Bucky:
This is a fairly rigid interpretation. It seems to we that if this were true at least some high school English departments in this country would substitute rhetoric books for literature books; I have never heard of a school that did. Part of the role of an English teacher, traditionally, has been to expose children to high culture-literature. Part of that exposure includes exposure to controversial, contentious ideas that are at play in society. The reason this is always bundled with English courses and learning to write is that, ideally, it gives children something to communicate while they are practicing the English language. At the same time, they develop some understanding of the various cultural forces that have brought us to the present time. I do not think that an English teacher that produces students who can write a perfect memo, résumé, or thank-you note but who have neither a sense of our world’s rich literary tradition nor the ability to think critically about controversial issues has done his job. Do you?
I sure as hell hope you mention in your history classes that slavery was bad. And that women were denied rights for most of our nation’s history, and that is it good that we have transcended it. The fact is, part of the job of a teacher is to pass down ideologies. As public school teachers, employed by the state, we are expected to pass down ideologies generally accepted by the state and the majority of people. We are expected to stay clear of issues where there is no clear consensus among the people and the state as to the “right” answer (e.g. abortion). I think the idea that “racism is bad and ultimately destructive for everyone involved” is one both society and the state have endorsed. I am really confused by your position, here: do you think that teachers, liberal arts teachers, should avoid controversial issues or embrace them? Before you seemed to be calling me out for wanting to avoid overly-contentious racial views. Now you seem to be calling me out for wanting to bring them up.
However, racism is the most prominent theme in the book, especially to modern readers. To teach the book and refuse to discuss race would make my students think I was either an idiot or a coward. Or, worse, that contentious issues shouldn’t be discussed, and that “real” literature is about gentle subjects, romance novels and pastoral poems.
Not a whole class, surely, but I think a unit based on racism and its effects on society and the way we see the world would be a very good springboard for all types of discussion, critical analysis, and writing.
Just for the record, my “what else is there?” line was a joke. There are many themes that one can use to approach literature. I think the issue of racism is a good one to use with youth, though, because it is something they are interested in, something very relevant to their day to day lives.
Of course I don’t agree with such clap-trap, even if you mean ban in the loosest sense of “ruled by school-boards as inappropriate to teach”, which is not really censorship. An American Lit class without Hawthorne or Poe would be inadequate. But I do think that the trend towards including more minority texts is a good one-I think that texts such as Incidents in the Life or a Slave Girl or Mary Rowlandson’s “Narrative” do nothing but add to our cirriculum. Of course every book does not have to be about race, but you are sticking your head in the sand if you think that an American Lit class where none of the books were about race would be an accurate portrayal of the American literary tradition.
I am going out of town tomorrow morning for my sister’s wedding. I may or may not have access to a computer until Tuesday: God forbid Bored2001 should think I am quiting! 