To Kill A Conversation

Because one of our local school districts just made the national news over it, let’s talk about book-banning. Well, actually, what the Mukilteo School District did was the opposite of banning, but you wouldn’t know that if you listened to only right-wing media or, sadly, even occasionally credible ones.

Full disclosure: I’ve been sleeping with an MSD school board member.

After being on the required ninth-grade reading list without objection for years, a request was made to end the teaching of “To Kill A Mockingbird.” Published in 1960, winner of a Pulitzer Prize, chosen several times as the best American novel, TKAM is considered by many to have been a factor in the Civil Rights awakening of that decade.

But, if not yet enough, much has changed since then. It’s doubtful there are many school districts that have never updated their required reading. Unlike assumptions and false claims of some people, here and across the land, the book was neither banned nor “pulled;” nor was the decision about white students’ discomfort or imaginary “critical race theory.” The complaint was that, because of language and characterizations, some students of color found it offensive. Not “uncomfortable.” There’s a difference.

This newspaper carried letters and opinions on both sides of the issue. Those that weren’t based on misinformation presented credible arguments. Example: It’s a seminal (a word that could become banned in Florida) book and should be taught, in historical context. Making students uncomfortable is the point. Or: There are more recent books that address racism from the point of view of its victims, rather than of “white saviors,” and in more current context.

Following district policy, a committee was convened to address the complaint. Consisting of teachers, administrators, and community members, it gathered input from all sides. Some insisted on keeping it as is; others demanded it not only be removed from required reading but also banned from libraries. The committee’s decision “split the baby,” and the board, respecting the process, accepted it.

There’s another question, which has received less attention: what’s the pedagogic goal of required books in English classes, as opposed to social studies or history? It’s understandable that not all English teachers feel equipped to tread the hot coals of racism. The decision by MSD allows those who do, to continue doing so, and those who don’t, to teach other books.

No decision would have made everyone happy; this one surely didn’t. But last Saturday’s opinion piece by our local NAACP’s Mr. Glazer, stating, “The decision to remove it as “required” reading at the same time to list it as an “approved” book is absolutely contradictory” makes no sense at all. I approve of lava cake for dessert, but I don’t require it. For example.

So, what’s the difference between un-requiring TKAM here and what’s happening in states like Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and others? Isn’t it just a matter of which race is being protected? If one, why not the other? Well, The MSD decision was made in consideration of minority students’ and some teachers’ finding a particular book offensive, not an attack on teaching about racism itself. The latter are attempts to erase America’s history of racism altogether. Likewise, banning “Maus” wasn’t about words or images: it was about wiping memory of the Holocaust. 

It’s being taken even further. No sexuality. No gender issues. No discussions that could make a student "feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race.” (Define that, if you can.) And worse: Virginia’s new governor established a “tip line” for parents to report “inherently divisive practices in their schools.” (Define that, too.) There are proposals to put cameras in classrooms, so parents can spy on what teachers are teaching and report whatever they dislike.

At the center of it all is this: Who decides what’s taught in our schools? Who gets to object? What number of objections becomes dispositive? Is there a national interest in our children having a common body of knowledge? If it should be left to states, would it matter if half our students know realistic American history and half know only what red-state politicians want them to?

If it’s one thing to make TKAM optional, it’s quite another to muzzle teachers legislatively, or to allow any parent to veto lessons they don’t like. We’re already stacking up poorly, internationally. How bad would it be if all our students are “protected” from thinking critically? And OMG: evolution!

We could also discuss that when President Biden talked about protecting school board members from death threats, right-wing screamers called it attempting to “silence parents.” But let's not. It’s too disturbing. 

Parental Choice

In fifth grade, my teacher gave an example of disinformation. There was a competition, he said, between a Soviet-made car and an American one. The American won. Russia’s newspaper, Pravda, reported an international contest between cars, in which the Soviet car came in second, while the American finished next to last. In Russian, “Pravda” means “truth.” Which it was.

