Rogerian 3.1

Teacher Tenure: The Holy Grail of the Teaching Profession

Since I truly believe in my mind that anyone reading into this subject initially has attributes of a scholar, I hope to set forth an intellectual and reasoned plan to effectively negotiate the future of teacher tenure.  Being a student myself, I have had first-hand experience with proficient teachers as well as untested teachers, both with tenure, from kindergarten to twelfth grade.  Looking back now, I realize that my eleventh grade AP World History teacher and my eighth grade History teacher both had tenure and responded in two very different ways.  My eighth grade teacher seemed to have no incentive to continue teaching.  She had lost all joy by continuing to teach without changing her curriculum and her students suffered from the lack of enthusiasm.  On the other hand, my eleventh grade teacher was the most out-going and energetic person I have ever met.  It seemed that her need to share all of her knowledge just burst out of her.  I was always captivated in class as she switched styles of teaching to introduce our class to more involved critical thinking.  Those are the kind of teachers that we want teaching students today.

In an article published in Public School Review, Grace Chen says that “a changing world economy and increased focus on our nation’s education system are bringing teacher tenure into the spotlight, and some say it is a tradition that may be outdated” (Chen, par. 1).  This is currently an important and relevant topic as the economy is gradually dropping and the need for steady jobs increases.  Tenure was formed on the foundation of supply and demand, and “just as steel and auto workers fought against unsafe working conditions and unlivable wages, teachers too demanded protection from parents and administrators who would try to dictate lesson plans…” (Stephey, par. 4).  Teachers quickly saw the positive implications of tenure and over two million teachers have tenure by 2008 (ProCon, par 1).  The growing numbers of teachers with this support system just displays how significant this controversy is.  It also puts into perspective how large the effect will be from whatever mutual understanding is made.

The population that is unconvinced with applying tenure nationwide claim that once educators are rewarded, it “inadvertently protects incompetent teachers from being fired” (Stephey, par. 2).  They also state that tenure gives a negative reputation towards the teaching profession (Chen, par. 6) and that it “removes incentives for teachers to put in more than the minimum effort and to focus on improving their teaching” (ProCon, par. 11).  These are all valid reasons for the denial of tenure to be established in the entire nation, but the one that should be addressed the most is the fact that tenure is more involved with the teachers and their welfare than with the students, which is truly where our concern should lie (Chen, par. 5).

There are a few common misconceptions about tenure that need to be understood before any negotiations can be made. Many people believe that tenure is the problem to more educational problems than it can possibly take credit for.  “Eliminating tenure will not reduce class sizes or make schools cleaner and safer.  If tenure is abolished, problems of underfunding, overcrowding, and lack of control over students’ home lives will persist” (ProCon, par. 7).  Other stereotypes that tenure guarantees a teacher a job for life is false.  The use of tenure really only serves two purposes: job security and non-restricted research or beliefs.  It has no effect on the educational system problems that are listed above.

The most common reasons for firing teachers are economic and political, not inability on the teacher’s behalf, as one might believe.  The feeling that a spot is reserved for you alone makes you feel confident, which is exactly what tenure does to teachers…for a certain period of time.  “Many teachers work better when they do not have fears of being fired.  Without the anxiety and fear of losing employment, teachers can focus their efforts on providing the best education for students” (ProCon, par. 13).  This displays the opposite of the overall point that the skeptics of tenure were trying to convey; they stated that tenure caused teachers to be presented above students, but in actuality, the system causes students to become the main focus.

Chen explains that “a tenured teacher cannot be fired on the whim of a school administrator; charges will need to be filed, evaluations submitted, and hearings held” (par. 2).  The lack of motivation that some say go hand-in-hand with the increases of job security is always possible, but that is why a revised tenure law should be admitted.  This new addition would keep teachers honest, assuming they are all worthwhile, until the uncommitted ones are weeded out.

Furthering on the secure jobs aspect of tenure, it would “attract more qualified teachers and eliminate political favoritism” (ProCon, par. 4).  The more teachers applying for each position, the less chance a corrupt principal could find a way to only hire the close family member or friend.  “Tenure encourages the careful selection of qualified and effective teachers.  Since it is difficult to remove tenured teachers, tenure encourages school administrators to take more care when making hiring decisions” (ProCon, par. 11).  Removal of tenure would allow the irresponsible and hasty hiring of teachers and then consequently the abrupt firing of the educators as well.

The other half of my opinion is the importance of teacher experimentation in the classroom.  Educators admit to being afraid of supporting controversial issues or teaching controversial novels such as Huckleberry Finn, To Kill a Mockingbird, or Catcher in the Rye.  Administrators become afraid to punish tenured teachers because of the extremely high cost and effort associated with letting them go.  But the revised tenure laws would allow the educator’s eligibility for the renewal of the agreement to be decided again, after a set period of time.

My friends, it is obvious that we care about the welfare of students in the educational system.  We can agree that we want to teach students with the best teachers.  Parents are always encouraging their kids to reach for the stars and follow whatever path in life intrigues them.  Parents are always there to help to the best of their ability with whatever their kids are having difficulty with.  They know the importance of school and how instrumental the educators are in the learning process.  So why would any parent want the principal’s sister-in-law teaching their kids when there are fully licensed, capable and experienced educators standing around?  Teacher tenure can help.

               The debate over how or if teachers are reevaluated for tenure is a major component in the controversy.   Dan Goldhaber is professor in interdisciplinary arts and sciences at the University of Washington, Bothell.  His work focuses on K-12 educational productivity and addresses the role that structure plays in teacher recruitment.  Goldhaber explains that:

There has been immense debate over policies designed to enhance the quality of teachers.  Recent evidence that observable teacher characteristics are only weakly related to teacher productivity makes current teacher quality policies elusive, leading some education policymakers and researchers to call for using more direct measures of teacher performance to determine employment eligibility (or compensation).  The evidence presented here shows that VAM [*] measures of teacher effectiveness are stable enough that early-career estimates of teacher effectiveness predict student achievement at least three years later, and that they do so far better than observable teacher characteristics. This finding reinforces the notion that these estimates are a reasonable metric to use as a factor in making substantive personnel decisions.  (Goldhaber 5)

*Value-added model, which involves an extremely complicated formula that incorporates family background characteristics, teacher, grade, year, math and reading tests, etc.

Here, Goldhaber states that observable qualities of the educator, such as number of years of experience, type and level of degree, college selectivity and licensure test scores are not as important representative as actual student improvement.  This is again, reaffirming that tenure focuses on the students, not the educators.

The fundamental question comes down to, “how do you get rid of bad teachers without breaking the bank and how do you reward good teachers?”  We need to come up with a long-term fix, coming from not just test results, but from a number of ways and incorporating new approaches in the classroom.  This will add more time and effort into the process, but I believe it is necessary for the success of student education nationwide.  The mutual resolution comes from a mixture of both extremes, and the best possible solution involves the combination of evaluations tied in with student performance results. 

Tenure should not even be considered until after the educator’s fifth school year has been completed at a single location.  Evaluations should be conducted every four years after the initial tenure reward to determine if the educator is eligible for a renewing of the tenure agreement.  This promotes creativity in the classroom and new styles of teaching, including debates and creative thinking exercises.  The evaluations would have a guideline and conducted by a third party.  If deemed necessary, an arbitrator, not a judge, will rule the dismissal case (ProCon, par. 17).

Another problem with the educational system today is the incentive for the teachers.  Teachers interested in helping special needs students or working for impoverished schools should be compensated accordingly.  “In 2008, DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee proposed giving teachers the option of linking pay to performance in exchange for teachers giving up tenure.  The vote in June of 2010 showed that eighty percent of teacher voted in favor of the option” (ProCon, par. 15).  Having teachers declining tenure is their balance between the risky nature of potentially being fired abruptly and the higher pay grade that would be received.

The solution for the tenure controversy is not that far off.  It will just require the collaboration of respected policymakers to bring the proposed resolution to reality.  This needs to be resolved in the near future because right now we could have the principal’s cousin teaching your kids the wrong material.

Works Cited

Chen, Grace. "Teachers and Tenure: Both Sides of the Heated Debate - Public School Review."

Public School Review - Profiles of USA Public Schools. 2 Mar. 2010. Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

Goldhaber, Dan, Michael Hansen, and National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in

Education Research (CALDER) Urban Institute. "Using Performance on the Job to Inform Teacher Tenure Decisions. Brief 10." National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (2010): ERIC. EBSCO. Web. 30 Mar. 2011.

