Banned Books Week and Ernest J. Gaines

Since this week is Banned Books Week, I thought it would be good to briefly discuss an instance where administrators removed Gaines' books from a school. In 1995, administrators removed copies of Gaines' The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman from the seventh-grade shelves in Conroe, TX. They removed the book because of racial epithets in the novel, specifically the use of the word "nigger." A group of about eight people pushed for the book to be removed from Travis Junior High because they "felt the descriptions of blacks and the use of a specific racial epithet [nigger] embarrassed black students in class." What makes this incident even more interesting is the fact that the leader of the group did not have a child at Travis Junior High; his nephew attended the school.

What prompted the removal and examination of Gaines' novel from the school? It turns out that the racial epithet was the main impetus; however, there is more to the story. The makeup of Travis Junior High in 1995 was 10% African American, 17% Latino, 72% white, and 1% other. In class, a teacher asked her students to read passages from the novel aloud. During these readings, the word appeared and caused some of the African American students to become embarrassed. Thinking about 12-13 year old children in this situation, it should come as no surprise that this would occur. As Donna Britt put it when covering the incident and speaking about herself at that age, "I was once a self-conscious seventh-grader in mostly white classes. I remember feeling on display, certain I was being studied by white classmates - whom I studied right back." Being asked to read passages that contain the word may not have been the best decision; however, did that warrant the removal of the book? 

Later, in the same article,  Britt thinks about what her mother would've said to her if she went home after school and informed about reading passages with the racial epithet aloud in class. She asked her mother, and her mother replied, saying, "I would have explained to you the history of that word and that ignorant people . . . made it very derogatory. . . . I'd have explained that many things in literature are derogatory. But Miss Jane Pittman's is a powerful story - in the end, that word wouldn't matter. . . . I can understand how people don't want to hear that word - I don't. . . . But it's the story of a woman who overcame. And anyway, (kids) run around calling each other that and pay no attention to it."

In another article, the anonymous author simply states, "This novel has been removed while a school district committee assesses the novel's appropriateness. Perhaps the committee will see what the handful of complaining parents has failed to see. That is, the novel is a valuable contribution to American literature. It tells a uniquely American story, one that seventh graders should be exposed to and expected to study." What this article fails to mention, though, is the reason why some asked for the novel to be removed. The author goes on to say, "Of course 'nigger' is an offensive word. But hiding from it and ignoring the time in which it was so commonly used is a disservice to young people. The term is as much part of our collective history as lynchings, the Klan, civil rights, and Dr. Martin Luther King. Shielding young people from the lessons of history only dooms them to ignorance and to repeating mistakes of the past." 

What does all of this mean? Should the Conroe Independent School District have removed the book and investigated its content? Should they have reacted so quickly when, as Britt argues, the incident could have been circumvented by not having students read passages aloud from the novel that contain the racial epithet? These are questions that should be discussed. I agree with both Britt and the anonymous author who argue, I would say, two separate points,but they both come to an agreement that the book is important because of the story it tells. The incident also provides us with an opportunity to discuss the way we teach and approach the subject of race in the classroom, specifically the junior high or high school classroom. Should we shield students from such language? Should we shield them from images that many of us find disturbing? Should they be allowed to read Morrison's The Bluest Eye even though it contains sexually graphic images of incest? Should young students be allowed to read Alexie's The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian? I would argue yes. We can, of course, continue this conversation below.  

I would like to end with something Sherman Alexie said about his book being challenged. In his 2011 article "Why the Best Kids Books Are Written in Blood," from the Washington Post, Alexie writes,

When some cultural critics fret about the “ever-more-appalling” YA books, they aren’t trying to protect African-American teens forced to walk through metal detectors on their way into school. Or Mexican-American teens enduring the culturally schizophrenic life of being American citizens and the children of illegal immigrants. Or Native American teens growing up on Third World reservations. Or poor white kids trying to survive the meth-hazed trailer parks. They aren’t trying to protect the poor from poverty. Or victims from rapists.

For the Donna Britt and Sherman Alexie articles I provide links above. For the other articles, they came from the Ernest J. Gaines Center's archives. There is not information for bibliographic citations, so I am just leaving the quotes above as is.