OCU’s School of Theatre will perform Aaron Sorkin’s new play, “To Kill a Mockingbird” on our campus, October 23-27. So, I have been thinking about the first time I read “To Kill a Mockingbird.” Mrs. Stocks, my 11th grade English teacher, kept a rack of “current fiction” in the back of her classroom and let us borrow her paperbacks for “leisure reading.” I read “To Kill a Mockingbird,” “Fahrenheit 451,” “The Catcher in the Rye,” and “Catch 22” that year. That was 1970 when I was an 11th grader in Selma, Alabama. My classmates and I – the first students to attend the fully integrated Selma High School – were eyewitnesses to the Civil Rights Movement. Some of my African-American classmates marched in demonstrations and were close enough to the Movement’s leaders to call them “Uncle Martin” and “Uncle Andy.” All of us had grown up in midst of the Movement and were barely aware of how it was shaping us.
When I read Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” in 1970, I idealized “Atticus Finch,” the attorney who defended Tom Robinson. He was my hero. While my classmates and I were experiencing profound social change, Atticus was the model of the person I wanted to be: strong, principled, savvy, stoic, and unswerving in his commitment to fairness and truth. My concept of “integrity” looked a lot like Lee’s Atticus. I admired him so much that I did not recognize that he might also be condescending, rigid and racist. Neither did I question the stereotypes of African-Americans that the characters of Tom Robinson and Calpurnia represented.
Now, almost 50 years later, Aaron Sorkin’s new play, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” gives me a welcome opportunity to re-visit my idealization of Atticus Finch. Granted, I had time to reflect on the brutal legacies of racism in my hometown while becoming a historian of the 20th century South. Even so, Sorkin’s re-telling of the story prompts me to consider how differently we (I) understand the role of race in our lives together. For example, in 1970, I did not think twice about Lee’s use of racist language in dialogue. Now, each time one of Sorkin’s characters uses the same words, they are especially hateful and vicious. In addition, I appreciate that Sorkin’s African-American characters are not stereotypes. Instead, they are three-dimensional people who demonstrate agency within their circumscribed circumstances.
Most important to me, