading
exploring
perspectives
offered by SatireorEvasion can marshal impressive
arguments for their cause, not the least of which is
the importance of having students examine the
issue for themselves. We are sometimes so busy
trying to "cover all the material" or "expose" our
students to "greatliterature" that we fail to take the
28
English Journal
time to focus in, develop connections between
works and contexts, and explore the relevance of
what we read to the present. It is crystal clear to me
that HuckleberryFinn should not be taught in a
curriculum that simply showcases literary works
without developing student skills at challenging
the classics and thinking critically about literature,
history, politics, and language. If the novel is going
to be taught, the following principles are indispensable:
Finn should be sensi1. The teaching of Huckleberry
tive to the racialdynamicsof the classroom.
2. The presence of the racial epithet in the text
must be openly addressed,and a strategyfor use
of the term should be developed.
3. Along with reading the book, objections to
Twain'sportrayalof AfricanAmericansshouldbe
examined, and texts about slavery written by
black authorsshould be included and compared
with Twain. (See sidebar.)
4. The parents of high-school students should be
informed that the text will be used; intellectually
meaningful alternative assignments should be
available for students uncomfortable with the
novel.
The dynamics of teaching Huckleberry
Finn differ
considerably from classroom to classroom, based
on the race of the teacher and the proportion of
minority students in the classroom, as well as on
local social, cultural, and political factors. Talking
across racial lines about questions of race always
carries emotional impact. The issues require a sen-
Teachersand students who
undertaketo readHuckFinnmust be
committedto respectingand learning
fromminorityviews.
sitivity and intellectual maturity from students that
is not ordinarily found below the eleventh grade.
Teachers and students who undertake to read Huck
Finn must be committed to respecting and learning
from minority views, yet I do not recommend that
a classroom vote or even a consensus process be
used to decide whether or not HuckleberryFinn
should be read. This difficult decision should be
that of the teacher; letting students decide may put
too much pressure on those students who might
object to reading the work, alienating them from
their classmates. The racial make-up of the classroom is a complex factor that requires further consideration when teaching HuckleberryFinn.
While we might hope that classrooms without
black students will become increasingly rare, forty
years after Brown vs. Board of Education a defacto
racial segregation is still the norm in many of
America's suburbs and rural areas and in many
private schools. In a classroom without African
Americans, teachers often mistakenly believe that
they are "off the hook" and need not deal with
racial issues. As the country and the world become
increasingly interrelated and as the current white
majority in this country becomes a minority in the
twenty-firstcentury, it will, however, be all the more
imperative for white students to learn a multicultu-
Works about Slavery Appropriate for
High-School Students
Blassingame, John W. 1979. The Slave Community:
Plantation Life in theAnte-BellumSouth. New York: Ox-
ford UP, $13.95. ISBN019-50256-36
This is a classicstudyof the life and cultureof American slave communities. A valuable classroom resource, it is readable and contains numerous
illustrations. Students at all levels will find it helpful.
Brent, Linda. 1973. Incidentsin the Life of a Slave Girl.
Ed. L. Maria Child. San Diego: Harcourt, 210pp.,
$7.95. ISBN015-64435-03
Whenissues of race come up in
classes whereblackstudents
constitutea smallminority,these
students willsense thatthey are
singled out.
As a teenager HarrietJacobs (akaLinda Brent) had
to withstandthe cruelty and sexual advancesof her
master.As a young woman she hid for yearsin order
to be out of slaverybut near her children. Students
will find in this story of resistanceto slaverya very
differentperspectivefrom that of HuchFinn.Brent is
a sophisticatedthinkerand fine writer.
ral literature and history. A classroom without African Americans presents particular difficulties for
the teacher and students reading HuckleberryFinn.
Lacking black voices in the room, it will be difficult
for "sympathy" or "understanding" to be more
than superficial. Issues of race may be treated at a
safe though somewhat uncomfortable intellectual
distance: "I think that they would think . '.." "If I
were black I would feel . . . ." In a classroom without blacks, some students may seek to relieve the
tension that a discussion of race brings by making
supposedly funny, but actually inappropriate, racial
remarks. A white teacher in this situation needs to
make it clear from the outset that such remarks are
not acceptable whether or not blacks are present to
hear them. Students and parents in such contexts
may resent any time spent on racial questions or on
black history and culture as "too much" time, yet
for these students moretimeis necessary to understanding the literature and preparing for democratic citizenship. Inviting black speakers to the
class, regardless of their viewpoint, is especially important. It is relatively easy for white teachers to
argue for the importance of multicultural perspectives and racial understanding, while teachers of
color, black or otherwise, attempting the same pedagogy may be perceived as "hypersensitive"or "activist"or may be accused of "reverse racism."
When issues of race come up in classes where
black students constitute a small minority, these
students will sense, often accurately, that they are
DaughterNew York:Carol,$7.95. ISBN08-21601-806
An early African American novel that explores the
life of ThomasJefferson'sillegitimateslavedaughter.
High-schoolstudentswill find it fascinating.
Brown, William Wells. 1989. Clotel, or the President's
Chesnutt, Charles. 1989. TheMarrowof Tradition.Ann
Arbor: U of Michigan P, 350pp., $13.95. ISBN 0472061-47X
This fine turn-of-the-centurynovel by a somewhat
lesser known but excellent black novelist is perfect
for high-school students. Set in the periodjust after
the end of slavery,the novel uses a detective-fiction
style to explore the experience of blacksin the South
after the CivilWar.
Douglass, Frederick, 1982. Narrative of the Life of
FrederickDouglass: An American Slave. Ed. Houston
Baker,Jr. New York:Penguin, 160pp., $5.95. ISBN
0-140-3901-2X
Douglasswrotethree autobiographies;this is the first,
shortest, and most famous. A master of language,
Douglasscontraststhe crueltyof slaverywith the desire of slaves for knowledge and freedom. No Jim,
Douglass learns to read, explicitlyadopts and develops abolitionist arguments, teaches other slaves,
fights back-at one point punching his master-and
plans a careful escape.
Gates, Henry Louis, Jr., ed. 1987. The ClassicSlave
Narratives.New York:Mentor, SI8pp., $5.99. ISBN
0-451-62726-1
The collection by Gates is not only inexpensive, but
includes other important slave narratives,such as
Continuedon p. 30
November 1993
29
singled out, that the other students are looking at
them, waiting for a reaction. In a letter to the New
YorkTimes,Allan Ballard describes his experience
in a predominantly white junior-high school in
Philadelphia in the 1950s:
I can still recallthe angerI felt as mywhite classmates
read aloud the word "nigger."In fact, as I write this
letter I am getting angry all over again. I wanted to
sink into my seat. Some of the whites snickered,others giggled. I can recall nothing of the literarymerits
of this workthat you term "thegreatestof all American novels."I only recallthe sense of relief I felt when
I would flip ahead a few pages and see that the word
"nigger"would not be read that hour. (qtd. in Henry
1992, 29)
Nonblack teachers need to understand that it may
be difficult for black students, even the most able,
to express their reservations or concerns about
matters of race to their teacher. Silent refusal to
read the novel, distracting comments or behavior,
an excess of humor in the classroom by students
asked to read HuckleberryFinn should be seen by
teachers not as student insubordination or narrowmindedness but as inchoate expressions of resistance to a possibly inappropriate curriculum or
pedagogy. Since a special burden falls on them,
African American students have a right to expect
that they will be consulted in advance of reading
"anddiscussing the novel. Particularly if the teacher
is white, it is important that minority students know
that the teacher is aware of their position. Minority
students can be told that when they write or participate in discussion that they can choose to either
speak '"justas a person" or, if theychoose to, identify
their viewpoint with that of other African Americans.
In a classroom where half or more of the students are black, African American students are less
likely to feel isolated. Yet in these classrooms teachers still need to find ways to affirm student voices
and facilitate communication between racial
groups. Small-group discussion plays a particularly
important role in this classroom. Such groups will
probably be more racially mixed if students are
assigned by "counting off," though group self-selection may be important in helping to build comfort
level and confidence. Unless their purposes are
made explicit, teachers should avoid overtly separating groups by race. As a white teacher with
about half African American students, I observe an
evolution in class discussion. In the first weeks the
30
English Journal
Continued
fromp. 29
"TheLife of OlaudahEquiano"and the storyof Mary
Prince. In addition, it includes excerpts from the
writings of Frederick Douglass and Linda Brent
which are listed in this sidebar.
Genovese,Eugene. 1976. Roll,Jordan,Roll:TheWorld
theSlavesMade.New York:Random, 823pp., $16.95.
ISBN0-394-71652-3
A massivestudy of slave culture writtenby a leading
AfricanAmericanhistorian,this work is surprisingly
approachablethough encyclopedic.Genovese'swife,
Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, has also done important
workon slave culture, particularlythe experience of
women. Advanced students might want to examine
WithinthePlantationHousehold(1988, Chapel Hill: U
of North Carolina P, 544pp., $13.95. ISBN 0-80784232-X)
FivePlaysbyLanHughes, Langston. 1963. "Mulatto."
gustonHughes.Ed. WebsterSmalley.Bloomington:Indiana UP, 280pp., $6.95. ISBN0-253-20121-7
Hughes' play offers a compelling look at personal
and social relations in the "bighouse" among slave
masters,their slavemistresses,and mulattochildren.
