Opposing Censorship in Public Schools

Religion, Morality, and Literature

June Edwards

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 1997
• ISBN:
  9781135686154
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

In the past several years, hundreds of challenges a year to books used in public schools have been reported across the nation. Most of these have come from the Religious Right. This book confronts the attacks on public education and commonly used literature books by challenging the religious assumptions, the biblical interpretations, and the intimidation tactics of the Religious Right. Part I counters the claims of these censors by presenting opposing views on democracy, secular humanism, religion, the Bible, morality, and the purposes of literature. In Part II, six books frequently taught in high school classes are analyzed. Edwards shows why they have been challenged by the Religious Right, and presents a case for their moral and religious virtues as well as their literary worth. The book differs from other anti-censorship works because it deals primarily and directly with the religious and moral aspects that educators often tend to avoid. This book offers teachers and school administrators scholarly conterarguments that can help confront with literature challenges from the Religious Right.

II
RELIGION AND MORALITY IN SELECTED CHALLENGED LITERATURE

6
Religion and Morality in Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut¹

“Nothing intelligent to say about a massacre”

Slaughterhouse-Five, first published in 1966 during the Vietnam War, has been targeted for banning or burning ever since.² In 1973, for instance, three dozen paperback copies of the novel were burned by the school superintendent and board members in Drake, North Dakota, after a high school sophomore complained about the profanity (Veix, 1975). Two years earlier a circuit court judge in Michigan told an area high school to ban the book or he would order it done himself because it was a “degradation of the person of Christ” and full of “repetitious obscenity and immorality” (Banning of Billy, 1971, p. 681).

Examples of the attacks on Slaughterhouse-Five in the 1980s include the following: In Racine, Wisconsin, because of the “language used in the book, depictions of torture, ethnic slurs, and negative portrayals of women”; in LaRue County, Kentucky, because it “contains foul language and promotes deviant sexual behavior”; in Fitzgerald, Georgia, because it is “filled with profanity and full of explicit sexual references”; in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for being “vulgar and offensive”; and in Monroe, Michigan, for the language and the way women are portrayed (Doyle, 1994, p. 65).

In the 1990s the book was challenged in Jackson Township, Ohio, for its profanity and sexual content; in Waterloo, Iowa, because certain passages might cause students to be embarrassed or insulted; and in Plummer, Idaho because of profanity (Foerstel, 1994, p. 190). In 1995, Slaughterhouse-Five was still on the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) list of top 10 literature books most censored in secondary schools.

On February 13 and 14, 1945, English and American forces bombed Dresden, the jewel city of eastern Germany. The attack lasted 14 hours and killed 135,000 persons (the Germans say 220,000).³ It was the deadliest air attack of all time. In contrast, the American B-29 raid on Tokyo killed 83,000, and 71,000 perished after the atomic explosion in Hiroshima. More than two and a half times as many civilians died in the Dresden bombing and resultant firestorm as in Britain in all of World War II. It took 3 months to bury the dead, most of them in mass graves, burned beyond recognition.

A center for art, theater, and museums, Dresden was undefended, for it had no war industries or troop concentration, nothing of any value to the war effort. Certain that the city would not be harmed, the population swelled from 600,000 to 1.4 million as women, children, elderly men, handicapped, and war-wounded fled there to escape the advancing Russians.

At 10:00 on February 13, 244 British bombers dropped 650,000 incendiary bombs that turned the city into a holocaust. Three hours later a second wave of 529 British planes struck again in order to kill the firefighters, rescue workers, and fleeing inhabitants. The third strike on the 14th was by American bombers, who then flew under the smoke and strafed escaping refugees (including American POWs, among them Kurt Vonnegut). Not a single gun was fired at either the British or American planes. Hit especially hard was a railroad station filled with women, children, and the elderly, but no soldiers. Two trains of refugee children stood in an open yard outside the station. All were killed.

