Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird stands as a towering figure in American literature, a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel lauded for its poignant exploration of racial injustice and childhood innocence in the Deep South. Published in 1960, the story of Atticus Finch, a white lawyer defending a Black man falsely accused of rape, has resonated with generations of readers and become a staple in school curriculums across the nation. Yet, despite its widespread acclaim, To Kill a Mockingbird is also one of the most frequently challenged and banned books in the United States. From its initial publication to recent controversies, the reasons behind these challenges are varied and complex, reflecting evolving societal values and persistent tensions surrounding race, language, and uncomfortable truths.
The latest instance of this ongoing debate occurred in Biloxi, Mississippi, where a school board made the decision to remove To Kill a Mockingbird from the eighth-grade curriculum. This action is just the most recent in a long history of attempts to censor Lee’s masterpiece. James LaRue, director of the American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, points out that challenges to the book are nothing new, stretching back decades. Historically, the complaints often revolved around the novel’s “strong language,” its frank discussions of sexuality and rape, and particularly its use of the n-word.
However, LaRue notes an interesting shift in the nature of these challenges. The Biloxi School Board’s reasoning, for example, was strikingly vague, simply stating that the book “makes people uncomfortable.” LaRue finds this justification particularly weak, arguing that the very purpose of classic literature is to provoke thought and challenge existing perspectives. This raises a crucial question: why does a book so widely praised for its literary merit and social commentary continue to face such opposition?
One of the earliest and most significant attempts to ban To Kill a Mockingbird took place in Hanover County, Virginia, in 1966. In this instance, the school board decided to remove the book from county schools, explicitly citing the theme of rape and labeling the novel as “immoral.”
[
Harper Lee, the acclaimed author of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” captured in a portrait from the LIFE Images Collection, highlighting her significant contribution to American literature.
]
This decision, however, was met with considerable backlash from the community. Residents voiced their اعتراض in letters to local newspapers, defending the book’s importance and literary value. Even Harper Lee herself weighed in on the controversy, penning a scathing letter to the editor of the Richmond News Leader. Her letter famously began with a sardonic tone: “Recently I have received echoes down this way of the Hanover County School Board’s activities, and what I’ve heard makes me wonder if any of its members can read.” This public outcry and the author’s own sharp rebuke ultimately led the board to reverse its decision, demonstrating the powerful support for To Kill a Mockingbird even in the face of censorship.
Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, challenges persisted. School boards and parents continued to target the book, often citing its “filthy” or “trashy” content and the use of racial slurs. LaRue explains that over time, the focus of these challenges shifted. Initially, the aim was often to remove the book entirely from school libraries, as seen in Hanover. More recently, the trend has been to remove it specifically from school curriculums, as in the Biloxi case. Interestingly, even when removed from required reading lists, the book often remains available in school libraries, suggesting a nuanced, if inconsistent, approach to censorship.
Despite these ongoing challenges, many educators and literary advocates strongly defend the inclusion of To Kill a Mockingbird in education. LaRue, for instance, while acknowledging the book’s imperfections, argues that it serves as a valuable tool for sparking crucial conversations among students about racial tolerance. He emphasizes the contemporary relevance of these discussions, particularly in light of a disturbing increase in hate crimes targeting libraries. He points to a troubling statistic: in the past year, there have been 36 reported hate crimes in libraries, incidents that often involve racial epithets, anti-Semitic remarks, vandalism, and even threats against individuals based on their religious or ethnic identity. These incidents underscore the continued need for open and honest dialogues about prejudice and discrimination, conversations that To Kill a Mockingbird can help facilitate.
However, not all arguments against banning the book center solely on its message of racial tolerance. Writer Kristian Wilson, for example, offers a more nuanced perspective. While firmly opposing the removal of To Kill a Mockingbird from schools, Wilson argues for a critical reassessment of its pedagogical use. She contends that while the novel shouldn’t be banned, it may not be the most effective tool for teaching white students about racism. Her critique centers on the narrative structure of the book, which is told from the perspective of a white narrator, Scout Finch, and portrays her father, Atticus, as a “white savior” figure. This narrative framework, Wilson argues, can inadvertently center the white experience and potentially minimize or distort the perspectives of people of color.
The character of Atticus Finch, often seen as a moral paragon, has come under increased scrutiny in recent years, particularly following the publication of Harper Lee’s second novel, Go Set a Watchman. Originally drafted before To Kill a Mockingbird, Go Set a Watchman, published shortly before Lee’s death, presents a more complex and arguably flawed portrayal of Atticus. In this later work, a grown-up Scout is shocked to discover her father attending a Ku Klux Klan meeting. This depiction challenged the long-held image of Atticus as an unwavering champion of racial equality, causing considerable controversy and prompting a re-evaluation of his character in To Kill a Mockingbird itself.
Literary scholars have long pointed out that even within To Kill a Mockingbird, a critical reading reveals nuances about Atticus’s character that complicate the “white savior” narrative. While he defends Tom Robinson against a false accusation, his commitment to dismantling the systemic structures of segregation is less clear. In fact, the novel hints at a degree of sympathy for the Ku Klux Klan within Atticus’s own perspective. He describes the local Klan chapter of the 1920s as “a political organization more than anything,” and when questioned about his own radicalism in the context of civil rights, he aligns himself with Cotton Tom Heflin, a notorious white supremacist senator and KKK member.
This nuanced and sometimes problematic portrayal of Atticus Finch doesn’t necessarily negate the value of To Kill a Mockingbird in education. However, it does underscore the importance of teaching the novel in a way that encourages critical thinking and avoids simplistic interpretations. Rather than presenting Atticus as an infallible hero, educators can use the novel to prompt students to examine the complexities of race, justice, and perspective in the American South, both then and now. The ongoing debates and challenges surrounding To Kill a Mockingbird highlight its enduring power to provoke dialogue and critical reflection on uncomfortable yet essential aspects of American history and society. While banning the book limits opportunity for these crucial discussions, thoughtful and contextualized teaching of the novel can ensure its continued relevance and educational value.
