Censorship Discussion Sparked by Nappy Hair

25 Nov 1998
Ernie Bond

Did anyone hear about the incident in New York City schools with the picturebook Nappy Hair? The book which has gotten many positive reviews was used by a elementary school teacher in her classroom. The book praises the nappy, tangled hair of a young girl... Anyway, the teacher is white, most of the students are Black, parents complained, and the teacher has been suspended. I am simplifying the story, of course, based on a small article about the incident in the paper this morning. But this raises many issues. There was a discussion online earlier about insider/outsider authors... I wonder if the same questions are being raised about readers? If the teacher reading Nappy Hair was African American would there have been such a fuss? Why has the book gotten such good reviews but such bad reception by the school system? I'd welcome any input.

Very interesting... I'm a white public children's librarian in a Latino and African-American neighborhood. I display and recommend "Nappy Hair" constantly, but have purporsefully not ever read it at a 'story time' because I know that --no matter what my intentions are-- the possibility is out there to seriously offend someone. Now: this in itself is not reason enough not to read the book, but I decided that it simply wasn't worth it. There are plenty of other books I can use.

The narrative in Nappy Hair is phonetic, and this is where some people take offense I assume (white person imitating black speech). I'm reminded of when Pat and Fred McKissack spoke at the Cooperative Children's Book Center in Madison, Wisconsin, several years ago. Pat read "Flossie and the Fox" in the wonderful way that only she can. Later, a (white) audience member expressed discomfort at reading that aloud because of the dialect. Pat was very encouraging, and said (I hope I'm remembering correctly) that the most important part in telling a story aloud was to be comfortable, and that the audience member didn't have to tell it like Pat had, but might 'tone it down'. Hmmm. It was a nice response to hear from an author; but one of those that can't really be generalized (i.e. would the author of Nappy Hair think it would have been okay to 'tone down' the language?).....

Yum: a new juicy and inflammatory issue, just in time for Thanksgiving! Thanks Ernie!

" At 12:03 PM 11/25/98 -0500, Ernie Bond wrote: "If the teacher reading Nappy Hair was African American would there have been such a fuss?"

Ernie, that's an interesting question. But first, one should always take with that archetypal grain of salt what one reads in the newspaper. Secondly, one must consider in what kind of context was the book being read, and thirdly, it's very possible that had the teacher been an African American that there still MIGHT have been a fuss. Fourthly, what were the parents' complaints?

Follow up to Nappy Hair. I went to the New York Times website to get more information about the case. The school board has come out in support of the teacher and although the book was not on their reading list they are not censuring it. In fact the book is used as an example of culturally conscious literature at local Colleges of Education... The author is herself a professor of literature and African American studies and based the book on her own childhood. What seems to have happened at the school is that a parent (or parents) found the book to be racist and photocopied (in B&W) several pages that they found offensive. They distributed the photocopies with a flier around the community. Based on the photocopies, community members rallied against the teacher who was even threatened, and subsequently transferred to a desk job by the principal who also had not read the book, but merely seen the photocopies!! Anyway, since then lots of people have come out in support of the book and the teacher (who was in her first year), who is being reinstated.

So what does all this mean? Having seen so many books that do stereotype, I can certainly understand the community's reaction... but it's still disturbing. I saw the illustrations in question and taken out of context they could certainly be construed as stereotyping. Also the uncle in the book is half-teasing the girl about her hair in many passages -- but overall praising her. Then as Lindsay says the book is written in Black English... and a white teacher read Black English might present some problems. Though I agree with Eleanora both that the newspaper tells only part of the tale, and indeed no matter who had read the story, given the right conditions there might have been a fuss (I simplified to get a dialogue going). For me it just highlights the complex politics of any reading. The text itself is never removed from the cultural and political context.

I read the Times piece, too, and one thing that bothers me is how seriously we take the objection. That is, just because parents have discovered what they believe to be a harmful book does not mean there is anything at all wrong with the book, nor even that their feelings are valid.