The city burned for 7 days and smoldered for weeks. The glow from the fires could be seen 200 miles away Central heating systems burst, and basements where people hid from the bombs were filled with scalding water. Most died from burns, hot gases, carbon monoxide, and smoke poisoning. The temperature reached over 1,000° F in the firestorm, completely incinerating bricks and tiles as well as people. This firebombing of Dresden was kept a secret by the Allies for 23 years.

Why does the assigning of this book elicit such anger from some parents and administrators as well as RR leaders? In this chapter, as well as succeeding ones, we look briefly at claims made by would-be censors, mostly from the RR, that have been made against each book, followed by a counterargument. The claims are often made by parents sincerely concerned about protecting their children from words and ideas they believe evil and damaging. These fears are fueled by the extremist rhetoric of right-wing leaders who have as their goal the destruction of public education. The critics have the right to voice their opinions, and to ask for other selections for their own children, but teachers also have the right to defend and promote the works they believe will benef it students morally, academically, socially, and spiritually.

The counterarguments are presented, not as the only alternative views or the correct intellectual positions, but as suggestions for refuting the charges sometimes made against frequently selected literature. Also, the passages from both the literature books and the Bible are deliberately taken out of context because that is the method used to attack them. As stated before, I believe that the most effective way to confront the accusations of immorality and antireligion is to use the same tactics and sources as the most strident critics. Both teachers and students, in the process of democratic discussion and debate, however, have the freedom to agree or disagree with any or all of the ideas offered here for consideration and to put forth their own opinions on each of the controversial issues.

ISSUE: PATRIOTISM

THE CENSORS’ CLAIM: The book is an indictment of war, criticizes government actions, is anti-American, and unpatriotic.

Controversial Segments

Kurt Vonnegut explained in the first chapter why he came to write Slaughterhouse-Five, which is subtitled, The Children’s Crusade: A Duty Dance with Death. He was a POW during World War II and imprisoned in a slaughterhouse in Dresden the night it was firebombed. After the war, Vonnegut went to see an old war buddy to reminisce about those times before starting his new book. The friend’s wife, Mary O’Hare, one of the persons to whom the book is dedicated, was angry about this visit and finally told him why. “You were just babies in the war—like the ones upstairs!…You’ll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne….And war will look just wonderful, so we’ll have a lot more of them. And they’ll be fought by babies like the babies upstairs” (p. 14). She wanted no more books that glorified war. Her children, she hoped, would grow up in a peaceful world where violence was not the method used by the powerful to overcome the enemy.

Vonnegut understood her revulsion and said that this book “is so short and jumbled and jangled…because there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre. Everybody is supposed to be dead….Everything is supposed to be very quiet after a massacre, and it always is, except for the birds. And what do the birds say? All there is to say about a massacre, things like ‘Poo-tee-weet?'" (p. 19).

COUNTERARGUMENT: The book is an indictment of war and criticizes government actions that were wrong and inhumane, but that does not make it unpatriotic.

Vonnegut painted a gruesome, graphic picture of what this particular military episode was like for those involved, and condemned England and America for the vicious and unnecessary attack on an unarmed city and its civilian population. No matter what atrocities Hitler and his henchmen were committing, the children, women, old men, and crippled people in Dresden, as well as the exquisite buildings and art, did not deserve such terrible death and destruction.

The loving, caring Father found in the Bible does not order the massacre of innocents as retribution for the sins of their political leaders, but tells us to “do no violence” (Luke 3:14), to “love your enemies” (Matt. 5:44), and not “shed innocent blood” (Jer. 22:3).

In fact, according to theologian Daniel Maguire (1982), peace is the central theme of the New Testament and also of the teaching of the Hebrew prophets. For 300 years after the crucifixion of Jesus, the church was still pacifistic. Not until the reign of Constantine did it turn to war as a means of settling disputes and spreading Christianity (pp. 90-95).

