It was 1975 and I was about to hit my 25th birthday. There was a gathering of friends later that day, but in the meantime, there was an odd event that occurred.
I was teaching American Literature at a Catholic college prep high school. As we began covering Melville and Moby Dick, both the book and movie Jaws were released. Some of my students who had seen the movie noticed some similarities between both stories.
These students, wanting the extra credit as it would bring up their grades, asked if they could do a report comparing the two books after they noticed the three days of the final hunt, the sinking of the boat and ship both named after the same tribe in Connecticut, both beasts were great and white, along with a few more details that gave them the impression the new book was an updating of the old.
The end result was a group report which listed and cited the similarities with their conclusion that they could see why a book considered boring now (who hunts whales?) was popular then because one about a current interest, sharks, was popular now, and both were made into successful movies.
I showed their report to the principal, a man of literature, who appreciated the students’ effort and work.
Behind the school at the crest of the hill was the provincial house of the order than ran the school. This is where the regional leader of the order, the Provincial, lived, where the major administrative offices were, and where those who worked in them lived. It also housed some elder members of the order who had at one time been important, but now were old and given an honored space there as opposed languishing in some obscure setting.
The people in that building, other than the province’s director of education, really had no direct say in the daily running of the school, so regardless of opinions, other than promoting the transferring of someone with whom they had educational differences, their opinions had no influence, although there were some who tried.
I was called to the office at the end of the eve of my birthday as the principal had received an official complaint from someone in the Provincial House.
An old priest was requesting my dismissal. He had heard of the student generated and competed report after the principal had mentioned it in a casual conversation when having dinner at the provincial house one evening, and, having seen the movie, objected because he was offended by some of the language, and the principal was informing me he had been called to a meeting scheduled the next day to explain this and to be directed to fire me post-haste.
My presence was not needed, so I would just have to wait until after the meeting to find what others discussed without any input or defense from me.
At the meeting, according to those in attendance, the old priest took out a copy of the book, Jaws, in which he had highlighted every curse word he had come across with a red pen and demanded to know why a teacher would have been allowed to assign such a book and related report.
The principal for his part when the time came, simply read the report aloud and followed up with pointing out what the students had found on their own in a book the teacher had not assigned but, because of the similarities they had seen in the movie, had asked if they could read both books and compare.
In contrast, without having actually read the book, this priest had only gone through it underlining curse words, so the question was which of us, the teacher whose students had been motivated to do a report that called for reading two books, or a priest who did not read the book but quietly and alone had gone through a book looking for dirty words, was unacceptable.
When asked about plot points not included in the movie, the old priest could not recite any as his only plot knowledge was from the movie.
The contrast was clear, and the matter ended.
Without this meeting, the probability that I would have been fired was strong.
Had the complaint not been investigated and the complainant’s warped approach not exposed, a teacher who motivated some students to want to do extra work to learn more would have been lost.
Someone who has not read a book should not have their complaint honored until such time as they have read the book and can cite the offensive parts accepting that their interpretation or discomfort is not universal.
At the beginning of the 21st Century and as part of the evangelical attempt to purge books they did not like from public libraries with an emphasis on those that were “homosexually themed”, there was a movement by an Oklahoma state legislator to make this happen going so far as to threaten state funds if libraries did not cooperate.
To counter this and to fill in the gap in the city’s school district when it came to positive books about Gay people, the Gay Community in OKC presented two books, one on the Stonewall Rebellion and the other the bio of Bayard Rustin, to the district to be placed in the high school libraries. These were carefully chosen as they were historical people and events and were not novels containing any sexual scenarios. If sex were mentioned, it was only because such a reference was an important, passing detail with no more to it than mentioning an event happened on a Wednesday.
There was a long delay before the books appeared on the high school library shelves. I kept pestering the director of school libraries and she finally let me know she had lent copies of both books to selected people in the school dept and outside to read so they would not only know the actual contents of the book but could be prepared to counter any uninformed complaint. She wanted the books in the libraries but knew with the state representative there could be problems. She knew there would be objections most likely from those who did not read the book, making wild statements about the unread content.
There was a meeting I was asked to attend when those who had read the books met to discuss them. Nothing objectionable was found although there were questions that were more for clarification of terms that were mainly dated Gay jargon.
The books all went to the high schools after this on the same day and all were put on the shelves. To my knowledge there have been no complaints and if there were now, one would have to admit that those two books have been on the shelves for at least 18 years with no disruptive influence,
Both these instances illustrate to me, anyway, that those who object to a book must first prove they have read it and must be able to answer questions on the book itself before their complaint is taken under consideration.
Groups who protest a book in their organization’s name must first prove those protesting. whether in writing or in person, whether an individual or a gathering of people, have read the book they condemn and cite the actual passages they find objectionable
It is a minimal requirement for such a major step.
.
.
.
.
.
.