Look at this case, they had not read the book, and were -- at least according to the article -- passing around incomplete knowledge and rumor. We wouldn't take seriously the views of racists passing around tales of a black man assaulting a white woman; we wouldn't credit the opinions of a mob of Christians whipping up feeling about Jews supposedly using Christian blood in their ceremonies; we wouldn't heed the sentiments of a bunch of girls in Salem telling tales of Satanic influence; we would pause for a good long time before taking seriously the objections of rigid parents who wanted to ban books with homosexuals in them.

In other words, an objection is not significant just because it is deeply felt or comes from a group that has suffered harm. I think we are all too ready to say here's one valid point of view and here's another. Why not say, here's an ill-informed, limited, mistaken point of view, and here is a more considered, more-informed, better one?

25 Nov 1998
Jim Maroon

On the Intellectual Freedom listserv, Dorothy Broderick mentioned that there may be other problems. The teacher apparently made 30 copies of the book for her students, which is a violation of copyright. In addition, it may be that the book comes off more offensive in photocopy form (my thought, not hers).

Then again, some people are always looking for a reason to be pissed off about something, and school districts can be pretty spineless when it comes to issues of censorshhip.

At 04:03 PM 11/25/98 -0500, Ernie Bond wrote: "the book on her own childhood. What seems to have happened at the school is that a parent (or parents) found the book to be racist and photocopied (in B&W) several pages that they found offensive. They distributed the photocopies with a flier around the community. Based on the photocopies,"

That's what I get for responding to a post before reading the entire thread. I stand corrected.

25 Nov 1998
Dr. E. Smith

Ernie,
This is a book which has always bothered me, despite the positive reviews. As an African American, sometimes there are words that are used inside the community, which others are not privy or a part of. Nappy, is one of those words. It is often seen as internal rather than for everyone to use. That could be the source of the parent outcry.

I saw this book as an absolute celebration of a little girls beauty. Every page, in both art and text reflected the joy of a child discovering her own uniqueness through the eyes of those who love her. From what I read in the NYT article, the parents made a judgement based not on the book itself, but rather the title and a few black and white copies of art. Their attitudes changed when the book, in it's entirety, was presented to them. If the word "nappy" is a word "privy only within' the black community" remember that this book was authored by a black woman depicting a beautiful black child, in fact, herself as a little girl. Once again, an outcry based on misinformation that has the adults in a tizzy, the author shaking her head and the children, no doubt, wondering what the big deal is about. As a writer and a mother, I was appalled that a teacher would recieve death threats by parents over the reading of a picture book to her students. Perhaps keeping certain words "privy" or "inside a community" of people builds more walls than it tears down, especially when the words convey something as universal as the celebration of a little girl's beauty by those who love her.

This controversy raises so many of the same issues that we discuss repeatedly on Child_lit: how a group wants to be portrayed, who determines what is used in the schools, and how the media presents the issue. But what bothers me most of all here is the near complete disregard for the teacher and her students. In the articles I've read all the focus is on parents, administrators, the author, and academic experts. Poor Ms.Sherman's voice is barely evident not to mention nothing from the child readers themselves.

From yesterday's Times article, "[District superintendent] Mr. Vazquez determined yesterday that the book, recommended for classroom use by instructors at Teachers College at Columbia University, was not inappropriate, but that Ms.Sherman should have cleared its use for extracurriculuar reading with the school's principal..." Again later in the article: "Everyone agreed that to avoid such confusion in the future, teachers should clear any extracurricular reading material with the principal." This disturbs me greatly. Why do we need the imprimatur of the experts at TC to say a book is okay? What is "extracurricular reading" anyway? What the children read at home? Does this mean the teacher doesn't need to clear the books she uses in class? What happened to the idea that the teacher had some sort of professional knowledge base and that she should be trusted to know what she is doing without needing the author, the academics from Columbia, the superintendent, the principal and so forth to decide it all for her? What better way to terrify a teacher into using only very safe material, carefully cleared by administrators. And forget about the children and their own decision-making process, what books they select to read. Sounds like "everyone" in this situation is in favor of some sort of authorized book lists. Sounds like censorship to me. My guess is this incident will cause many teachers to practice greater self-censorship in legitimate terror of being treated as has Ms.Sherman.