In a local school board race, a candidate’s campaign website featured pictures of a cute, blond, white girl-child and a kimono-wearing (because that’s what they wear) Japanese girl of similar age. “Blaming her for slavery,” it said, referring to the former, “Is like blaming her (the latter) for Pearl Harbor.” Also true. Even though no one is.

Presuming voter ignorance, “Take Critical Race Theory out of our public school system,” was the concluding tagline. It’s not in it, but that’s not the point, either. Republicans cooked up a vote-getting hot-button lie; one that fits snugly behind a forehead, the extraction of which requires too many words for Trumpic consumption. It worked. 

Riding the wishful whirlwind even further, they’re now campaigning on parents’ right to decide what their children learn in public schools. Likely, it won Virginia’s governorship for Glenn Youngkin. Brilliant. As not-brilliant as Terry McAuliffe’s summary dismissal of the idea. Yet again, a proper response requires more thought than Trumpists prefer. 

Nevertheless, it deserves credible conversation from both sides, not that such a thing exists anymore. Let’s consider it anyway.

Can we agree that societies have a stake in what’s taught in schools; maybe, even, that societies’ needs outweigh those of interest groups? We’ve already seen a sample of Soviet subterfuge. It should be obvious that having nothing but mis- or uninformed citizens opens the door to tyranny. Throughout history, nascent dictators have crossed that transom to little resistance. Others, home-grown, are still trying.

On the other hand, at least theoretically, in a democratic republic the people’s voice is controlling. Or was, pre-McConnell, pre-Foxotrumpism. We presume the people pushing parental power over pedagogy will predominate in political polling. They’re on it already – Republicans are as good at disingenuous messaging as Democrats are bad at it. So how do they propose it should work? They don’t. What’s important is that it inflames superficial thinkers and scores votes. 

Consider a state in which parents would have a say in public school curricula. How much of a say? In what subjects? All parents or chosen ones? Should it be the loudest shouters at school board meetings? Or would there be a parental committee? Selected how, and by whom? Will particular qualifications be required?

Would there be a list of books to be allowed, or banned, subject to popular vote? Who makes the list? What consideration is given to parents who disagree?

How about words? The aforementioned school board candidate said “equity” is a divisive one. Should every parent have the right to tell teachers what their individual children may and may not hear? Or should it be by majority vote of the classrooms’ parents? How, specifically, would this terrific idea work?

In some red states, where, ironically, so-called “liberal cancel culture” is bandied, banning words is under consideration. “Racist” has been suggested. Texas’ governor wants to remove from school libraries any books that any parent claims causes “discomfort.” (Remember “snowflakes?”)

So, if they don’t want their kids reading about slavery, no kids can? What about evolution? Or Jonas Salk, Susan B. Anthony, John Ross? Tulsa? Elvis? Is enforced ignorance good for our country, or, like wearing masks, doesn’t caring about community matter?

Teaching America’s history, unvarnished, is the primary source of rightwing outrage. Science, too. Will Trumpic states produce only kids who are clueless about how and by what means America’s ethics and laws have evolved? Or about science; unable, unwilling, uninterested in knowing what’s real? Other than Republican politician, for what occupation would they be equipped? And let’s not even think about sex education. 

Leave it to liberals, though, to go to their own ridiculous extremes. Consider a proposal in California, where woke is oke. Addressing the gap in math scores, which is real, serious, and a threat to us all, they’d stop identifying gifted children – even suggesting there’s no such thing. Rather than provide accelerated education, they’d have those kids spend time helping the strugglers. Make math “socially responsible.” The consequences for all students and for society are so obvious it’s amazing it was proposed. 

"Sister Sarah (she/her) has five organic, pesticide-free, socially-distanced apples in a hemp basket. How many…" 

That’s why Democrats, despite truly good intentions, lose elections. And why Republicans, despite truly bad ones, win.