Grendel: Controversy Hits the Burbs

Last night I attended my first ever school board meeting. Well, now that I think about it, it was actually my second. My first being when I gave a presentation to the Roseburg School Board at age 12 as co-editor of the high-class production that was our two-page Elementary School newsletter (printed on goldenrod paper, of course). The only thing I distinctly remember about that night is my teacher being irritated that I didn’t wear a dress. Not much has changed.

The topic that drew me and about 300 of my fellow townspeople to the meeting last night was a proposal by parents to have the book, Grendel, by John Gardner removed from the Sophomore Advanced English class curriculum. Well, I should be honest. What really drew me was a caller on the Rick Emerson Radio Program calling in to state that a small group of Mormons were trying have a book banned from our local high school and since very few things chap my hide more than a religious group trying to dictate how others should live their life, I was determined to be in attendance. But alas, from the reading I did before the meeting and the several people who stood to make their case for both sides of the issue last night, I gathered that it wasn’t an all out ban on the book that these parents were looking for but the removal of the book from a particular curriculum.

Their stance on the issue is that while they respect Grendel as a work of literature (which, by comments both in person and on the handout they passed around, I feel this was said more for their argument than their actual belief), the several instances of graphic language depicting rape, torture and mutilation are not appropriate for fifteen-year old children. And even though this novel is used in many sophomore classes across the country, they felt that the same aspects of human nature could be taught and discussed just as easily with a less explicit selection and that we could and should do better for our children. They were also concerned with the lack of explanation on the permission slip that went home to parents as to the nature of Grendel and felt that this non- communication to the parents was intentional so as not to bring to light the type of literature that was being read.

From the viewpoint of the high school English department and many parents in attendance last night, Grendel is regarded as excellent literature and that while there are parts that are graphic, the overall theme and message behind the actual words are great catalysts for classroom discussion. They also pointed out this is an advanced, college prep, optional course and feel that the students accepted to this class are mature enough to process and discuss the graphic content. And in regards to the parent’s concern about the permission slips, a three-hour workshop – in which the protesting parents participated – the high school had came up with a more comprehensive permission slip for parents, optional books that could be read in place of Grendel if parents did not approve and were still working on a way to better incorporate those students in the overall classroom discussion.

Where do I stand on all of this? Let me first state that I have not read Grendel. I did read what I assume is most if not all of the passages in protest passed around on the printed version of the argument and in no uncertain terms, it is graphic. I even found myself balking at certain phrases, but is it too graphic for a 15-year old? I suppose that depends upon the 15-year old. Does the content of the book outweigh the vulgarity of the prose? I don’t know. I haven’t read it. But my argument does not lie with what is within the pages of Grendel. My argument is for personal choice.

If the English department required the reading and dissection of Grendel to graduate, I would agree with these two parents. This book is most likely not appropriate for all teenagers, not even all adults for that matter, and a different novel would be better suited for a general audience. But this is not required reading. This is not even a required class. This is an optional, advanced, college prep class that is designed to promote the more critical thinking that will be required as they move into college courses.

I understand the concern of these parents and I whole-heartedly commend them for staying abreast of what and how their children are learning. It was wonderful to see such parental involvement in the education of our children at the school board meeting – our community is very lucky. But as I listened to both the mother and the father make their case, even in light of better permission slips and optional reading for those families that don’t feel comfortable with Grendel (and a community suggestion of moving it to the senior class curriculum), it became apparent that this had become more about getting their way than making our schools better for all students. They were determined to stand their ground and stamp their feet through meetings with teachers and department heads and principals and superintendents and three school board meetings until the curriculum of our school district was in direct line with their ideals. They were not looking for compromise; they were looking to guide all of us with their own personal moral compass.

I know that whether or not we include this book in our high school curriculum is really inconsequential, but who decides whether or not it will be there is not. Why not let the parents speak in a more democratic fashion? Hand out the permission slips and if a large majority are opting out of reading Grendel then the department can review the reasons for this selection and perhaps choose another title. But if we allow our communities to be governed only by the strictest of moral code and the most limited of ideals of any one group then we are compromising much more than the education of our children. We are compromising the freedoms that allow us to reach, ask, ponder and explore any topic of our choosing.

I admire these parents for standing up for what they believe in, it takes a great amount of courage to do so, but there is a difference between refusing to personally cross a line in the sand and making sure no one else does either. They have the right, and now the option, to have their children read books they are comfortable with. Shouldn’t I be allowed the same? My school board thinks so.