ProCon.org. "Teacher Tenure ProCon.org." teachertenure.procon.org. ProCon.org, 14 Feb.            2011. Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

Stephey, M.J. "A Brief History of Tenure - TIME." Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs,  News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. 17 Nov. 2008. Web. 27 Mar. 2011.

Reflection 2.3

I think that my latest draft of my rebuttal argument effectively discredits the article from the Lufkin Daily News and brings light to new thought processes. I think the extra week that was given extremely helped with the furthering of my point and clarity of speech used.  I went to the writing center again and it was very instrumental in small (italicizing titles of books) as well as general (keeping text in future tense).  i was able to really think about my argument and how it could have been revised to display an even sharper and influential paper. I added new research and used different parts of sources in my original draft.
I believe my 2.3 version is a full representation of my hard work and I am satisfied with the finished result.

Rebuttal 2.3

Ignorance Is Not Bliss: The Cons of Censoring Huckleberry Finn

One of Mark Twain’s most recognized novels, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, first published in the United States in 1885, has encountered much controversy.  Authors such as Ernest Hemingway believed Huck Finn was the defining novel in American literature, while other critics emphasized the negative aspects of the novel in the late twentieth century.  These faultfinders of Huck Finn believe that the text and context consists of blatant racism and unsuitable language for children to learn.  These people are particularly enraged about the usage of the N-word and how that language will impact the future behavior of the reader.  An editorial covering this controversy titled “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huck Finn’ are warranted,” was published in The Lufkin Daily News on January 6, 2011.  The anonymous author basically says that censorship is already accepted in our society (par. 4), and it is unacceptable for children to read the excessive use of the N-word (par. 3).  So what do these critics and the editorial recommend as a solution? Censorship: erasing every usage of the N-word and replacing it with “slave.”  Granted that there are over 200 N-words in the novel, censorship is the absolute wrong answer.  The problem is inside the educational system, involving both students and educators that it must be addressed and resolved.

In a utopia, that derogatory word would not even enter one’s thoughts, but unfortunately, the world today is far from perfect, with every curse word seen and heard in movies, music, television and schools.  If the censorship did occur, the knowledge that the original version of Huck Finn would still always be available is a comforting notion.  But teaching this “sanitized” version to children does not inform them of the past.  During the mid-1800’s, when the novel was set, America was a different place.  It was a different social world with different social norms, and clearly not representative of current social customs.  The novel should not be censored because it would taint the precise language Twain so sensitively and carefully wanted to emphasize. 

Delia Lloyd is a writer based in London, whose articles have appeared in The New York Times as well as The International Herald Tribune.  Lloyd previously taught political science at the University of Chicago and in January, 2011, she published an article about censorship and the N-word controversy.  Lloyd insightfully asks if publishers “take the N-word out of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ … is it still ‘Huckleberry Finn’? Probably not.  It is, after all, a story narrated in Huck's voice” (par. 9).  It is true that censoring the text directly changes Huck’s outlook on his world in the novel as well as Twain’s purpose.  This would show disrespect for such a renowned and sophisticated author.

Aside from the above problems within the controversy of censorship, the article itself is flawed.  The authorless editorial from the east side of Texas uses none of the rhetorical appeals to influence the reader to follow his or her interpretation of this controversy.  The argument is primarily based on opinion, and since the reader knows nothing of the author, there is no ethos or credibility available to back up the opinions.  There are no facts or logical appeals that show why censorship would be the best solution.  In addition, emotion and the use of pathos are not even touched on in this article. 

Despite all of these faults, the writer of this editorial has a valid point that must be acknowledged.  The author states the problem with the controversy over Huck Finn is that it “causes an outrage of its own [and schools] are simply not assigning them to students anymore.  And that’s a shame” (“Huck”, par. 2).  This author rightly acknowledges the significance of the novel but wrongly assumes that censorship will change everything.  In fact, censorship of Huck Finn will cause more problems.  Twain wrote this novel as a satire about the Southern way of living, and all use of language was intended for a specific purpose, including the N-word.