There is a certain mysteryabout the period in which
the action takesplace that gives the playa transhistoric dimension.
.N:
Roots.1977. Dir.DavidGreone.Warner.
Though all of us mayhave seen the televisionmovie
and read the book, many of our students have not
encountered it. The six-partvideo series is a fine way
to complement other reading about slaveryand presents one of the few depictions I know of slave capture and transportationto America.
Sembene, Ousmane.1974. "TribalScars."TribalScars.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 116pp., $7.95. ISBN
0-435-90142-7
A shortstoryby the renownedSenegaleseauthor,this
work examines the effect on Africanculture of the
slave trade.
Turner,Nat. 1861. Confessions
of Nat TurnerLeaderof
theLateInsurrection
in Southampton,
Va.,As Fullyand
Madeto ThomasC. Gray(facs. ed.). Salem,
Voluntarily
NH: Ayer,$9.95. ISBN0-8369-8672-5
"Notto be confused with the novel of the same name
by WilliamStyron,Turner'soriginalconfessionswere
recorded by a journalist named T. R. Grayand are
probablythe most rivetingfifteen pages you or your
students,will ever read. Throwing caution to the
windsTurnerand his group of rebellingslaveswould
arriveat one plantationafter another, slaughterthe
white families and be joined by many of the slaves
Continuedonp. 31
majority of large-group discussion volunteers are
often white. As we work with small groups, as I show
an interest in listening to minority perspectives,
and as I invite non-volunteers to participate, a
more balanced class discussion evolves. African
American voices are not automatically affirmed
just because African American students are present
in the classroom. Since African American culture is
not the focus of academic attention in most
schools-even schools with a majority of African
American students-it is not fair for teachers to
assume that black students know "their"history or
literature. Thus it may be just as important for
students in a class with a larger percentage of black
students to acquaint themselves with complementary background materials from African American
perspectives.
Continued
fromp. 30
before moving on. Though the rebels, including
Turner, were eventually caught and hanged, their
revolt reveals that anger and violent resistancewere
very much a part of slavery.
Walker,Margaret.1984. Jubilee.New York:Bantam,
432pp., $5.95. ISBN0-553-27383-3
More approachable for most high-school students
than other contemporary black fiction on slavery
such as Toni Morrison'sBeloved,
IshmaelReed'sFlight
to Canada,or CharlesJohnson'sMiddlePassage,Jubilee
is a powerfuland compelling novel of one woman's
journey through slaveryand its aftermath.
Wilson, Harriet. 1983. OurNig. New York:Vintage,
131pp., $7.95. ISBN0-394-71558-6(original 1859)
The first novel by an AfricanAmericanwoman, Our
Nig is about the oppression of black servantsin the
North rather than about slaveryperse. Alice Walker
Huck
and
Finn:
Epithets
Teaching
Language
saysof HarrietWilson, "Itis as if we'd just discovered
In addition to carefully considering the racial dy- Phillis Wheatley--or Langston Hughes.... She repnamics of the classroom, in reading Huckleberry resents a similarvastnessof heretofore unexamined
Finn it is important to recognize the power of lan- experience, a whole layer of time and existence in
Americanlife and literature."
guage, in particular racial epithets. Teachers make
a mistake when they excuse Twain's use of the term
Zinn, Howard. 1980. People'sHistoryof the United
States.New York:Harper,644pp., $12.00. ISBN0-06on the grounds that it was accepted in his time. All
090792-4
of the scholars I have read on the subject agree
In a series of excerptable and highly readable chapwith professor David L. Smith that, "Even when
ters, Zinn offers a version of Americanhistory from
Twain was writing his book, 'nigger' was universally
"thepeople's"point of view.For use with Hut* Finn
recognized as an insulting, demeaning word" or as part of a unit on slavery,the chapters"Drawing
(1992, 107). Peaches Henry, former high-school
the Color Line," and "Slaverywithout Submission,
teacher and graduate student at Columbia UniverEmancipationwithout Freedom"would be essential.
Zinn'shistory offersother chaptersthat complement
sity, describes the history and politics of the word:
other workswe teach and has a useful bibliogmany
To dismiss the word's recurrence in the work as an
raphy.
accurate rendition of nineteenth-centuryAmerican
linguisticconventionsdenies whateveryblackperson
knows:far more than a synonymfor slave, "nigger"
tations of "thatword"generate a culturaldiscomfort
signifies a concept. It conjures centuries of specifithat blacks share with no other racial group. (1992,
cally black degradation and humiliation during
which the family was disintegrated, education was
31)
denied, manhood was trapped within a forced perHenry believes that in teaching texts such as
petual puerilism,and womanhood was destroyedby
If
one
substituted
that
Twain
concubinage.
grants
HuckleberryFinn or To Kill a Mockingbirdthe word
"nigger"for "slave,"the implicationsof the word do should be "forced" "into active class discourse" in a
not improve; "nigger"denotes the black man as a controlled classroom
setting because in her expericommodity,as chattel .... "Nigger"encapsulatesthe ence
or white) could only face
"students
(black
decades of oppression that followed emancipation.
sensitive
issues
of
race
after they had achieved a
"Itmeans not only racist terror and lynch mobs but
that victims 'deserve it'." Outside Central High in certain emotional distance from the rhetoric of
Little Rock in 1954 it was emblazoned across plac- race" (41). She describes her experience with
ards;and acrossthe South throughoutthe 1950sand ninth graders:
into the 1960sit was screamedby angrymobs .... So
Unable to utter the taboo word "nigger,"students
to impute blacks' abhorrence of "nigger"to hywould be paralyzed,the whites by their social awarepersensitivitycompounds injustice with callousness
ness of the moral injunctionagainstit and the blacks
and signalsa refusalto acknowledgethat the conno-
November 1993
31
their
to
it.
torturto
it.
torturby their
heightened
sensitivity
by
heightened
sensitivity
Slowly,
Slowly,
of
the
wal
silence
would
to
crumble
the
wall
of
silence
would
to
crumble
ously,
ously,
begin
begin
students'
before
timid
to
the
before
students'
timid
to
the
attempts
attempts
approach
approach
topic
topic
wiwith
th
aafter
fter
ttense
ense
ne
moments,
euphemism.
moments, oone
euphemism. FiFinally,
nally,
adolescent
would
ututter
ter
tthe
he
word.
AAs
s
the
would
word.
the
courageous adolescent
courageous
cclass
las
relreleased
eased
aan
n
alalmost
most
audi
ble
oof
f
tthe
he
audible
relief,
relief,
sigh
sigh
seriousness
he
seriousness ofof tthe
s ue
aand
nd
dodoes
es
aa didisservsservrace/slaver iissue
race/slavery
tt
o
the he complexity
ofof tthe
he
novelnovel.
.
aa ssubRaci
sm
iisn't
sn't
ubRacism
complexity
.c
Marylee
Uengstebeck
Marylee
Hengstebeck
tthat
hat
bbe
e
ccan
an
nd
itit woulwould
d
compartmentalized, aand
jject
ect
eeasily
asily
compartmentalized,
bbe
e
tto.deal
o
wiwith
th
didifficult
fficult
deal
otother
her
addressed
The
The
de~cision
of
or
to
to
or
decision
of
wheth~er
not
teach
no~t
Adventures
whether
subje~ctsaddressed
tea~ch
Adven~tures
vvery
ery
subjects
of
of
in
tthe
he
after
bookboo~kafter
in
tthe
he
is ue
oof
f
issue
s rairaised.
sed.
for
Finn
is
one
me.
one
I've
for
me.
Fin
stereotypes iis
is a
a difficult
I've
difficult
back
back
H-uckleberry
stereotypes
gone
Huckleberry
gone
ne
When
isis confronted
tthe
he
When oone
th
confronted wiwith
oof
f
blblack.
ack
feelingys
and
and
forth
forth
so
the
the
often
is ue
the
on
the
issu~e
so
often
on
I'm
I'm
sure
sure
feelings
onlything
only
thing
ccan
an
students
o
ffor
or
al
.tudents whw~ho
of
of
is
the~mselves,all
If
themselves,
is
aa lose/lose
II decide
it's
that
that
it's
If
to
decide
arguments,
to
spe~ak
speak
lose/lose
arguments,
proposition.
proposition.
aand
nd
academic
aa halt.
academic
to
halt.
to
HoHow
w
otherwise, quiquickly
teach
teach
otherwise,
of
ofthe
must
the
novel.I
I love
it,
novel
love
virtually
ckly
grgrind
ind
it, II must
ig~nore
parts
ignore
virtually
parts
II supposed
aam
m
black
toto black
students
hat
stud~entstthat
more
and
focus
on
more
and
focus
on
and
and
slavsu~pposed toto explain
slavexplain
important
aspects--racism
tth~ey
hey
important
aspects--racism
bbe
e
wwill
il
so
an
humiliated
II ccan
tthat
hat
so
educate
embarrassed/ humiliated
educate
embarrassed/
I don't
If
If I
don't
teach
teach
in
in
the
th~e
it,.I'm
ery.
it, I'm
putting
posiery.
mysmiyself
elf
putting
posittheir
heir
fel ow
whiwh~ite
te
students
fellow
sm?