Young people may refuse to serve in future combats after reading about the horrors of war in novels like Slaughterhouse-Five, as the RR fears, but this does not make them un-American. They do not want their country to engage in violence, to exterminate whole populations, but to find other ways to resolve conflicts. Students may rightfully rebel against mass killing as a viable solution to world problems. They may decide to “beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks,” to not “learn war any more” (Is. 2:4; Micah 4:3), and to “seek peace, and pursue it” (Ps. 34:14). They may, in short, take to heart the biblical message of harmony among peoples and nations and believe the statement attributed to Jesus that “blessed are the peacemakers” who will be “called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9).

ISSUE: DESCRIPTIONS OF SOLDIERS' LIVES AND LANGUAGE

THE CENSORS' CLAIM: The book is full of degrading depictions of wartime life and the foul language used by soldiers, which are totally inappropriate for adolescents to read.

Controversial Segments

Vonnegut reports that Roland Weary, the “stupid and mean” 18-year-old antitank gunner, had earlier fired a shot in anger that missed the enemy It made “a ripping sound like the opening of the zipper on the fly of God Almighty” (p. 34). The Germans returned the fire, killing every one on the gun crew except Weary.

Another time, the young foot soldier Billy Pilgrim and several others are behind the German lines and being shot at during the Battle of the Bulge. Billy is 6 feet 3 inches tall and has never been given a helmet, weapon, boots, or overcoat. Dazed from cold, hunger, and sleeplessness, he stands politely in the road, giving the German marksman another chance to kill him, for that is how he understands the rules of the war game. “Get out of the road, you dumb motherfucker,” growls Weary. “The last word,” says Vonnegut, “was still a novelty in the speech of white people in 1944" and so astonished Billy that it woke him up and got him to safety (p. 34).

The American POWS who are taken to Dresden by German soldiers are treated inhumanely, miserable beyond belief. Weary is forced to trade his good boots for German clogs. In the march through Luxembourg to Germany, his feet chafe and blister and become “blood puddings” (p. 64). A few days later he dies from gangrene.

The prisoners are put in a tightly locked boxcar and left to sit for 2 days. There is no food or fuel, and air is limited and stale. The men excrete into their steel helmets, and the car is so crowded they have to take turns standing or lying down: “The legs of those who stood were like fence posts driven into a warm, squirming, farting, sighing earth” (p. 70).

When the POWs arrive in Dresden, the 100 Americans are taken to the fifth slaughterhouse, originally built as a holding pen for pigs, guarded by eight boys, old men, and badly wounded veterans from the Russian campaign. Fortunately for the POWs, it is the only safe place. After the incineration of the city, the Americans and their guards emerge from the meat locker that protected them. The walls are still there, but the windows and roof are gone. Only ashes and melted glass remain inside. Nowhere is there food or water, and everywhere are “little logs” lying around that had once been people (p. 179). For 2 days Billy has to dig in the ground for corpses. When the bodies begin to rot and liquify and stink, the soldiers cremate them where they are with flamethrowers (p. 214).

COUNTERARGUMENT: The language and scenes, although revolting to the senses, are necessary to make the author’s point about the terribleness of war.

Yes, these passages are difficult for anyone to read, let alone experience, but that is exactly why Vonnegut wrote them. The book’s critics, I believe, are not angered by dirty words nearly as much as by the depiction of war’s horribleness. High-school students will not be corrupted by reading this book, but will benefit from learning that war is not fun and games. It involves blood, pain, gore, and death on both sides of the battle. The soldiers use profanity, but not nearly as much as in real life. The worst words come from Roland Weary, who is so obnoxious that the other characters in the story reject him. He certainly would not appeal as a role model to teenagers.