The author of the editorial is completely missing the point that it is essential to civilization that we learn about past wrongdoings and from our mistakes.  Lloyd argues that she “thinks ‘Huckleberry Finn’ is a book about social relationships.  And so to remove the language in which those relationships are couched is both historically inaccurate and distorts the meaning of the text” (par. 12).  The original text should not be changed because the novel, and the text within the novel, is part of history.  Lloyd continues to argue that “the only way to get Americans to deal openly and honestly with prejudice is to force students to be uncomfortable with terms that -- unpleasant though they may be -- are part and parcel of our country's blatantly racist past” (par 8).  If there is no evidence to teach these students on the past uses of the word and their impacts, how will they learn not to act similarly? 

In 1998, an African American parent and teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, asked to have Huck Finn removed from the reading lists, but the request was rejected by Judge Stephen Reinhardt.  Reinhardt ruled that “‘words can hurt, particularly racist epithets, but a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas.  Without that ability, one can do little to respond to them.’  Part of learning to think critically about offensive speech is to understand the context in which it is used” (qtd. in Hentoff, par. 13-14).  If Huck Finn is censored and students are not exposed to the incorrect use of the N-word, then the students will have no sense of right or wrong when it comes to understanding it in context.

The real question that should be asked is at what grade level the students are reading Huck Finn and is that the appropriate age and/or maturity level?  Dr. Peaches Henry, an African American professor in the writing department at Baylor University, wrote “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn” in 1992.  Henry explains the study conducted in 1983 at Pennsylvania State University as the:

contention that junior high school students lack the critical perception to successfully negotiate the satire present in the novel … [The study] left the committee convinced ‘that many students are not yet ready to understand the novel on its more complex levels.’  Therefore, although not advising expulsion of the novel, the panel recommended its removal from the ninth ­grade curriculum and placement in the eleventh­ or twelfth­ grade syllabus … ” (Henry)

The level of immaturity, in comparison to upperclassmen, in these ninth grade students renders them incapable of grasping the significance and horrible background of the N-word as used in the novel.  The complicated situation during the time period that is the setting of the novel is not truly understood by ninth grade students because they have not learned sufficient enough American history.  Also, the critical reading skills of these ninth graders are not up to par with the advanced upperclassmen and are powerless to understand the sophisticated concepts of moral statements presented in Huck Finn.

If the novel is to be taught in schools to these students, the teachers must also be aware of how sensitive this subject is to so many people.  Dr. Henry states that “the volatile combination of satire, irony, and questions of race underscores an additional important facet of the controversy: teacher ability and attitude … students not only look to teachers as intellectual mentors, but turn to them for emotional and social guidance as well” (Henry).  She is explaining here that the role of the teacher is vital to the successful teaching of the novel and an unprepared teacher could prove disastrous to her pupils.  Dr. Henry has answers for other ways to help teachers cope with the difficult task of teaching Huck Finn.  She explains that the teacher must clearly discuss the usage of the N-word before reading the novel, so as to reach a basic level of understanding with all students.  Dr. Henry advises noting the racial dynamics in the classroom to better access his/her teaching process.  Another idea is to bring in other novels written about slavery and intertwine them in the learning of Huck Finn (Henry).  Being up front with students early on in the process can have extremely positive results in the long run.

The editorial relies on an analogy to better comprehend the need for censorship.  In the last paragraph of the editorial, the author ineffectively tries to make the censorship seem appropriate by relating it to the Bible.  The editorial explains how publishers release new versions with new text, but with the overall meaning remaining the same (“Huck”, par. 5).  This is an ill-conceived attempt at comparison as the publishers of the Bible are only updating outdated words that would not be understood by today’s readers.  The word in question in Huck Finn is understood in both times, just used improperly, and so this does not relate to the new versions of the Bible at all.

The question that comes to mind when trying to solve this controversy is where does it end? At what point do we stop cutting swear words and phrases out of a text to make it more “reader friendly” to the public?  Who decides what needs to be censored or what text is harmful?  If we continue to censor classic novels such as Huck Finn, we as Americans will lose an essential part of our history forever.

Works Cited

Henry, Peaches. “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn.”

Teaching Huck Finn: The Controversy and the Challenge. n.pag., 1992. Web. 28 Feb

2011.

Hentoff, Nat. “Expelling ‘Huck Finn.’” 27 Nov 1999. SUNYSB. Web. 20 Mar 2011.

“Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted.” Lufkin

Daily News. 6 Jan 2011. Web. 21 Feb 2011.