Unfortunately, I'm going to be off-line till Saturday night. I hope I'm not horribly flamed and unable to defend myself till then. Please be kind.

I happen to adore NAPPY HAIR. I think it is one of the richest, funniest, and warmest portrayals of a family gathering I have found in children's books--right up there with THE RELATIVE'S CAME, but in a very different style.

The language, complete with differing type faces for each voice, simply screams to be read aloud, either as a solo reading with multiple characterizations, or as a group reading, with each participant taking on a different character.

I read aloud professionally, and this is the type of acting workout I enjoy; getting down the voices and dialects, choosing appropriate characterizations, bringing the characters to life in performance. And I can do this book well, with the right amounts of laughter and warmth that will bring children and adults together in the joy of sharing a book. I perform all kinds of stories, using a wide variety of accents and dialects, where appropriate, and I pride myself on being able to do them accurately and with respect.

But, I will probably never perform NAPPY HAIR. I feared when I read it that it wouldn't be accepted comfortably when a white person performed it, as the dialects, which are so crucial to the book, sound patronizing, and to read it without them robs the book of much of its power and charm, leaving it sounding stilted and condescending.

There is nothing stereotypical about the book, but it is definitely from *within* a community, with a patois that does not "translate" well. It will polarize listeners who are more concerned with image and ownership than with the joy of reading and reaching out to a child with a book to which he might respond.

It is a shame that things are this way, and I was afraid something like this incident with the teacher would happen, but I have no solution. I have felt myself constricted by the same concerns that Monica Edinger raises in her post, and I am deeply troubled by them. I hope that some meaningful dialogue can come out of this, as this is one of the better books I have seen this year and it would be a shame for it to be hampered by this controversy.

On Wed, 25 Nov 1998, Ernie Bond wrote: "So what does all this mean? Having seen so many books that do stereotype, I can certainly understand the community's reaction... but it's still disturbing. I saw the illustrations in question and taken out of context they could certainly be construed as stereotyping. Also the uncle in the book is half-teasing the girl about her hair in many passages -- but overall praising her. Then as Lindsay says the book is written in Black English... and a white teacher read Black English might present some problems.... (snipped -- fcl.)"

I read "Nappy Hair" to a class of third graders, to a tepid reception. The students with the curliest hair were perhaps better able to relate to the story then were those who lacked such locks, such as myself. I talked about how fantastic it would be to hear this story read by someone who could read it with the proper (ironic use of the term!) flare. I mentioned about what a joy it must be to have some curls, and I talked about call-and-response. I asked if any of the students ever went to a church or a meeting where the speaker would get oral responses from the audience as s/he spoke. It was on this note that the children of African American heritage were most eager to respond positively.

The subject of "nappy" was indeed more ticklish. Anyone who has spent much time in schools with many children of curl (excuse my humor) knows the names which get hurled "within" the culture. Now I have yet to hear a white or Asian kid get called "you sleek-haired, smooth-headed so-an-so", but it is not unusual in some settings to hear Afican American children tease about tight curls. Likewise, I have yet to hear (may I never) a straight (now that very term puts ME uptight) haired child disparage a child as "nappy". The term just isn't likely to be in the verbal repertoire of those with quite different hair experiences.

It is obvious to all in the room when "Nappy Hair" is being read that this is a subject of great delicacy. The subject is not just racial, but about a particular, personal and physical characteristic which is known to occasionally cause anguish, if only when applying a comb or hair pick. Conversely, in the sixties, the same type of hair, combed out fully, was a source of pride and admiration. White folks could be respectful or sympathetic, condescending or hostile, but for the most part they could never achieve a "fro".

I have read the article in the Times and only wish I had read it before presenting the book to students. We had a good class session, but I would have been more comfortable, so probably would have been my audience.