ThThe
e
wholwhole
e
studen~tsaboutabout raciracism?
of
fine
tion
line
between
and
of
aa fine
tion
line
between
and
walking
walking
censorship
censorship
i
d
e
a
r
a
c
i
s
t
s
e
ems
tthe
he
idea
a
t
seems
racist
at
oonce
nce
sstutuwhiwhite
te
In
ccore;
ore;
I
I
n
the
I
t
h
e
have
decided
to
again,
h
a
v
e
deci
d
ed
not
t
o
teach
t
h
e
n
o
t
t
e
a
c
h
the
end,
sensitivity.
end,
again,
sensitivity.
ded~ents
nts
aand
nd
their
aare
re
needs
their
ffirst.
irst.
AnAnd
d
ne~ed~s
tthe.
hen
been
but
but
it's
aa long
been
being
it's
aand.bupywaythere..
nd
novel,
put
t
h
e
r
e
.
novel,
be
i
n
g
p
u
t
long
wa
y
bumpy
there's
the
there's
the
AAs
s
Peaches
Peaches
cautions
cautions
worword,
d,
"nigger."
I have
and
Henry
filed
that
"nigger."
Henry
and
filed
that
II
neatl.eatly
y
typed
away,
paper,
typed
away,
JIhave aa paper;,
in
ororEvasi
Satire
on
Evasion
in.Satire
"The"The S~truggle
ffor.Tolerance:
or
Tolerance:
(1992,
woeafew
few
wrote
a
semeste.rs
back
that
semesters
back
that
(
1
992,
vehemently
Struggl
e
supp.rt
vehemently
supports
and
Race
in
Race
and
in
Durham:
Durham:
the
Finn,"
the
of
Finn.
At
the
of Huck
II didn't
see
Censorship
Huck
Finn.
At
the
se
Finn,"
didn't
the
the
time,
teaching
Censorship
Huckleber~ry
Huckleberry
time,
teaching
DukeDluke UUP,.25-48),
1 1 shared
shared inin ""the
the
f
P,
book
book
as
as
fact
is
aa fact
thti
that
25-48),
so
so
can't
obvious
II ca~n't
incapacity oof
obvious
racist,
now,
racist,
now,
incapacity
non-blacks
he
enormous
non-b~lackstoto comprehend
enormous emotional
emotional
I didn't
I thinhikit's
believe
then.
it tthen.
k
believe.Iddntse
se
it's
for
c~omprehen~dtthe
white
hrdfor
hard
white
attached
attached toto tthe
he
hateword ''nigger'
hateword
for
for
freight
to
to
when
when~
freight
people
recognize
racism'
racism'
nigger'
people
recognize
especia.ly
especially
th~ey're
they're
each
I hhad
blblac~k
ack
ad
nno
o
iid~ea
dea
e~ach
how
how
tthe
he
word
word
surrou~nded
white
person.".I
white
surrounded
for
most
of
for
of
their
their
most
person.
"
people
ugly
ug~ly
by.oher
by other
people
sounds
sounds rrea~d
ead
nor
alaloud
oud
nor
tthe
he
ttha.
hat
lives.
lives.
ch~arged
atmosphere
charged
atmosphere
ffrom
rom
results
results
iit.
t.
black
o
black
el
students ttell
students
me
me
made
Listening tto
the
made
bla~ck
black
the
they
Although
m~any
good
Listening
poin.s,
they
many
Although
go d
points,
firsthand
it made
how
firsthand
it
tthem
hem
how
ffeel
el
made
is what
is
what
in
scoasincluded
included
scholars
Satire
in.Satire
or
? Black
orE.so?
Evasion
changed
Black
my
my
Perspectives
changed
Perspectives
mind.
II tthink
NoNow
w
hink
mind.
that
iit's
t's
not
that
not
insensitive
insensitive but
but
on
on
Finn.
S. Leonard,.Thomas
Fin
TenThomas
TenHuckle.erry
oonly
nly
Leonard,
Huckleberry
UJamesJaxes S.
tto
o
abusi
ve
abusive
ack
students
it
students toto ssit
bbe
e
and
and
and
and
Thadious
expect blblack
M.
M.
Thadious
Durham:
Durham:
Duke
Duke
Davis,
eds.,
1992,
expect
ney,
Davis,
eds.,
19 2,
quiquietly
etly
ney,
sstare~d
tared
aat
t
whiwhile
le
the
the
woword."nigger"
rd
iis
s rread
ead
alaloud
oud
iin
n
their
their
didn.'t
me,
didn't
II fin.d
find
me,
W~allace's
Wallace's
UP).really
persuad~e
John
UP)
"nigger"
real y
persuade
John
oown
wn
classroom
n
classroom iin
1993.1993. 1 1 ssimpl
cannot ddo
cannot
o
and
and
stance
stance iiiiiis
t ve e i.ismand
offensi
and n
His
iit,
t,
His ::::::
th
preisnt offensive
caritjustiiii~ii~ii~iiiii
s.1iki. r::::(-::::i:
iwith.iiii~i:cl~~
i~iiiiiiiiii~~~~~~
cainii
.:. reactionary.
imply
:::us person-,-:::i-:l
::-i:-::-,-:(I::
-i::i-:::'ii:::::
especially
reactionary.
personjiui iic-rii''iiespecially
students,
and:rrr::i::::::::
then
move
talk
about
th:~,:':iii~ii::~e
"reaI'i
:::??::i:;:::::::
:::::::
;:::: on to
:::::::::::::
:-:
:--::-::::::::j
:----?:_:-_:-:-,-:i-:::--:--:ia::::
::::::
won'won't
t.
IoCut.~i~
l
"sanitized"
version
version
of
Fin :::::::is,
of
rewri.~tten,
Huck.Finn
Huck uner
in
ally
rewritten, story,
is, ines
i.fmy
al y
r"sanitized"
o
r
m
y
orthestoparts
that
prefer.
I
That~~ii~iii~~ii~~,i~~,
thei~iii-~~iiiiiii
::--:-:
_iii
iiiiiiii
iiii-iiiiiiii
iii
y,
aa larger llevel,
OOn
n
II tthink
hink
tthat
hat
HucHuck
k
tthe
he
FiFinn
nn
cont
rocontroevel,
aa blatant
of
of censorship.
If
blatant
view,
If we'*re
tto
we're
view,
larger
example
going
example
censorship.
going
Weslrn
neesit
ichij
lot
morm~ore
e
tthan
han
even
these
Huck
even
iissues,
s ues,
these
of
nov~els
of
novels
what
what
Huck.
are-.he
words
repre~sentsaa lot
are-the
words
versy .ersyrepresents
strip
they
very
strip
they
very
they're
they're
Fin
is considered
Finn
is
considered
made
made
of-then
we
we
as
well
as
by
many
of-then
on
(probably
myself
we
l
c~lothes
included)
cl
o
t
h
es
the
o
n
t
h
e
b
y
included)
many
might
paint
(probably
mys
e
l
f
might
paint
to
"the
bbe
e
to
American
"the
."
II tthink
American novelnovel."
And
And
hink
tthat
hat
the
nudes
in
the
in
th~e
nudes
the
H-uck
Finn
is
aa mixed
Sistine
Huck
is
Fin
mixed
grgreat
eat
Sistin~e.Chapel!
Chapel!
bobook
ok
isis did~istinctily."American"
"American"
t
h
a
t
that
b
u
t
(whatever
we
either
w
e
must
ei
t
h
er
take
mus
t
t
a
k
e
it
it
leave
means!)
or
o
r
i
t
c
o
m
com(whatever
i
t
l
e
a
v
e
means!)
s
ti
n
ctl
y
package,.but
package,
for
for
aand
nd
ffor
or
worsworse..Huck
e.
FiFinn
n
Huck
is
is aas
s
aa
mucmuch
h
betbetter,
ter,
Selective
ofoften,
ten,
masks
the
Selective
re.l
the
masks
real
pletely.
edlitin~g
only
problem.
pletely.
editing
only
problem.
o
f
American
of
American
cul
culture
t
u
re
a
n
d
and
t
h
e
a
s
the
o
f
as
l
lore
o
r
e
of
For
aa lo~ng
I
For
I
could
still
part
I
teach
this
th.t
mythology
time,
I
t
h
a
t
c
o
ul
d
s
t
i
l
t
e
a
c
h
t
h
i
s
thought
p
a
r
t
time,
mythology
long
thought
Mani
fest
aand
nd
tthe
he
Manifes.
llone
one
And
And
iit's
t's
aas
s
Destiny
the
central
discussion
cowboy.
racism
the
book,
central
of
in
discussion
in
Destiny
makin~gracism
book,
to~picof
cowboy.
jjust
ust
making
topic
flawed.
flawed.
Mani
fest
aa grand aand
Manifest
wwas
as
n
d
iidea
dea
II have
but
now
have
this
Destiny
but
now
decddthat
decided
was
this
glorious
that
was
a
afae
flawed
Destiny
clas~s,
clas ,
grand
glorious
that
WeWest
st
tthe
he
oou~rs
urs
that
wwas
as
or
tthe
he
idea..If
II really
America's) ffor
idea.
want
to
and
If
teach
discuss
with
and
want
to
teach
((white
white
discuss
with
America's)
my
ttakin~g.
aking.
real y
my
Th
e
Nat
i
v
e
T~he
Nativ.