Lloyd, Delia. “Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy.” Politics Daily. 6 Jan 2011.

Web. 28 Feb 2011.

Prewriting Essay 3

     My proposed topic of choice for the Rogerian argument involves the controversy over giving teachers in the K-12 level tenure.  This is a current hot topic as the economy is dropping and the need for steady jobs increases.  There is also an increase in the focus of the education system, and so extremely relevant to today's problems.
     I plan on being a proponent for the tenure controversy meaning that I believe that tenure helps keep teachers protected from unnecessary firing.  I obviously need to research more into this topic as I only have this one point to back up my "claim".
     I don't have a close tie to this topic but I believe that I can write an effective rogerian argument.  I am not concerned with the amount of sources I can receive but I am with the scholarly sources.  I need to find a recent article that would show both the pros and cons of this controversy.
     My plan for the resolution or common ground is to keep tenure but perhaps increase the number of years before tenure can be applied to the teacher.  I would also suggest keeping up-to-date evaluations of the teacher.  These evaluations would be conducted by strict guidelines and reviewed by a board to suggest the fate of that teacher.

     If I cannot find relevant sources, I can always try Kyleigh's Law in NJ with the requirement that you have to place red stickers on both front and back license plates.

Rebuttal 2.2

Ignorance is not bliss: The cons of censoring “Huckleberry Finn”

One of Mark Twain’s most recognized novels, “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” first published in the United States in 1885, encountered much controversy.  Authors such as Ernest Hemingway believed “Huck Finn” was the defining novel in American literature, while other critics brought out the negative aspects of the novel in the late twentieth century.  These faultfinders of “Huck Finn” believed that the text and context consisted of blatant racism and unsuitable language for children to learn.  These people are particularly enraged about the usage of the N-word and how they will impact the readers and the future in general.  An editorial covering this controversy titled “Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huck Finn’ are warranted,” was published in The Lufkin Daily News on January 6, 2011.  The anonymous author basically says that censorship is already accepted into our society (par. 4), and it is unacceptable for children to read the excessive use of the N-word (par. 3).  So what do these critics and the editorial come up with as their answer? Censorship: erasing every usage of the N-word and replacing it with “slave.”  Granted that there are over 200 N-words in the novel, censorship is the absolute wrong answer.  It is inside the educational system, involving both students and educators, that the problem exists and where it must be addressed and resolved.

In a utopia, that derogatory word would not even enter one’s thoughts, but unfortunately, the world today is far from perfect, with every curse word seen and heard in movies, music, television and schools.  If the censorship did occur, the knowledge that the original version of “Huck Finn” would still always be available is a comforting notion.  But teaching this ‘sanitized’ version to children does not inform them of the past.  During the mid-1800’s, when the novel was set, America was a different place.  It was a different social world with different social norms, making the present a completely different situation all together.  The novel should not be censored because it would taint the precise language Twain so sensitively and carefully wanted to emphasize. 

Delia Lloyd is a writer based in London, whose articles have appeared in The New York Times as well as The International Herald Tribune.  Lloyd previously taught political science at the University of Chicago and in January, 2011, she published an article about censorship and the N-word controversy.  Lloyd insightfully asks if publishers “take the N-word out of ‘Huckleberry Finn’ … is it still ‘Huckleberry Finn’? Probably not.  It is, after all, a story narrated in Huck's voice” (par. 9).  It is true that censoring the text directly changes Huck’s outlook on his world in the novel as well as Twain’s purpose.  This would show a lack of respect for such a respected and sophisticated author.

The authorless editorial from the east side of Texas uses none of the rhetorical appeals to influence the reader to follow his or her interpretation of this controversy.  All that is left is the author’s opinion, and since the reader knows nothing of him or her, there is no ethos or credibility available to back up the opinions.  There are no facts or logos appeals that show why censorship would be the best solution.  Emotion and the use of pathos are not even touched on in this article.  Despite all of these faults, the writer of this editorial has a valid point that must be acknowledged.  The author states the problem with the controversy over “Huck Finn” is that it “…causes an outrage of its own [and schools] are simply not assigning them to students anymore.  And that’s a shame” (Huck, par. 2).  This author rightly acknowledges the significance of the novel but wrongly assumes that censorship will fix everything.  In fact, censorship of “Huck Finn” will cause more problems.  Twain wrote this novel as a satire towards the Southern way of living, and all use of language was intended for a specific purpose, including the N-word.

