A Virginia school district has temporarily banned two classic novels, “To Kill A Mockingbird” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” after a parent raised concerns over the racial slurs presented in each book.

Accomack County Public Schools Superintendent Warren Holland confirmed that the two books had been banned to WAVY-TV as a result of a student’s mother complaining at a school board meeting in November. The mother claimed that her son, who is biracial, was deeply troubled by the racial slurs he had to read in the books.

These books are not strangers to challenges and banning by school systems. According to the American Library Association, the two are frequently banned and challenged young adult reading. Racial slurs occur 219 times in Mark Twain’s “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” and 48 times in Harper Lee’s “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

“So what are we teaching our children?” the parent asked  during the meeting. “We’re validating that these words are acceptable, and they are not acceptable by any means.”

Claire Fallon from the The Huffington Post expressed concerns over the ban, writing

Shielding citizens, from youth through adulthood, from the full extent of wrongs perpetrated by Americans and the U.S. government prevents the understanding that could allow for real problem-solving. For example, last year, a survey found that nearly half of Americans don’t believe that the Civil War was primarily motivated by Southerners’ desire to keep slavery, despite a historical consensus that it was. Most Americans don’t support reparations ― or even apologizing for slavery ― and this ignorance about the severity and willfulness of the nation’s past crimes is surely a factor.

Some on social media saw this as a slippery slope.

Banning classic lit. isn’t the answer people. I have heard more offensive crap in rap music. https://t.co/3JQGP3w0F5

— BethM (@BethMcCall84) December 2, 2016

POLL: Should Accomack County Public Schools ban “To Kill A Mockingbird” & Huck Finn? The novels are currently suspended due to racial slurs.

— Katie Collett (@KatieCollettTV) December 1, 2016

Other parents from Accomack County voiced their concerns over the bans.

“Everybody’s read it… it didn’t change a difference in my views at all,” one parent Catherine Glaser told WAVY-TV. “I’d like my son to read those books… my daughter’s mixed, and I don’t have a problem with it, I love those books.”

Nothing is certain, however. The complaint was filed as “a request for reconsideration of learning resources.” The request will go before a committee made up of different school members, such as a principal, librarian, teacher, and parent; and they will make a recommendation to Holland.

Julia Bryant

Julia Bryant is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street from Howard County, Maryland. She is a junior at the University of Maryland, College Park, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Journalism and Economics. You can contact Julia at JBryant@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Virginia School District Bans Two American Classics over Racial Slurs appeared first on Law Street.

This week, the white fiction world has been up in arms about Harper Lee’s portrayal of fictional, white lawyer Atticus Finch as explicitly racist in her long-awaited second book, “Go Set a Watchman.”

This second book shows Atticus — hero of Lee’s 1960 classic “To Kill a Mockingbird,” in which he defended Tom Robinson, a Black man who was falsely accused of raping a white woman–referring to Black people as  “still [being] in their childhood as a people.” “Go Set a Watchman” also reveals that Atticus once attended a KKK meeting.

Mainstream (read: white-dominated) audiences are apparently stunned by this “new shocker.” But the thing is, Atticus’s racism really isn’t shocking at all.

“Go Set a Watchman” does not reveal anything that an anti-white supremacist reading of “To Kill a Mockingbird” wouldn’t have revealed: Atticus Finch, even when being hailed by generations of English teachers and study guides as preaching anti-racism, was always, in fact, racist.

Even the very words out of Atticus’s mouth in the 1960 publication mirror his words now: while in “Go Set a Watchman,” he calls Black people children (carrying on an infantilizing and violently imperialist legacy of rhetoric), his rhetoric is just as racist–if slightly more subtly–in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

In a passage that is widely cited as proof of Atticus’s anti-racism, he explains to Scout that “baby, it’s never an insult to be called what somebody thinks is a bad name. It just shows you how poor that person is, it doesn’t hurt you.” He is referring, here, to being called an “n-word lover.”

It doesn’t hurt you.

So, by Atticus’s logic, Tom Robinson’s being called a rapist can’t hurt him; it just reflects badly on the people who are accusing him. Black people being called the n-word aren’t hurt, aren’t being threatened, and aren’t being violently attacked: it just reflects badly on the people who are doing the name-calling.

No, no, no, Atticus Finch.

Because Atticus trying to preach anti-racism to Scout is actually profoundly racist: to minimize the power of words–words that can lead to a lynching and that can lead to teenage Black bodies being left in the streets for hours after being murdered by white cops–is to minimize the power behind words. Because some words–like the n-word and like “n-word lover”–are backed by powerful, violent institutions of white supremacy, and this power makes these words lethal.

To ignore that in his explanation to Scout is to ignore the fact that racism is not individual. It is not personal. It is institutional, and it is deadly. His lack of understanding of this demonstrates quite clearly his casual racism–racism that may not be, granted, intentional–but this casual, colorblind-esque racism is perhaps most dangerous of all. Because we don’t recognize it. Sometimes, we even valorize it.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” is widely valorized as a “progressive’ book. And this is the larger problem with the book and with Atticus’s character and racism–Atticus was always positioned as a white savior.

Justice, in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” always had a white face.

