The Trial of of Mark Twain, Day 2-3
Ernest Mason, a journalist, was called by the prosecution to argue against the teaching of the book. Mason argued that the ‘steamboat incident’ best illustrated why the book should not be part of the required curriculum. “Because Aunt Sally and Huck both ‘refuse to accept that a black person can be a human,” he argued, “no student should be required to read the novel.
In a withering cross-examination, Mason conceded that the novel offered a “realistic depiction of slavery” and that “at times, Jim seems much smarter than Huck.”
The next witness was Dr. Peaches Henry, of the Baylor English Department. Dr. Henry relayed her personal experience with racism, and argued that Twain’s book “should be stricken from schools” because it humiliates black students and makes white students uncomfortable. Under cross-examination, Dr. Henry vigorously argued that the novel did not work as satire, because of its inherent weakness as a text, the inability of teachers to adequately teach it, and the lack of sophistication shown by high school students.
Jane Smiley, from Harpers Magazine, strengthened the the prosecution’s case by directly attacking the book as a “racist, poorly written text.” Under cross-examination, she had a difficult time explaining why other texts like Uncle Tom’s Cabin offered a better choice.
The prosecution rested its case with the testimony of Thomas Stork, who claimed that “presenting racist ideas in literature” would lead to racist acts. He suggested that the novel should not be mandated in classrooms, but made available in libraries and for college students.
The defense offered a stinging attack in cross-examination, wondering what standard Stork would use to allow censorship. “If” attorney Kate asked,” you can ban any book because someone might be offended, what books will survive? Stork responded by claiming that Huck Finn was uniquely bad and justified censorship.
The defense opened its case with Alan Webb, who argued, citing George Bernard Shaw, that censorship was the moral equivalent of assassination. He also said that 75% percent of people want to censor something, and that unpopular ideas were critical to end oppression of women and to actually end slavery.
Under cross-examination, Webb became flustered, having to defend the idea that the sole decision-making power for teaching books should rest with teachers. When pressed, he argued that there were reasonable limits, like restrictions on pornography. Webb got in real trouble on the issue of violence, at first suggesting violent texts should be banned, then defending works like The Things They Carried.
High school English teacher Nancy Methelis proved to be a controversial witness for the defense. She claimed to have taught the novel without having ever offended a student, but when confronted with her own affidavit that indicated a student has written an essay demanding that the book be banned, she quickly backtracked.
The prosecution also made a major issue with Ms. Methelis’s claim that she taught the book using an expurgated text. The prosecution closed its cross-examination asking, ” doesn’t it prove that the novel is racist if you have to change the language?” eliciting a non-commital resoonse from the teacher.
Day three closed with the testimony of Jim Brown and Levi B, experts in the First Amendment, who argued that censorship of literature would result in less ideas being transmitted in society, and less knowledge of how to progress as a society. Brown argued that it was “important to confront the past if we ever hope to improve the future.”
The trial will conclude tomorrow with the much-anticipated testimony of Mark Twain and closing arguments from both sides.