The author of the editorial is completely missing the point that it is essential to civilization that we learn about past wrongdoings and learn from our mistakes.  Lloyd argues by saying that she “… thinks that “Huckleberry Finn” is a book about social relationships.  And so to remove the language in which those relationships are couched is both historically inaccurate and distorts the meaning of the text” (par. 12).  The original text should not be changed because the novel, and the text within the novel, is part of history.  Lloyd continues to argue that “ … the only way to get Americans to deal openly and honestly with prejudice is to force students to be uncomfortable with terms that -- unpleasant though they may be -- are part and parcel of our country's blatantly racist past” (par 8).  If there is no evidence to teach these students on the past uses of the word and their impacts, how will they learn not to act similarly? 

In 1998, an African American parent and teacher from Phoenix, Arizona, asked to remove “Huck Finn” from the reading lists, but was rejected by Judge Stephen Reinhardt.  Reinhardt ruled that “‘words can hurt, particularly racist epithets, but a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas.  Without that ability, one can do little to respond to them.’  Part of learning to think critically about offensive speech is to understand the context in which it is used” (qtd. in Hentoff, par. 13-14).  If “Huck Finn” is censored and students are not exposed to the incorrect use of the N-word, then the students will have no sense of right or wrong when it comes to understanding it in context.

The real question that should be asked is what grade level the students are reading “Huck Finn” and is that the appropriate age and/or maturity level?  Dr. Peaches Henry, an African American professor in the writing department at Baylor University, wrote “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn” in 1992.  Henry explains the study conducted in 1983 at Pennsylvania State University titled The Effects of Reading “Huckleberry Finn” on the Racial Attitudes of Ninth Grade Students as the:

… contention that junior high school students lack the critical perception to successfully negotiate the satire present in the novel … left the committee convinced ‘that many students are not yet ready to understand the novel on its more complex levels.’  Therefore, although not advising expulsion of the novel, the panel recommended its removal from the ninth ­grade curriculum and placement in the eleventh­ or twelfth­ grade syllabus … ” (Henry, n.pag.)

The level of immaturity, in comparison to upperclassmen, in these ninth grade students renders them incapable of grasping the significance and horrible background of the N-word as used in the novel.  Also, the critical reading skills of these ninth graders are not to par with the advanced upperclassmen and are powerless to understand the sophisticated concepts of moral statements presented in “Huck Finn.”

If the novel is to be taught in schools to these students, the teachers must also be aware of how sensitive this subject is to so many people.  Dr. Henry states that “the volatile combination of satire, irony, and questions of race underscores an additional important facet of the controversy: teacher ability and attitude … students not only look to teachers as intellectual mentors, but turn to them for emotional and social guidance as well” (Henry n.pag.).  She is explaining here that the role of the teacher is vital to the successful teaching of the novel and an emotionally unstable teacher could prove disastrous to her pupils.  Dr. Henry has the answer for other ways to help teachers cope with this difficult task of teaching “Huck Finn.”  She explains that the teacher must clearly discuss the usage of the N-word before beginning to read the novel, so as to reach a common ground with all students.  Dr. Henry advises noting the racial dynamics in the classroom to better access his/her teaching process.  Another idea is to bring in other novels written about slavery and intertwine them in the learning of “Huck Finn” (Henry, n.pag.).  Being upfront with students early on in the process can have extremely positive results in the long run.

            In the last paragraph of the editorial, the author tries to make the censorship seem better by relating it to the Bible.  The editorial explains how publishers release new versions with new text, but with the overall meaning remaining the same (Huck, par. 5).  This is an ill-conceived attempt as the publishers of the Bible are only updating words that are not of this time and would not be understood by today’s readers.  The word in question is understood in both times, just used improperly, and so does not relate to the new versions of the Bible at all.

The question that comes to mind when trying to solve this controversy is where does it end? At what point do we stop cutting swear words and phrases out of text to make it more ‘reader friendly’ to the public?  There is no answer as of now, and if we continue to censor classic novels such as “Huck Finn,” America as a whole will lose an essential part of its history forever.