Americans
Americans
were
were
small
s
m
al
l
a
a
footnote
tto
o
footnote
students
the
issue
of
students
the
of
only
is ue
I
racism
thereare
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
racism.(which.I
do),
only
(which
do),
that
HucHuck
k
FiFinn
nn
that
is
is
f
the
iirreverrreverthe
much
much
better
to
texts
than
to
use
better
Huck
Finn.
it
texts
than
representative oof
use
Huck
Finn.
as
it as
aa
sstory.
tory.
representative
Us.ng
Us
i
n
g
for
a bit of
aa cop> eent,
individual
whwho
o
the
oout
ut
ffor
or
the
tterrier ive~hicle
nt,
rugged individual
discu~ssing
racismnis
for
vehicle
is a bit
of
racism
rugged
"l"ligh~ts
ights
prim.rimary
ary
discussing
copthat
it
was
a
written
man
white
and
by
hhe
e
befbefore
ore
ccan
an
bbe
e
"civilized."
The
who
"civilized."
'The
who
tory"
that
it was
writ en
and
man
people
tory"
out, .ut considering
peopl
e
considering
by a white
were
were
denied
tth~at
hat
denied
ssame
ame
freedom
freedom
aare
re
alallotted
lot ed
aa
aa rather
on
rather
the
issue
of
only
on
presents
the
of
is ue
ambiguous
mo~rality
only
presents
ambiguous
morality
smal
and
his
oof
f
his
sso
o
small.and
AnA~nd
d
tthere's
here's
racism
this
and
novel
part
racism
this
story.
and
I.
I
novel
slavery..By
studying
pl
e
asant
pleasan~t
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
r
y
.
together,
slavery.
By
studying
together,
more .ore aat
ssta~ke
take
t
hhere
ere
tth~an
han
aa novel
.
There'
There's
s
aa basic
basic
nov.l.
iidea.
dea
almost
feel
fe l
that
almost
that
about
racism
is
about
is be~in~g
racism
suborsuborteaching
teaching
being
on
tthe
he
on
lline
ine
about
about
Ameri
ca
aand
nd
America
iits
ts
ThatThat's
's
dinated
to
the
dinated
the
In
to
Huck
of
In
of Hu.kFinn
Finn.
self-concept.
fact,
teach~ing
self-concept.
fact,
incorpoteaching
incorpothe
on
the
bboth
oth
on
ssides
ides
are
are
sso
o
heat
heated.
ed.
And
And
II
racism
why
discu.son
abo~ut
arguments
discussions
about
racism
be~comes
a
becomes
why
arguments
aju~stification
rating
rating
justification
think
think
tthat's
hat's
of
of
iit's
t's
so
so
mme
e
hahard
rd
for
for
not
not
wawant
nt
tto
o
for
for
th~e
the
the
not
least
part
why
At
the
for
l
e
a
s
t
me.
A
t
me
.
f
o
r
teaching
p
a
r
t
wh
y
p~urpose.
novel,.not
novel,
teaching
purpose.
tteach
each
to
to
HucHuck
k
ThThe
e
FiFinn.
nn.
oold
ld
II wwas
that
that
as
toltold-of
d-of
aa
I
If
Finn
If H~uck
is
Fin
aa part
Huck
of
aa unit
story
is used
as
used
as
of
on
on
unit
solely
story
solely
part
and
and
lliberated
iberated
aa comforting
America-is
America-is
free,
or
we
book
fre ,
or
sell
the
I lovove
we
short..I
sel
book
the
short.
e
Huck
Huck
slavery
grgreat,
eat,
racism,
racism,
comforting
slavery
and
and
tthat's
hat's
toto let
ne
hahard
rd
II tthink
oof.
f.
hink
iin
n
tthat
hat
and
while
II a~ccept
and
Finn,
have,
while
fact
th~e
the
fchti'
it's
that
always
Finn,
hopeful
have,
hopefu.l oone
le~tgo
go
always
accept
tto
o
tto
o
hhold
old
oon
n
FiFinn
n
HucHuck
k
wewe're
're
al
all
oone
ne
llast
ast
also
it's
also
other
it's
trying
other
racist,
making
hilario~us,
many
things~-breezy,
t
r
yi
n
g
racist,
hilarious,
maki
n
g
many
things-breezy,
ffor
or
ttha~t
hat
oold
ld
nati
onal
oon
n
that's
tthe
he
that's
natio~nal
comolex.
an
and
and
an
adventurtto
rendadventure
to
teqrher
read.
As
aa teacher,
Aq
complex,
I grasp
way
grasp
iidenti~ty
dentity
wayI
Huck
Huck
and
and
Me
Me
Finn,
Slavery,
Finn,
Slavery,
ice
81131az1eE
TI
332
2
Engl
English
ish
Journal
Journal
Mihian4
90
students and I would embarkupon a livelyand risk- and that if we fail to challenge established ways of
taking exchange about race and its attendant com- knowing, contrast viewpoints, and broaden perplexities. (41-42)
spectives, we fail to do our job. Yet we must be
An open classroom discussion of racial epithets in
a mixed classroom of ninth graders with a sensitive
and able black teacher clearly offers important opportunities for learning. With a different student
population and a different teacher the results
might have been less positive. Some teachers forbid the use of the word in the classroom and simply
skip over it when the work is read aloud. Others
speak the word only when they are quoting from a
secondary source, such as the novel itself. Others
use the expression "n-word"or "the racial epithet."
No approach is guaranteed, but whatever approach is taken it should be done explicitly and be
discussed by the students. Discomfort with the
An open classroom discussion of
racial epithets in a mixed classroom
with a sensitive and able black
teacher clearly offers important
opportunities for learning.
word on the part of teachers or students may not
be overcome by even the most sensitive approach
and the problem of the racial epithet in the novel
constitutes reason enough for some teachers to
choose away from teaching the work. No teacher
should be required to teach this novel. (The ethics
of requiring teachers to teach HuckleberryFinn are
explored by Wayne Booth in The Company We Keep:
An Ethics of Fiction [1988].)
careful that such discomfort is experienced equally
rather than focused on an oppressed group that is
desperately struggling for school success. It is
timely for English teachers to look beyond HuckleberryFinn, to find other works that might be more
appropriate for all our students and more effective
in creating multicultural communities of learning
in our classrooms. Educating white students about
prejudice with a text that is alienating to blacks
perpetuates racist priorities, does it not? There is
no excuse for the fact that not even one of the most
taught works in American high schools is written
from a minority perspective. Why aren't the great
African American novels of Wright, Hurston, Ellison, or Walker more central to our teaching?
Moreover, race is not the only disturbing issue
when we consider the role of HuckleberryFinn in the
classroom; we also need to ask other questions,
about the novel's treatment of women, for instance, about its effect on women students, and the
overwhelming male orientation of our curriculum.
I close with a quotation from Julius Lester:
[In HuckleberryFinn] civilization is equated with
education, regularity, decency, and being cramped
up, and the representations of civilization are
women.... The fact that the novel is regarded as a
classic tells us much about the psyche of the
white American male, because the novel is a powerful evocation of puer, the eternal boy for whom
growth, maturity, and responsibility are enemies.
(1992, 205)
WesternMichigan University
Kalamazoo,Michigan 49008
Teach Huck Finn or Not
There was a time when I thought it was silly not to
teach Huckleberry Finn on the grounds that it was a
racist novel. After reading and listening to African
American scholars, teachers, parents, and students,
I have changed my mind. Gerald Graff has urged
English teachers to "teach the conflicts" (1992),
and at teachers' conferences in Oregon and Michigan, I have advocated using the novel along with
other works as an opportunity for students to de-
velop their own critical thinking about literature,
racism, and the literary canon. Given the prominence of Huckleberry Finn in the curriculum, the
attempt to teach it in a truly anti-racist way marks a
starting point, a much needed improvement over
business as usual. I realize that sometimes it is necessary for English classrooms to be uncomfortable
Works Cited
Applebee, Arthur. "Stability and Change in the High
School Canon." EnglishJournal 81. 5 (Sep.): 27-32.
Bell, Bernard W. 1992. "Twain's'Nigger' Jim: The Tragic
Face behind the Minstrel Mask." Satire or Evasion?
Black Perspectiveson HuckleberryFinn. Ed. James S.
Leonard, Thomas Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis.
Durham: Duke UP. 124-40.
Booth, Wayne. 1988. The CompanyWeKeep:An Ethics of
Fiction. Berkeley: U of California P.
Ellison, Ralph. 1964. "Change the Joke and Slip the
Yoke." Shadowand Act. New York:Signet. 61-73.
Fishkin, Shelley Fisher. 1993. Was Huck Black?: Mark
Twain and African-AmericanVoices.New York: Oxford
UP.
November
1993
33
Graff, Gerald. 1992. Beyondthe CultureWars:How Teach- Morrison, Toni. 1992. Playing in the Dark: Whitenessand
the LiteraryImagination.Cambridge: Harvard UP.
ing the ConflictsCan RevitalizeAmericanEducation.New
York:Norton.
Finn
Rampersad, Arnold. 1992. "AdventuresofHuckleberry
and
Afro-American
Literature."
Satire
or
Evasion?
Peaches.
"The
for
Tolerance:
1992.
Henry,
Struggle
Black Perspectiveson HuckleberryFinn. Ed. James S.
Race and Censorship in HuckleberryFinn." Satire or
Evasion? Black Perspectiveson HuckleberryFinn. Ed.