I believe the book's author Carolivia Herron answered the questions about conflicts which may occur over the use of "Nappy Hair" when she said of the teacher who was perhaps not circumspect enough: "She doesn't know about the pain, that ache that preceded her into the room."

More beautiful prose from a generous, remarkable, highly original writer. To do justice to this book, how fine it would be to have Ms. Herron tape record a reading of "Nappy Hair", talking that talk as it should be spoken.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Umm - would someone be so kind as to explain what "nappy" actually means? I think I can guess by context, but in British English we use it for American English "diaper" ...

Happy Thanksgiving to all those across the Atlantic!

Flamed? I hope not. Monica has focussed on the issue of work place (not to say "professional") hierarchy and a teacher's "professional" judgment. Do teachers have to "clear" with their "bosses" EVERY story they tell or book they read? Or just the ones someone might have feelings about? Is someone of the notion that administrators know better than teachers what literature to share with children? Do we teach children that the administrators' comfort comes first? The parents' comfort? Oh please!! It's not so easy. (I'm not flaming, of course, I'm raving about the difficulties here.) If parents and administrators get upset, if students or co-workers get upset, it at least indicates that there is still some life out there. Celebrate.

We need to keep in mind the awesome power teachers may exert over children, their families, and indeed the entire social fabric. There is good reason for all of us to be involved in the education of the young. If school personnel can do good by children, they can also do bad. Unfortunately, curricular decisions are not easy, but nor is it easy to decide by committee every move that a teacher makes in front of a class of vulnerable and unsophisticated children. What results from a teacher's efforts is sometimes a reaction from the rest of the world, if someone wants to take exception. Now me, I happen to become concerned (upset? angry? livid?) when I hear teachers make gender distinctions between children where they do not apply. For a teacher to call out "Ladies!" to a group of girls (or young women), or to refer to a male student as "Buddy" just tips my scales. How could that teacher possibly think that the student's gender is of any relevance, given the teacher's responsibility to provide an education "free of discrimination on the basis of...."

It is painfully obvious why some teachers use discriminatory remarks toward children. It is far too seldom that the rest of the world gets involved in the abuses of power which occur in the name of education. I guess I've come full circle here, from teacher autonomy to participatory democracy. I await your responses.

This sure beats cookin'...but the time has come.

Jane, "Diaper" won't work for a synonym on this one, but "kiky" or "excessively curly" might work. It's the sort of hair that requires lots of heat (as in Madame C.J. Walker's creation, the metal "straightening comb" or "hot comb") or some strong chemicals such as a "relaxer" (often containing lye) if one wants to make it straight. Dig out some photos of 1960s American afros, and the word "nappy" should be clearer for you.

As an African American who has been wearing my hair natural (unprocessed/unrelaxed/un"permed" and unbraided/unextended) since 1986 when I lived in Southwest England where nobody seemed to have the foggiest idea of what to DO with the hair of a nappy-headed person who walked into a beauty salon . . . I live this issue every day.

I just did a university presentation this Monday, using Herron's book, and although one of my esteemed African American colleagues who is also in this field detests the book (because she feels that it presents a negative image of Brenda's hair), I offered a positive reading on the book. It's true that I am black and read BEV well, but my audience was also able to agree with me on the positivity of the book. I showed the illustrations as I went along. My argument surrounding this book was that in spite of the fact that Africans were stripped of culture, music, song, dance, pride, religion, identity, family--you name it!--when they were brought to America to become slaves, the message of this book is that Brenda's hair--surviving even through ALL of those generations of slaves, and free ancestors--could NOT be beaten down, suppressed, controlled, changed, Anglo-i-fied, if you will. Her hair is a symbol of resistance to the New World that nobody can do anything with. I think that's a pretty strong message.