Works Cited

Henry, Peaches. “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn.” Teaching Huck Finn: The Controversy and the Challenge. n.pag., 1992. Web. 28 Feb 2011.

Hentoff, Nat. “Expelling ‘Huck Finn.’” 27 Nov 1999. SUNYSB. Web. 20 Mar 2011.

“Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted.” Lufkin Daily News. 6 Jan 2011. Web. 21 Feb 2011.

Lloyd, Delia. “Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy.” Politics Daily. 6 Jan 2011. Web. 28 Feb 2011.

Reflection 2.1

This essay felt more rushed than the previous essay.  I felt that I did get off-topic and strated talking more about the topic rather than the actual analysis of the author's argument.  I felt that I had sufficient, if not more than enough, research to support my claim that the argument was not about censorship, but the educational system and the students, parents and teachers involved.  I think I went way too far over my word minimum, not that it is always bad, but I think that I might have been a little too wordy and could have explained some parts more effectively if I was more concise.  I will definitely plan on making an appointment at the writing lab again, as it helped me even further with my revision process.  Overall, I think it was a solid effort that clearly rebutted the editorial, but I felt that I could use more examples of the editorial in my rubuttal to counterargue and refute.

Rebuttal 2.1

Ignorance is not bliss: The cons of censoring “Huckleberry Finn”

The analysis of Mark Twain’s novel, “Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” first published in the United States in 1885, was met with controversy.  Authors such as Ernest Hemingway believed “Huck Finn” was the defining novel in American literature, while other parents, students and professionals, brought out the negative aspects in the late twentieth century.  These critics of “Huck Finn” displayed what they believed was blatant racism and unsuitable language for children to learn.  So what do these critics and the editorial written in the Lufkin Daily News come up with as their answer? Censorship: erasing every usage of the N-word and replacing it with “slave.”  Granted that there are over 200 N-words in the novel, censorship is the absolute wrong answer; it is inside the educational system, involving students and teachers together that the problem exists and where it must be addressed and resolved.

In a utopia, that derogatory word would not even enter one’s thoughts, but the world today is far from perfect, with this word along with every other curse word seen and heard in movies, music, television and schools.  The author of the editorial states that “If you prefer the unpolitically correct version of “Huckleberry Finn,” for the historical value or another reason, the original will always be there” (Huck, par. 4).  However, the author is completely missing the point that it is essential to humanity that we learn about past wrongdoings and learn from our mistakes.  During the mid-1800’s, when the novel “Huck Finn” was taking place, America was a different place.  It was a different social world with different social norms, making the present a completely different situation all together.  The novel should not be censored because it would taint the precise language Twain so sensitively and carefully wanted to emphasize.

The authorless editorial from the east side of Texas uses none of the rhetorical appeals to influence the reader to follow his interpretation of this controversy.  All that is left is this author’s opinion, and since the reader knows nothing of him or her, there is no ethos or credibility to back up the opinions.  There are no facts or logos appeals that show why censorship would be the best solution.  Emotion and the use of pathos are not even touched in this article.  Despite all of these faults, the editorial in the Lufkin Daily News has a valid point that must be addressed.  The author states the problem with the controversy over “Huck Finn” is that it “…causes an outrage of its own [and schools] are simply not assigning them to students anymore.  And that’s a shame” (Huck, par. 2).  This author rightly acknowledges the significance of the novel but wrongly assumes that censorship will fix everything.  In fact, censorship of “Huck Finn” will cause more problems.  Twain wrote this novel as a satire towards the Southern way of living, and all use of language was intended for a specific purpose, including the N-word.  Alan Gribben of Auburn University “… thinks that “Huckleberry Finn” is a book about social relationships.  And so to remove the language in which those relationships are couched is both historically inaccurate and distorts the meaning of the text” (Lloyd, par. 3).  The original text should not be changed because the novel, and the text within the novel, is part of history.  There is a fine line between learning from history and repeating it.  Lloyd continues to argue that: “ … the only way to get Americans to deal openly and honestly with prejudice is to force students to be uncomfortable with terms that -- unpleasant though they may be -- are part and parcel of our country's blatantly racist past (par 4).  Every other major problem in the world, like the Holocaust for example, was taught to future generations as to understand what happened, who let it happen, and how it could have been prevented.  If there is no evidence to teach these students, how will they learn not to act similarly?  The case of “Huck Finn” is not as extreme, but the basic principle is still valid.  In 1998, Judge Stephen Reinhardt fought to remove “Huck Finn” from the reading list in Phoenix, Arizona: “Words can hurt, particularly racist epithets, but a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas. Without that ability, one can do little to respond to them” (Jones).  If “Huck Finn” is censored and students are not exposed to the use, incorrectly, but still the use of the N-word, they the students will have no sense of right or wrong when it comes to using it later on in their lives.