Leonard, Thomas Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis.
Durham: Duke UP. 216-27.
James S. Leonard, Thomas Tenney, and Thadious M.
Davis. Durham: Duke UP. 25-48.
Smith, David L. 1992. "Huck,Jim, and American Racial
Discourse." Satire or Evasion? Black Perspectiveson
HuckleberryFinn. 1993. Stephen Sommers. Walt Disney.
HuckleberryFinn. Ed. James S. Leonard, Thomas
Jones, Rhett S. 1992. "Nigger and Knowledge: White
Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis. Durham: Duke UP.
Double-Consciousness in Adventures of Huckleberry
103-20.
Finn." SatireorEvasion?BlackPerspectiveson Huckleberry
Finn. Ed. James S. Leonard, Thomas Tenney, and Wallace, John H. 1992. "The Case Against Huck Finn."
SatireorEvasion? BlackPerspectiveson Huckleberry
Finn.
Thadious M. Davis. Durham: Duke UP. 173-94.
Ed. James S. Leonard, Thomas Tenney, and Thadious
Leonard, James S., Thomas Tenney, and Thadious M.
M. Davis. Durham: Duke UP. 16-24.
Davis, eds. 1992. SatireorEvasion? BlackPerspectiveson
Woodard, Fredrick, and Donnarae MacCann. 1992.
HuckleberryFinn. Durham: Duke UP.
"Minstrel Shackles and Nineteenth-Century 'LiberalFinn." SatireorEvasion?BlackPerspecLester, Julius. 1992. "Morality and Adventuresof Huckleity' in Huckleberry
tives on HuckleberryFinn. Ed. James S. Leonard,
berryFinn." SatireorEvasion? BlackPerspectiveson HuckThomas Tenney, and Thadious M. Davis. Durham:
leberryFinn. Ed. James S. Leonard, Thomas Tenney,
and Thadious M. Davis. Durham: Duke UP. 199-207.
Duke UP. 141-53.
EJ SEVENTY-FIVEYEARSAGO
The Idea Is the Thing
Some years ago I remember seeing a series of textbooks entitled How to Think in
Frenchand How to Think in Spanish. The titles aroused in me a sort of envy. If only
we could teach our pupils how to think in English! This I believe to be the chief
aim of the study of literature in the high school, not merely a knowledge of forms
and types, of meters and styles, and of literary anecdotes, or even an appreciation
of technical excellence. The idea is the thing. A knowledge of other matters is
desirable, but only as a by-product.
***
If I were asked by a child what literature is, I should say, "It is a new pair of
eyes-dozens of pairs-with which to see things you never dreamed of, and, what
is still better perhaps, to see things differently which you have often seen."
The knife with which to open a book is not the question of structure, plot, or style,
but rather the question of the author's point of view. What is his idea? The pupil
should be taught to look for this first of all, whether the book is a novel, a play, or
a poem. How did the author look at life?
M. Ellwood Smith. November 1918. "The Coroner on 'English Literature'," EJ7.9: 551-56.
twain, huckleberry finn,
and the reconstruction
neil schmitz
The controversial ending of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn begins, not with Huck's decision to endure damnation for Jim's sake, but
with Tom Sawyer's discovery of the place where Jim is confined. "Watermelon shows man, lock shows prisoner; and it ain't likely there's two
prisoners on such a little plantation, and where the people's all so kind
and good" (p. 181).1 It is here, following Mark Twain's "watermelon,"
that we go down the hole into the wonderland of American racial history, that illogical and unpredictable terrain where nothing is as it seems,
and where Jim's fate, that inexorable issue, must be decided. The question of his liberation is no longer an intimate concern to be debated in
the close quarters of Huck's conscience. In one stroke Tom unwittingly
lays bare the meaning of Jim's imprisonment and reveals its modern context. The Phelpses are "kind and good" people, exemplary citizens, and
in their midst sits a brooding black man whom they have shackled. Concealed throughout most of the novel, Jim's presence is at last unavoidably
visible and nearly everyone strives to solve the burden of that presence.
The Phelpses simply want to get him legally off the premises. Huck
would steal him and make once more for the dubious sanctuary of the
river. Only Tom, with Miss Watson's certificate in his back-pocket,
understands that Jim is neither a slave nor a free man and that, therefore, anything can be done to him.
"When I start in to steal a nigger, or a watermelon, or a Sundayschool book," Huck reminds Tom, "I ain't no ways particular how it's
done so it's done" (p. 191). His complaint is brushed aside. The capriciousness with which Tom postpones the declaration of Jim's assigned
freedom suggests the extent to which he believes Miss Watson's remission actually frees Jim. The document means only that Jim will not be
sent down river, and no more. If anything, his emancipation offers opportunities for a new form of exploitation which Tom immediately
59
seizes—the chance to manipulate the black man's feelings, to play godlike
with his aspirations. In brief, Jim's situation at the end of Huckleberry
Finn reflects that of the Negro in the Reconstruction, free at last and
thoroughly impotent, the object of devious schemes and a hapless victim
of constant brutality. What indeed was to be done with Jim, this black
man whom Twain had so conscientiously humanized? "Murder, killing
and maiming Negroes, raping Negro women—in the 80's and in the
Southern South, this was not even news"; W. E. B. Du Bois wrote, recalling his years as a student at Fisk University, "it got no publicity; it
caused no arrests; and punishment for such transgressions was so unusual
that the fact was telegraphed North." 2 This was the implacable reality
that lay outside the shed on the Phelps farm, the historical context that
made, then as now, the notion of Jim's "freedom" seem so obscene.
Twain had rendered Jim's liberation in Huckleberry Finn at that
precise moment in American history when barely realized liberties were
being wrenched one by one from the grasp of the emancipated black man
in the South. Between 1876 and 1883, the period during which he
worked on the novel, the Reconstruction was nullified, the ambitious
programs of the Radical Republicans abandoned and the fate of the
Negro restored to the keep of his former master, a fate manifest in the
annual toll of lynchings. The magnitude of that betrayal invests Huckleberry Finn with excruciating ironies. If, as W. R. Brock has observed,
the idea of racial equality was at best a shaky "hypothesis" in the nineteenth century "not accepted in the North any more than it was in the
South," and "even abolitionists were anxious to disclaim any intention
of forcing social contacts between the races and all shied away from the
dread subject of racial amalgamation," 3 there nonetheless, struggling
against the current, was Huckleberry Finn. Without overt political reference or sentimental appeals Twain reaffirmed the validity of that "hypothesis." Huck and Jim do that appalling thing—loaf on their raft
with perfect equanimity, eat, drink and sleep together, enjoying (to paraphrase Harry Golden) a horizontal as well as a vertical relationship. But
they do so by inhabiting the retreat of the river, drifting through the
world Du Bois and Brock describe, and inevitably Twain had to bring
them back into that restrictive tortured world. There was, in short, no
way in which he could make his ending structurally symmetrical or formally apt. Twain could not discard the awkward question of Jim's fate
—he had either to deal with it realistically and reintroduce a critical
voice like that of Colonel Sherburn or treat it symbolically. Nor could
he ignore or deflect the craziness of racism that enmeshed all white men
(even Huck) when they regarded the black man. In facing this complex
problem, Twain chose to discover Jim shorn of his subjective reality, no
longer actively engaged in the process of living. Tom pursues the watermelon in order to locate an iconical Jim, that black man trapped in the
prison of the white man's mind.
60
Even those writers who dealt with the plight of the Negro in the objective realm of politics could not evade the inner madness Twain so
deviously exhibited at the end of Huckleberry Finn. "The South was
right in believing that the North cared little or nothing for the negro
as a man," Albion Tourgée wrote in A Fool's Errand (1879), "but wrong
in the idea that the theory of political equality and manhood suffrage
was invented or imposed from any thought of malice, revenge or envy
toward the South/' 4 Twain had none of Tourgée's political expertise—
he had only the Southerner's intuitive understanding of the gothic interior of American racism, his own compelling care for the Negro as a
man and a sense of the insanity bubbling within Tourgée's lucid observation. In 1874 he had published the remarkable sketch, "A True Story,"
in which a jovial black cook, Aunt Rachel, suddenly confounds Mister
C— and his guests with a tale of suffering that makes them cringe in
their naivete. They think of her as an exuberant mammy and relish the
sweetness of her laughter, but her narrative, which she relates only when
prodded to explain her native simplicity, explodes her anguish into the
calm of the evening. It is a familiar tale—children torn from her arms
on the auction block, heavy chains and savage beatings, divided loyalties
and self-hatred. The mystery of her happiness is left unanswered. Unlike
Mister C—, who is portrayed as a fumbling liberal gentleman, Tom
seems to understand the peril of allowing the black man to assert the
horror of his experience. Not until the narrator of Ralph Ellison's
Invisible Man lies encased in a neurological ward, electroshocked into
the absence of identity and past, do we regain the hallucinatory insight
of Twain's ending of Huckleberry Finn, that vivid sense of the enclosed
black man helplessly submitting to the white man's medicine, enduring
an incomprehensible cure for the color of his skin and the content of
his thought.