No, it's not a complement for one black person (or one person of any other persuasion either) to call another black person "nappy headed" (another synonym: "peasy headed"--derived from peas, as in beans), but it seems to me that this is the best effort I've run into yet in chidren's literature to turn something that has often had negative connotations into something that children can see is worth celebrating. African American hair is, and I would argue, has always been political. And Herron's book jumps all in the middle of those politics. I can't see this book becoming any less controversial--among blacks or non-blacks--because it breaks new ground. But I applaud Herron for writing it and Cepeda for illustrating it, and although I wouldn't recommend that it be done insensitively or without an awareness of the political nature of Afro hair, I would support anybody (African American or otherwise) who would share the book with children.

New meaning would now seem to have been given to the concept of a Bad Hair Day. A concept to which I was always reluctant to attach much importance, coming as I do from the school of Pull it Back Into a Bun and Shut Up About It. A school which I recognize is a bit exclusionary, neglecting as it does those whose follicles are suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. For Pete's Sake is what I always wanted to shriek at those who couldn't find anything else to talk about but the curliness of their locks, and the effect of the relative humidity thereon; but with the years I've learned to save my shrieking for more important topics, like the bunions and pelvic tilt women give themselves because of their love affair with the higher heel.

And now? Now that politics has been brought into the hair equation? I should've sensed we were getting close; after all, both Monica L and Linda T, following blithely in the footsteps of Paula J, redid their dos for credibility's sake, to escape the Bimbo label. And think of the harangues Hilary and her headbands were subjected to, and how the only reason Bill got elected was because she moved up the ladder from the 7-dollar snip to the 250- dollar shaping. So even though a surface review of the topic might leave some wondering what all the nappy fuss is about, I think the only logical conclusion has to be that the children need to be prepared for what they're going to face as adults. Especially the girls.

But that's a sad thought for a day that's supposed to be about thanking Native Americans for the whole fish head-maize paradigm. So in honor of the day, it behooves us all to spend a moment in silence, remembering all the children's books in which even the birds recognize the importance of sporting just the right kind of feathers. I'm thinking of a crow, Aesop's I believe, who was kicked out of the community for pretending to be a peacock; and Dr Seuss had a species-free bird who grew so many curly feathers that she turned flightless. Remember the picture where she is hauled aloft by rubber bands held in the beaks of 23 of her closest friends? If nothing else, this should suggest some possibilities to those of you struggling to lift 35 pounds of heated meat on to a safe spot on the table.

Michelle H. Martin wrote: "It's the sort of hair that requires lots of heat (as in Madame C.J. Walker's creation, the metal "straightening comb" or "hot comb") or some strong chemicals such as a "relaxer" (often containing lye) if one wants to make it straight."

This just proves how unfair life is: here I am paying my hair dresser a fortune to curl the yellow straw I am genuinely ashamed of. In its natural shape my hair looks pretty much like that of the child whose straight hairs stand on end like the spines of a hedgehog in the famous old German picture book called "Struewelpeter". (I have no idea if it has an English title, we call it "The Great Bastian".)

I guess it is a sad reminder how arbitrary most (or all ?) standards of beauty and perfection really are, how much we create the seemingly "objective" ideals we allow ourselves to be governed by. Isn't it just depressing to think of all those little children with hair of all colours, who have cried themselves to sleep over not looking like somebody else ?

I was sick with envy over pictures of lush afros in the 70s, but my parents would never have let me get a perm then. Today I would still give my left ear, probably also the right, for genuine curls, and I do not care how nappy they are.

Friendly greetings, Bodil

Did anyone see the ("New York Times"?) article last week about the 16-year-old debutante whose invitation to her Black sorority's debutante ball was cancelled because she wears dreadlocks? As I recall, this is the same sorority of which Toni Morrison (who wears locks) is a member. These issues are indeed very complex socially and politically, intra-racially/culturally and inter-racially/culturally. And, to some extent, perhaps, inter-generationally (if such a word exists). Otherwise, still thinking about the implications of Monica's excellent questions.

I find it incredible that a principal would have the time or desire to read and approve any book a teacher would choose to read aloud to a class! And what about volunteers, such as parents or public librarians, reading books of their own choosing to students? As Monica does, I fear this would lead to "approved" lists.