            The real question that should be addressed is what grade level the students are reading “Huck Finn” and is that the appropriate age and/or maturity level.  Dr. Peaches Henry, an African American professor in the writing department at Baylor University, wrote “The Struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn” in 1992.  Henry explains the study conducted in 1983 at Pennsylvania State University titled The Effects of Reading “Huckleberry Finn” on the Racial Attitudes of Ninth Grade Students as the:

… contention that junior high school students lack the critical perception to successfully negotiate the satire present in the novel … left the committee convinced ‘that many students are not yet ready to understand the novel on its more complex levels.’  Therefore, although not advising expulsion of the novel, the panel recommended its removal from the ninth ­grade curriculum and placement in the eleventh­ or twelfth­ grade syllabus: Given the degree and instances of irony and satire in the book, the difficult dialects and general reading level of the book, and the tendency of many students to read the book at the level of an adventure story, the committee believes, the novel requires more literary sophistication than can reasonably be expected from an average ninth grade student. (Henry)

The level of immaturity in these ninth grade students renders them incapable of grasping the significance and horrible background of the N-word as used in the novel.  Also, the critical reading skills of these ninth graders are not to par with the advanced upperclassmen and are powerless to understand the sophisticated concepts of moral statements presented in Twain’s “Huck Finn.”

If “Huck Finn” is to be taught in schools to these students, the teachers must also be aware of how sensitive this subject is to so many people.  Dr. Henry states that: “The volatile combination of satire, irony, and questions of race underscores an additional important facet of the controversy: teacher ability and attitude … students not only look to teachers as intellectual mentors, but turn to them for emotional and social guidance as well” (Henry).  She is explaining here that the role of the teacher is vital to the successful teaching of the novel and an emotionally unstable teacher could prove disastrous to her pupils.  Dr. Henry has the answer for other ways to help teachers cope with this difficult task of teaching “Huck Finn.” She explains that the teacher must clearly discuss the usage of the N-word before beginning to read the novel, so reach a common ground with all students.  She also advises noting the racial dynamics in the classroom to better access his/her teaching process.  Another idea is to bring in other novels written about slavery and intertwine them in the learning of “Huck Finn” (Henry).  Being upfront with students early on in the process can have extremely positive results.  If your teacher/parent lets you watch a movie that is above your legal rating (ex. PG-13 for 6th graders; R for 9^th graders), your maturity increases, as does your respect for that teacher/parent, and potentially can work with the students more in depth without it becoming a problem.

            In the last paragraph of the editorial, the author tries to make the censorship seem better by relating it to the Bible and how publishers release new versions with new language, with the overall meaning remaining the same. (Huck, par. 5).  This is an ill-conceived attempt as the publishers are only updating words that are not of this time and would not be understood by today’s readers.  The question that comes to my mind when trying to solve this controversy is where does it end? At what point do we stop cutting swear words and phrases out of text to make it more ‘reader friendly’ to the general public?  There is no answer as of now, and if we continue to ban and censor classic novels such as “Huck Finn,” America as a whole will lose an essential part of its history forever.

Works Cited

“Huck Finn: Censorship? Sure, it is, but changes to ‘Huckleberry Finn’ are warranted.” Lufkin Daily News. 6 Jan 2011. Web. 21 Feb 2011.

Henry, Peaches. “The struggle for Tolerance: Race and Censorship in Huckleberry Finn.” Teaching Huck Finn: The Controversy and the Challenge 1.1 (1992):1. 1992. Web. 28 Feb 2011.

Lloyd, Delia. Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy. Politics Daily. February 2011. Web. 28 Feb 2011.

Jones, Baudelaire. Racism and the Enduring Controversy of Huckleberry Finn. Go Articles. 12 Sept 2007. Web. 28 Feb 2001.