Black people needed, in this book, to be saved by the just, progressive white man. How is it surprising, then, that in this newer iteration, Atticus is explicit about his understanding of Black people as being “in their childhood”? That belief is exactly what he acted out when he served as the white savior in “To Kill a Mockingbird.”

So, intentionally or not, the character of Atticus Finch has always upheld white supremacy. Atticus Finch has always been racist.

It says more about us than it does about these books that we are so damn surprised.

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Atticus Finch Was Always Racist appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, book publishers appealed their Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals win against Georgia State University in a closely watched copyright case. In a surprise to many, the publishers have requested that their case be heard en banc, which means that a case is heard before all the judges of a particular court–in this case the Eleventh Circuit.

The publishers have asked for an en banc hearing based on what they argue was the Eleventh Circuit’s faulty analysis and alleged errors. According to Publishers Weekly, “two of the three judges in the unanimous opinion ‘contradicted Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedent.'” Tom Allen, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, added that the request is pivotal because of “the vibrant educational publishing market that develops and provides quality content for students and teachers is at stake.”

The events that facilitated the lawsuit against Georgia State University date back to 2008. Three publishers–Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press–claimed that Georgia State University made thousands of their works available online through Georgia State University’s e-reserves, where students could print and download the works for free without seeking the copyright holder’s permission. The three publishers then sued four university officials of Georgia State University for direct, vicarious, and indirect copyright infringement.

In 2009, Georgia State University changed its copyright policy, where each professor who wanted to post a copyrighted material or excerpt of copyrighted material on its e-reserves would have to complete a fair use checklist to see if the professor’s proposed use qualified.

In 2010, a federal Georgia court held in favor of Georgia State University because there was not enough evidence to prove that the defendants engaged in copyright infringement. In particular, the four fair use factors–the purpose and character of the work; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality taken of the work; and the effect of the use on the potential market–favored Georgia State University because the purpose of the excerpted works was educational and non-commercial, the nature of the works was scholarly, a small amount of each excerpted work was taken, and there was little effect on the potential market of the excepted works.

Last month, however, the Eleventh Circuit reversed and ruled in favor of the publishers.  Although the publishers won, insiders noted that the Eleventh Circuit rejected the publishers’ main arguments and remanded the case to the district court.

You may have wondered in the past how professors and teachers were able to print and distribute excerpts of copyrighted works in their classrooms without a license. The answer is fair use. To claim fair use, a particular use has to pass the aforementioned four-factor test. No factor carries considerably more weight than the other.

However, not every use is a fair use, and thus, not every excerpt that a teacher or professor uses counts as fair use (for instance, it would likely not be fair use if a professor or teacher printed and distributed packets to students that contained 3/4 of “To Kill a Mockingbird” because the amount taken of the work would likely be too much, despite the non-commercial purpose and scholarly nature of the excerpted work).

This case is extremely important because it will immediately impact the classroom and determine what teaching tools and materials can be freely used. Moreover, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, there is also a similar case pending against the University of California, Los Angeles.

These two cases have the ability to determine the future of higher education.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Publishers Appeal Win in Georgia State University Copyright Law Case appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has served on a jury, read To Kill a Mockingbird, or watched a legal drama knows that strict formalism and decorum exists in the courtroom. Judges must wear robes, the jury sits in its box, officers escort the defendant in and out, and lawyers speak only when it’s their turn.

This same ceremonious solemnity also makes the courtroom a place of intrigue, especially to a juror. Perhaps never having been in a courtroom, the strangeness and newness of the court experience picques the juror’s interest. Objectively, a courtroom is a bit unusual — where else is it totally normal for someone to walk around in long black robes? The conditions exist for jurors to want to memorialize and capture their experiences through social media — a tweet, selfie, or Instagram upload.

A recent study by the Federal Judicial Center, however, has revealed that few jurors actually succumb to using social media during a trial. This seems counterintuitive. Social media has such an easiness to it, and a trial is such a spectacle — it would only seem natural for jurors to use social media during their court experience. Why don’t they?

The study reveals a few reasons, including that trial judges explicitly prohibit the use of cellphones and carefully instruct jurors to not use social media in reference to the trial. Apparently these admonitions work to curb the desire to tweet or use Instagram. Although the impulse might exist to want to use social media, warnings by the Judge control those inclinations.

Interestingly, jurors buy in. At concerts and movies, instructions often say to not take pictures or record, but few heed these restrictions. What makes the courtroom so different that jurors predominantly comply with the request to refrain from using social media? Is it that they fear criminal penalty?

While penalty might play some role, I think the same reasons that a juror might feel compelled to capture the court experience simultaneously curb social media usage. The formalism of the court creates intrigue but also compliance to the rules of the court. The juror sees the Judge complying with the dress code and donning robes. The lawyers submit to strict procedural rules on how to conduct a trial. Even police officers obey their instructions with scrupulousness. The whole atmosphere in the court is one of obedience, and it is thus not surprising that jurors implicitly follow suit and refrain from using social media when told.

If you have never been to a court, it is an interesting experience. You will notice how an atmosphere, a space, and the culture of a place can change your behavior and how you think.

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Don’t Jurors Succumb to the Lure of the Selfie in Court? appeared first on Law Street.