It is an affront, this sequence at the Phelps farm, because the humanity of its prime character is patently, systematically ignored. Everything is drawn into the structure Tom creates: Huck's tenuous sympathy for Jim's difficult position, Aunt Sally's routine, the somnolent
neighborhood, even Jim's awareness of his own suffering. The narrative
flow of the novel freezes as Tom's game simply elaborates and becomes
increasingly monstrous. We are ushered into a nightmare where everything is urgent, activity feverish, and nothing happens. It is the grotesque
logic of this game which is so difficult to perceive, that and the totality
of Tom's presumption. What does Jim's legal freedom mean? Nothing.
"The very center of Twain's book," Ellison has written, "revolves finally
around the boy's relations with Nigger Jim and the question of what
Huck should do about getting Jim free after the two scoundrels had
sold him." 5 But as Twain renders it, the process of getting the black man
out of his unjustified bondage is so difficult, so painfully bizarre, that the
momentous question, as I have suggested, becomes the one Jim signally
61
fails to ask: why, if already free, must I perform in such demeaning
charades?
The answer is concealed in the maze of Tom's fecund imagination.
We must relocate Jim in that intensely contrived world of dungeons and
jails which is at once Tom's synoptic vision of European history and his
symbolic prevision of bourgeois life in St. Petersburg. In either setting
imprisonment is an integral part of the order of things, a given, and one
either evades it or escapes it in isolation, as a solitary feat. The context
of political injustice or societal oppression is simply not recognized. Liberation for Tom is a jail-break (or a weekend), the reward one gets for
using his ingenuity. There is no substantive freedom, no being free.
Huck's experience on the river is beyond Tom's imagining. Beneath all
the costume and paraphernalia, Tom's notion of freedom is vulgar, that
of the bank clerk who dreams unintelligently of becoming Jesse James.
Thus Jim is transferred from the actuality of the shed to a new and more
terrifying confinement in Tom's consciousness. There a new enslavement begins, a new series of tortures, a revised ordeal that lacks the
primitive solace of at least knowing who the jailors and torturers are. In
this new prison the first thing Jim must learn is that he has become a
character in a fantasy. The white man who defined his slavehood now
dreams and defines the experience of his liberation, and in both roles
the black man must act his part or perish. Tom's fantasies are melodramatic transcriptions of the swashbuckling novels of Scott and Dumas.
They reflect a consciousness Jim could not possibly understand. His
problem is to decipher their hieroglyphic, to decode the actual demands
hidden in the exotica.
Somehow Jim must be freed without ripping apart either the cartilage
of the social structure or the fabric of its myth. "Only I couldn't believe
it," Huck exclaims. "Tom Sawyer a nigger stealer!" (p. 176). It is clear,
however, that Tom will have nothing to do with Jim as a defiant slave.
Those unfortunate black men "ungrateful enough to run away" (p. 185)
are properly hanged. By an act of the imagination (as duplicitous as Miss
Watson's generous bill of freedom), Tom transforms the renegade black
man into a fugitive courtier, an ebony Cassanova. What seems, then, a
mindless escapade is in fact a skillful caricature of the process which
ennobles the black man by expunging his négritude. In order to rise
from the degradation of slavery the black man must first become a white
European. One thinks of Du Bois in the eighties, recently graduated
from Fisk, teaching Cicero's Pro Archia Poeta to the rickety children of
black sharecroppers. It is not, moreover, simply a matter of making
Jim's blackness acceptable, but also a way of structuring the emancipation so that the white man's guilt is obscured by the magnaminity of his
gesture. In all of Tom's fanciful plans there is no mention of what
brought the captive to his prison. Jim is taught a new self that will not
only satisfy Tom's conception of how he should rise from slavery, but
62
which will also feel the requisite gratitude. T o achieve that remarkable
condition of being, Jim must lose the notion of himself as a renegade
nigger. His criminality (the act of choosing freedom) must be thoroughly
effaced.
This impulse supplies the underlying logic in Tom's manic insistence
that Jim undergo what amounts to a purgative ritual, that he assume an
assigned identity before emerging once more into daylight. "Who ever
heard of a state prisoner escaping by a hickry-bark ladder?" (p. 187). T h e
horrors that spring innocuously from Tom cut deeply, sharpened by the
grim accuracy of his statement. "He said it was the best fun he ever had
in his life, and the most intellectual; and said if he only could see his
way to it we would keep it up all the rest of our lives and leave Jim to
our children to get out; for he believed Jim would come to like it better
and better the more he got used to it" (p. 193). In such passages, chilling
in their prefigurative clarity, we are indeed close to Ellison's vision of
things as they are—that "receding horizon" the black man is forever
pursuing in America. Jim's self is an indefinite malleable quality to be
interminably shaped. All that the process requires is Jim's tacit consent,
his willingness to forget the past. In the Invisible Man the narrator lies
strapped to a table and out of the "vast whiteness" about him emerge
placards demanding, to his consternation, that he announce who he is.
One of the physicians considers the possibility of a prefrontal lobotomy.
The result of such operations, he notes approvingly, "is as complete a
change of personality as you'll find in your famous fairy-tale cases of
criminals transformed into amiable fellows after all that bloody business
of a brain operation." 0 In that particular scene we are finally inside Jim's
pen, hearing the maniacal scuffle of the boys outside, their whispered
lunacies and impossible requests. "There was no getting around it. I
could no more escape than I could think of my identity. Perhaps, I
thought, the two things are involved with each other. When I discover
who I am, I'll be free."7 This sense of entombment in the white man's
mind, of losing one's self in that "vast whiteness," has been variously
imagined (and ironically resolved) by a host of modern black writers.
Court Royal, in LeRoi Jones' Great Goodness of Life, is brutally harassed by an unseen magisterial voice demanding that he free himself by
slaying the murderous blackness in his heart—which he does, capering
finally somewhat like Jim in the last chapter of Huckleberry Finn,
chanting: "My soul is as white as snow. White as snow. I'm free. I'm
free. My life is a beautiful thing. " s
By denying Jim the experience of gaining his own freedom, Tom effectively deprives him of a self. Jim had taken flight because Miss Watson betrayed him and it is presumably Miss Watson's remorse that has
freed him, but the simplicity of that acknowledgment—and the simplicity of getting him out—does not occur to Tom. That resolution of
Jim's presence means seeing him as an "ungrateful slave," means taking
63
him seriously as a man. "And told him how to keep a journal on the
shirt with his blood, and all that. He told him everything. Jim he
couldn't see no sense in most of it, but he allowed we was white folks
and knowed better than him; so he was satisfied, and said he would do it
all just as Tom said" (p. 193). The design of the escutcheon which Tom
creates for Jim depicts an escaped slave over the ironic motto, "Maggiore
fretta, minore atto . . . the more haste, the less speed" (p. 200). Jim's
ultimate liberation, Tom calculates, will take a long time. He must first
assert the modes of feelings that Tom dictates, and when the black man
protests that "he didn't know how to make the letters," Tom's response
is that "he would block them out for him, and then he wouldn't have
nothing to do but just follow the lines" (p. 201). These instructions are
dumped into Jim's pen and he is left there to learn a new personality,
"jews-harping the rats," fitting his psyche into the image Tom has established for him.
While Twain's view of these proceedings is easily ascertained, the
way in which he regarded the problem of Jim seems ambivalent. Tom's
behavior is repugnant, clearly, but what is one to do with the nigger?
Huck's scheme, "hiding daytimes and running nights, the way me and
Jim used to do before" (p. 181), is no longer possible. Jim has been
freed and must be brought back into the world, back into the same social
structure that denied him the right of manhood. In the shed he bears
the stigma of the fugitive slave, a frightful thing in the pre-Civil War
South. Miss Watson's certificate frees him, but it does not alter what he
has done or the way in which the white Southerner would regard him.
Tom's method is to transfer him, to change the oppressive thing that he
is, a renegade nigger, and reconstitute him in the apparel of the conventional white hero. The alternative, which Twain lamely accepts, is to
thrust the black man back into a quasi-existence: free but subservient,
funky but noble, "white inside." Tom does not care for the whiteness of
Jim's interior self. What he demands is merely Jim's commitment to
certain gestures and a vocabulary. Twain, however, clings to his desire
to express Jim's inner being, to show him as he really is. Thus Jim
absurdly decides to sacrifice his life (and the family he professes to love)
for Tom's sake. The nightmare which Tom articulates blurs into the
compromised contradictory vision of the white liberal. Jim's native
goodness negates the crushing burden of his past, transcends the pain
that has been inflicted on him and finally diminishes his humanity.
Denied the privilege of wrath, even resentment, Jim hardens into a piece
of statuary.
For all his scathing contempt of Tom's febrile imagination, Twain
could not himself get wholly outside it. The cruelty of Tom's attitude
and the gentleness of Twain's approach, his longing to spare Jim the
reality of his fate, inexorably amount to the same thing—the mythologizing of Jim's political being. Indeed it is at that point in Twain's narra-
64
tive where Jim is most historical (confined to his small dark coop) that
his otherness, the solidity of his suffering, is almost lost from view.
Huck's liberation from the imperatives of racism is intensely realized,
but his discovered love, it would seem, is not enough. The power of
Tom's blindness, his simple inability to see Jim, intervenes. Huck is
made a reluctant actor in a scenario that provides Jim with a spurious
escape and an authentic mob of lynchers. The sordid history of the
Reconstruction with its betrayal and humiliation of the black man pours
into Huckleberry Finn at the end, inhibiting Twain as Huck is inhibited.