Compared to the sinfulness of the bombing of a beautiful, nonmilitary city and the gassing and burning of 135,000 civilian inhabitants, the vulgar words used in the book are innocuous. They are no worse than what is heard every day on television or in the hallways of middle and high schools in cities, suburbs, or small towns. These phrases are commonly used by soldiers everywhere, especially in times of stress and fear. They are not meant to blaspheme God or religion, but to relieve the pervasive, debilitating tension and terror. In this case, the offensive word saved Billy’s life. As Kurt Vonnegut wrote in a letter to the Board of Education, Drake, North Dakota, when his novel was burned, “Those words really don’t damage children much. It was evil deeds and lying that hurt us” (cited in Stern, 1994, p. 201).

Vonnegut could not get his point across about the reality and degradation of war without using such images and words. Which is more obscene, he suggests, the phrase that comes to Weary’s mind to explain the terrible awesomeness of the gun’s blast, or the fact that his missed shot, done with anger rather than common sense, resulted in the death of all his comrades?

The author describes these happenings graphically and uses the everyday language of foot soldiers, not to titillate or offend readers, but to get across the message that war, even when one’s country is the winner, is not glorious, but a living hell for both the combatants and the civilians caught in the strife. Highschool students, who may be called to combat in some future war, should not be shielded from the reality of what they may unfortunately have to face.

ISSUE: SCIENCE FICTION AND FANTASY

THE CENSORS’ CLAIM: Assigning stories about reinvented history and fictional planets is a waste of time and unfair to students. They should be learning factual information and the skills needed for their future lives.

Controversial Segments

After Billy Pilgrim returns from the war, marries, has a family, and is a contributing member of the community, he becomes “unstuck in time” (p. 23) and travels uncontrollably back and forth among World War II, the 1960s, and his childhood. One day he is kidnapped by aliens and taken by spaceship to the fictional planet Tralfamadore. The inhabitants are 2 feet high, green, and “shaped like plumber’s friends” (p. 26). They have no voice boxes and speak telepathically.

Three years after the war, before his trip to Tralfamadore, Billy was committed to a mental hospital. Nobody believed it had anything to do with the war, not even his roommate Eliot Rosewater, a former infantry captain turned alcoholic who was there because he found life meaningless after his combat experiences. Rosewater introduced Billy to the works of the f ictional f antasy writer, Kilgore Trout. To allay their posttraumatic stress syndromes, both men try to “reinvent themselves and their universe” through this medium (p. 101).

Readers are told, for instance, that in 1932 Trout wrote a story predicting the widespread use of burning jellied gasoline as a war weapon. It would be dropped on human beings by airplanes, piloted by robots who, having no conscience, could not imagine what was happening to the people on the ground. The leading robot looked and acted like a person and even dated girls. But, because he had no conscience, nobody blamed him for dropping burning jelly on people. What they could not tolerate was his bad breath. When he cleared that up, he was welcomed as a human being (p. 168).

COUNTERARGUMENT: Imaginary history and fantasy worlds are not dangerous to students, but are a creative, engaging way to challenge them to think about individual and societal morality.

Take war, for instance. Because the Tralfamadorians appear so peaceful, Billy expects them to be shocked and baffled by the bombings and other kinds of murder on Earth, to be afraid that the Earthlings’ advanced knowledge and application of science might eventually destroy the whole universe. However, they never mention it until he does. When asked what was the most valuable thing he learned in his space visit, Billy answers, “How the inhabitants of a whole planet can live in peace!” (p. 116). To his surprise, he is told that Tralfamadore, too, has had wars “as horrible as any you’ve ever seen or read about” But they are apathetic about the horrors. “There isn’t anything we can do about them,” one says, “so we simply don’t look at them. We ignore them. We ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Preface
• Introduction
• I: The Censorship Debate Regarding Public Schools
• II: Religion and Morality in Selected Challenged Literature
• III: Suggestions for Preventing and Responding to Challenges
• Appendix A: Sources for Preventing and Responding to Challenges
• Appendix B: Sample “Request for Reconsideration”
• Appendix C: Organizations Against Censorship
• References