Why school’s wrong to axe ‘racist’ novel Mockingbird – by top black professor
SCOTLAND’S first black professor has criticised a top school for wanting to axe To Kill A Mockingbird from the curriculum
Sir Geoff Palmer said Harper Lee’s classic novel helps children to understand racism.
He spoke out after the English department at James Gillespie’s High School in Edinburgh announced it will ditch lessons on the book for third-year pupils.
It said the representation of black people in the book was dated, and criticised the use of the N-word and the ‘white saviour’ motif in the 1960 novel.
The school said it was part of efforts to ‘decolonise the curriculum’ by bringing in modern texts that better reflect diversity.
But Sir Geoff, professor emeritus in the school of life sciences at Heriot-Watt University, said children should learn how the book embodies the racism of its time and warned against ditching texts with ‘uncomfortable realities’. He added: ‘We can’t just throw the book in the bin. It’s part of the story of racism.
‘I fully support the principle of decolonisation of the curriculum, but where would it stop?
‘If we remove To Kill A Mockingbird, is Othello next, or the Slave’s Lament? We have to be careful here. Instead of removing this book from classrooms we need to show how the book embodies the racism of its time.
‘The injustice depicted in the text helps to give us a view of why we still have racism today.
‘If we hide it away, the fact is we are saying children are not capable of understanding. It’s not “white centric”. The fact is black people at the time were not able to defend themselves in court.
‘Today, we have black lawyers but recently we saw one mistakenly perceived as the client.
‘We still need to look at racism and explain it to help better understand where it comes from and why it’s unacceptable.’
Speaking at the Educational Institute of Scotland’s AGM, Allan Crosbie, curriculum leader for English at James Gillespie’s, said: ‘Like every English department in the country, we still have Of Mice And Men and To Kill A Mockingbird [on] the shelves.
‘They are now taught less frequently because those novels are dated and problematical in terms of decolonising the curriculum.
‘Their lead characters are not people of colour. The representation of people of colour is dated, and the use of the N-word and the use of the “white saviour” motif in Mockingbird have led us as a department to decide that these really are not texts we want to be teaching third year any more.’
But Sir Geoff, who leads the Edinburgh Slavery and Colonialism Legacy Review Group, called for a survey of pupils to inform decisions to remove important literary works.
He said: ‘Let’s see evidence and ask the pupils their views before making these arbitrary decisions. To me, the book is an opportunity to discuss, debate and to learn from.
‘You can’t solve racism by putting texts with uncomfortable realities in the bucket... That’s an easy option, it’s a diversion.’
Mr Crosbie said that instead of To Kill A Mockingbird, pupils had been studying works by activist and rapper Akala and author Angie Thomas, whose novel The Hate U Give was written after police shot Oscar Grant, a black man, in 2009.
Jo Bisset, of campaign group Us for Them Scotland, said: ‘If we want Scottish pupils to be the best, then they have to [have the] very best materials from which to learn. Censorship or book banning is not going to help a single child fulfil their potential.’
The Scottish Government is in the process of creating a programme of anti-racist education in schools.
‘We have to be careful here ’