One has only to scan Life on the Mississippi to see at once how well
Twain understood the significance of the Reconstruction. His journey
in 1882 had taken him deep into the remorseless South past desolate
niggertowns where the black man's condition, after Emancipation, had
visibly worsened, and then back into the prosperous industrialized Midwest where the free life he had known on the river had been profitably
extinguished. In The Gilded Age, his first novel, he had rendered an
acidulous portrait of the hypocrisy of Northern politicians, senators like
Dilworthy and Buckstone who exploited the hopes of freed black men
for some measure of rehabilitation by pushing through Congress spurious
land appropriations for institutes and schools that never materialized.
The shadow of the so-called New South was on Twain when he wrote
the ending of his novel, all those old unrelieved pressures, old pressures
that were manifest in the journals of Samuel Sewall and the writings of
Thomas Jefferson. What are we to do with the black man? Twain had
added a phrase: Whom I need. T o read the ending of Huckleberry
Finn as a formal resolution, a way of happily rounding off the story, is
to cast aside entirely the book's milieu, to deprive Twain of his praiseworthy aggravation. But that is all it comes to finally—an aggravation, a
restless circling around the shed in which Jim's blackness is bound.
Like most of his contemporaries in the eighties, Twain looked at the
black man across an impassable chasm and was mystified, nagged and
frightened by the enigmatic face that stared back at him. "The white
man's half-conscious awareness that his image of the Negro is false,"
Ellison observes, "makes him suspect the Negro of always seeking to
take him in, and assume his motives are anger and fear—which very
often they are." 9 What this means, in effect, is that the white man sees
the Negro in two primary poses—either docile or enraged, and that
when he deals with the Negro, or treats him in fiction, he oscillates
radically between the two images. The farmers who hunt Jim down at
the end of Huckleberry Finn regard him as a menacing Nat Turner
until the doctor intervenes with the contrasting view that he has never
seen a "nigger that was a better nuss or faithfuller" (p. 220). The lens
are quickly switched, the wrath of the farmers immediately subsides and
Jim stands there, first "roughed" up and then cordially approved. The
65
irony is that Twain recognizes this cruel deceit and yet consents in his
own way to it. If not this gentle and loyal Jim, what Jim is there?
The most rudimentary examination of what happens to Jim—Miss
Watson's perfidy, the travail on the river, his captivity at the Phelps
farm and Tom's sadistic play—provides an unsettling response to the
inquiry. In Pudd'nhead Wilson the domestic slaves have no scruples in
pilfering because, as Twain laconically observes, they consider themselves to be in a state of undeclared war with their masters. How then
does Jim, the brutalized fugitive, feel? "Why, Mars Tom, I doan' want
no sich glory" (p. 203), he protests when Tom seeks to have him embrace
a rattlesnake, and that plaintive outcry is about as far into Jim as we
get. What overwhelms Twain, who felt so generously for the plight of
the Negro, is American racial history—Jim's history—that stark record
of oppression and atrocity. It is the demands this ugly past imposes on
the present that enmesh Twain in Tom Sawyer's crude fantasies. For
Twain, like Tom, forces Jim to forget, can deal with him no other way.
It is because Jim ought to come out of his shed with a knife (the brass
candlestick Tom gives him, sharply honed) that he emerges with a dulcet
grin, ready to sacrifice himself.
The exemplary Jim who is "pleased most to death" at the end of
Huckleberry Finn has undergone, then, an excruciating rite de passage,
not through his journey down the Mississippi, but within the confines of
his pen at the farm. He stands there, clenching Tom's money, and reassures Huck of his happiness. "Dah, now, Huck, what I tell you?—what
I tell you up dah on Jackson islan'?" (p. 225). This surely is the black
man with whom Twain, and all of us, would make peace. He is no
longer the renegade nigger who made "such a raft of trouble . . . keeping
a whole family scared most to death for days and nights" (p. 219), whose
very presence, the whites fear, will infect their slaves with dangerous
notions, but rather an improbably blanched creature. There is no murder in his heart, only solicitude for our guilt. He is content with his
piece of paper and the gratuity. All the dire experiences that occurred
between Jackson's Island and the Phelps farm, the desperation and the
indignities, are struck from his memory. Indeed, the past is so deeply
buried that no future is possible. Twain's attempts to write sequels to
Huckleberry Finn were all dismal failures. Like the figures on Keats'
urn, these two barefoot adolescents and the grinning black man compose
a final tableau that hangs in space beyond the violence of time.
State University of New York—Buffalo
footnotes
1. All references are to the Norton Critical Edition of the Adventures of Huckleberry
Finn,
edited by Sculley Bradley, Richmond Croom Beatty and E. Hudson Long, New York, 1961.
2. The Autobiography of W. E. B. Du Bois (New York, 1969), 122.
3. W. R. Brock, An American Crisis: Congress and Reconstruction,
1865-1867 (London,
1962), 285.
66
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Albion Tourgee, A Fool's Errand (New York, 1880), 123.
R a l p h Ellison, Shadow and Act (New York, 1966), 182.
R a l p h Ellison, Invisible Man (New York, 1952), 206.
Ibid., 212.
LeRoi Jones, Tour Black Revolutionary Plays (Indianapolis and New York, 1969), 63.
R a l p h Ellison, Shadow and Act, 69.
67
The Case Against Huck Finn
John H. Wallace, writing in Satire or Evasion? :Black Perspectives on Huckleberry
Finn (1992). Mr. Wallace was a school administrator when he wrote this piece.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain, is the most grotesque example of racist trash ever
written. During the 1981-8z school year, the media carried reports that it was challenged in Davenport,
Iowa; Houston, Texas; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and, of all places, Mark Twain Intermediate School in
Fairfax County, Virginia. Parents in Waukegan, Illinois, in 1983 and in Springfield, Illinois, in 1984 asked
that the book be removed from the classroom-and there are many challenges to this book that go
unnoticed by the press. All of these arc coming from black parents and teachers after complaints from
their children or students, and frequently they are supported by white teachers, as in the case of Mark
Twain Intermediate School.
For the past forty years, black families have trekked to schools in numerous districts throughout the
unwittingly racist teachers and administrators who respond, "This book is a classic." Classic or not, it
should not be allowed to continue to cause our children embarrassment about their heritage.
Louisa May Alcott, the Concord Public Library, and others condemned the book as trash when it was
published in 1885. The NAACP and the National Urban League successfully collaborated to have
Huckleberry Finn removed from the classrooms of the public schools of New York City in 1957 because it
uses the term "nigger." In 1969 Miami-Dade Junior College removed the book from its classrooms
because the administration believed that the book creates an emotional block for black students which
inhibits learning. It was excluded from the classrooms of the New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois,
and removed from the required reading list in the state of Illinois in 1976.
My own research indicates that the assignment and reading aloud of Huckleberry Finn in our classrooms
is humiliating and insulting to black students. It contributes to their feelings of low self-esteem and to
the white students' disrespect for black people. It constitutes mental cruelty, harassment, and outright
racial intimidation to force black students to sit in the classroom with their white peers and read
Huckleberry Finn. The attitudes developed by the reading of such literature can lead to tensions,
discontent, and even fighting. If this book is removed from the required reading lists of our schools,
there should be improved student-to-student, student-to-teacher, and teacher-to-teacher relationships.
Nigger
According to Webster's Dictionary, the word "nigger" means a Negro or a member of any dark-skinned
race of people and is offensive. Black people have never accepted "nigger" as a proper term-not in
George Washington's time, Mark Twain's time, or William Faulkner's time. A few white authors, thriving
on making blacks objects of ridicule and scorn by having blacks use this word as they, the white authors,
were writing and speaking for blacks in a dialect they perceived to be peculiar to black people, may have
given the impression that blacks accepted the term. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Some black authors have used "nigger," but not in literature to be consumed by children in the
classroom. Black authors know as well as whites that there is money to be made selling hooks that
ridicule black people. As a matter of fact, the white child learns early in life that his or her black peer
makes a good butt for a joke. Much of what goes on in the classroom reinforces this behavior. Often the
last word uttered before a fight is "nigger." Educators must discourage the ridicule of "different"
children.
In the Classroom
Russell Baker, of the New York Times (14 April 19 8 i), has said (and Jonathan Yardley, of the Washington
Post [ i o May 19 8 1], concurred),
Kids are often exposed to books long before they are ready for them or exposed to them in a
manner that seems almost calculated to evaporate whatever enthusiasm the students may
bring to them. . . . Very few youngsters of high school age are ready for Huckleberry Finn.
Leaving aside its subtle depiction of racial attitudes and its complex view of American society,
the book is written in a language that will seem baroque, obscure and antiquated to many
young people today. The vastly sunnier Tom Sawyer is a book for kids, but Huckleberry Finn
most emphatically is not.
The milieu of the classroom is highly charged with emotions. There are twenty to thirty unique
personalities with hundreds of needs to be met simultaneously. Each student wants to be accepted and
to be like the white, middle-class child whom he perceives to be favored by the teacher. Since students
do not want their differences highlighted, it is best to accentuate their similarities; but the reading of
Huck Finn in class accentuates the one difference that is always apparent-color. My research suggests
that the black child is offended by the use of the word "nigger" anywhere, no matter what rationale the
teacher may use to justify it. If the teacher permits its use, the black child tends to reject the teacher
because the student is confident that the teacher is prejudiced. Communications are effectively severed,
thwarting the child's education. Pejorative terms should not be granted any legitimacy by their use in
the classroom under the guise of teaching books of great literary merit, nor for any other reason.
Equal Protection and Opportunity in the Classroom
To paraphrase Irwin Katz,' the use of the word "nigger" by a prestigious adult like a teacher poses a
strong social threat to the black child. Any expression by a white or black teacher of dislike or
devaluation, whether through harsh, indifferent, or patronizing behavior, would tend to have an
unfavorable effect on the performance of black children in their school work. This is so because various
psychological theories suggest that the black students' covert reactions to the social threat would
constitute an important source of intellectual impairment.
Dorothy Gilliam, writing in the Washington Post of 12 April 1982, said, "First Amendment rights are
crucial to a healthy society. No less crucial is the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal
protection under the law." The use of the word "nigger" in the classroom does not provide black
students with equal protection and is in violation of their constitutional rights. Without equal
protection, they have neither equal access nor equal opportunity for an education.
One group of citizens deeply committed to effecting change and to retaining certain religious beliefs
sacred to themselves are members of the Jewish religion. In a publication issued by the Jewish
Community Council (November (November 198 1), the following guidelines were enunciated regarding
the role of religious practices in public schools: "In no event should any student, teacher, or public
school staff member feel that his or her own beliefs or practices are being questioned, infringed upon,
or compromised by programs taking place in or sponsored by the public school." Further, "schools
should avoid practices which operate to single out and isolate `different' pupils and thereby [cause]
embarrassment."
I endorse these statements without reservation, for I believe the rationale of the Jewish Community
Council is consistent with my position. I find it incongruent to contend that it is fitting and proper to
shelter children from isolation, embarrassment, and ridicule due to their religious beliefs and then deny
the same protection to other children because of the color of their skin. The basic issue is the same. It is
our purpose to spare children from scorn, to increase personal pride, and to foster the American belief
of acceptance on merit, not color, sex, religion, or origin.
The Teacher
Many "authorities" say Huckleberry Finn can be used in our intermediate and high school classrooms.
They consistently put stipulations on its use like the following: It must be used with appropriate
planning. It is the responsibility of the teacher to assist students in the understanding of the historical
setting of the novel, the characters being depicted, the social context, including prejudice, which existed
at the time depicted in the book. Balanced judgment on the part of the classroom teacher must be used
prior to making a decision to utilize this book in an intermediate or high school program. Such judgment
would include taking into account the age and maturity of the students, their ability to comprehend
abstract concepts, and the methodology of presentation.
Any material that requires such conditions could be dangerous racist propaganda in the hands of even
our best teachers. And "some, not all, teachers are hostile, racist, vindictive, inept, or even neurotic,"
though "many are compassionate and skillful.."; Teacher attitudes are important to students. Some
teachers are marginal at best, yet many school administrators are willing to trust them with a book that
maligns blacks. Huckleberry Finn would have been out of the classroom ages ago if it used "dago,"
"wop," or "spit."
When "authorities" mention the "historical setting" of Huckleberry Finn, they suggest that it is an
accurate, factual portrayal of the way things were in slavery days. In fact, the book is the outgrowth of
Mark Twain's memory and imagination, written twenty years after the end of slavery. Of the two main
characters depicted, one is a thief, a liar, a sacrilegious corn-cob-pipe-smoking truant; the other is a selfdeprecating slave. No one would want his children to emulate this pair. Yet some "authorities" speak of
Huck as a boyhood hero. Twain warns us in the beginning of Huckleberry Finn, "Persons attempting to
find a motive in this narrative will be prosecuted; persons attempting to find a moral in it will be
banished; persons attempting to find a plot in it will be shot." I think we ought to listen to Twain and
stop feeding this trash to our children. It does absolutely nothing to enhance racial harmony. The
prejudice that existed then is still very much apparent today. Racism against blacks is deeply rooted in
the American culture and is continually reinforced by the schools, by concern for socioeconomic gain,
and by the vicarious ego enhancement it brings to those who manifest it.
Huckleberry Finn is racist, whether its author intended it to be or not. The book implies that black
people are not honest. For example, Huck says about Jim: "It most from me to hear such talk. He
wouldn't ever dared to talk such talk in his life before. Just see what a difference it made in him the
minute he judged he was about free. It was according to the old saying, `give a nigger an inch and he'll
take an ell.' Thinks I, this is what comes of my not thinking" (chap. 16). And in another section of the
book, the Duke, in reply to a question from the King, says: "Mary Jane'll be in mourning from this out;
and the first you know the nigger that does up the rooms will get an order to box these duds up and put
'em away; and do you reckon a nigger can run across money and not borrow some of it?" (chap. z6).
Huckleberry Finn also insinuates that black people are less intelligent than whites. In a passage where
Huck and Tom are trying to get the chains off Jim, Tom says: "They couldn't get the chain off, so they
just cut their hand off and shoved. And a leg would he better still. But we got to let that go. There ain't
necessity enough in this case; and, besides, Jim's a nigger, and wouldn't understand the reason for it"
(chap. 3 5). On another occasion, when Tom and Huck are making plans to get Jim out of the barn where
he is held captive, Huck says: "He told him everything. Jim, he couldn't see no sense in most of it, but he
allowed we was white folks and knowed better than him; so he was satisfied, and said he would do it all
just as Tom said" (chap. 36).
Twain said in Huckleberry Finn, more than one hundred years ago, what Dr. W. B. Shockley and A. R.
Jensen are trying to prove through empirical study to dav.4 This tells us something about the power of
the printed word when it is taught to children by a formidable institution such as the school.
Huckleberry Finn even suggests that blacks are not human beings. When Huck arrives at Aunt Sally's
house, she asks him why he is late:
"We blowed a cylinder head."
"Good gracious! anybody hurt?"
"No'm. Killed a nigger." "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt." (Chap. 32)
There are indications that the racist views and attitudes implicit in the preceding quotations are as
prevalent in America today as they were over one hundred years ago. Huckleberry Finn has not been
successful in fighting race hate and prejudice, as its proponents maintain, but has helped to retain the
status quo.
The Black Student
If indeed, as Huckleberry Finn's proponents claim, the book gives a positive view of blacks and has an
antislavery, antiracist message, then the Nazi party, the Ku Klux Klan, and the White Citizens Council
must see something different. Most of the hate mail received when a school in northern Virginia
restricted the use of the book was from these groups.
It is difficult to believe that Samuel Clemens would write a book against the institution of slavery; he did,
after all, join a Confederate army bent on preserving that peculiar institution. Also, he could not allow
Huck to help Jim to his freedom. It seems he was a hodgepodge of contradictions.
Huckleberry Finn is an American classic for no other reason than that it ridicules blacks to a greater
extent than any other book given our children to read. The book and racism feed on each other and
have withstood the test of time because many Americans insist on preserving our racist heritage.
Marguerite Barnett (1982) points out:
By ridiculing blacks, exaggerating their facial features, and denying their humanity, the popular
art of the Post-Civil-War period represented the political culture's attempt to deny blacks the
equal status and rights awarded them in the Emancipation Proclamation. By making blacks
inhuman, American whites could destroy their claim to equal treatment. Blacks as slaves posed
no problem because they were under complete domination, but blacks as free men created
political problems. The popular culture of the day supplied the answer by dehumanizing blacks
and picturing them as childlike and infcrior.6
In this day of enlightenment, teachers should not rely on a book that teaches the subtle sickness of
racism to our young and causes so much psychological damage to a large segment of our population.
We are a multicultural, pluralistic nation. We must teach our young to respect all races, ethnic groups,
and religious groups in the most positive terms conceivable.
Recommendations
This book should not be used with children. It is permissible to use the original Huckleberry Finn with
students in graduate courses of history, English, and social science if one wants to study the
perpetration and perpetuation of racism. The caustic, abrasive language is less likely to offend students
of that age group because they tend to be mature enough to understand and discuss issues without
feeling intimidated by the instructor, fellow students, or racism.
My research relating to Huckleberry Finn indicates that black parents and teachers, and their children
and students, have complained about books that use the word "nigger" being read aloud in class.
Therefore, I recommend that books such as Huckleberry Finn, The Slave Dancer, and To Kill a
Mockingbird be listed as racist and excluded from the classroom.
If an educator feels he or she must use Huckleberry Finn in the classroom, I would suggest my revised
version, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn Adapted, by John H. Wallace. The story is the same, but the
words "nigger" and "hell" are eradicated. It no longer depicts blacks as inhuman, dishonest, or
unintelligent, and it contains a glossary of Twainisms. Most adolescents will enjoy laughing at Jim and
Huck in this adaptation.7

Book Banning Threatens Free Speech Examples of Book Banning

Transcription

Similar documents

ACE Celebrates Huck Finn`s Playland

Masterpiece or Racist Trash? - Virtual Commons

Swedish Weaving Patterns - Vintage Crafts and More

Nobuhiro Tajima Sets a New Record at Pikes Peak Nobuhiro Tajima

controf` of the narrative to Huck Finn, a very different sort of character

Announcements Show and Tell Huron Valley Woodturners

Seven Recent Commentaries On Mark Twain - Works

View work

February 2015

Flyer - Film on Film Foundation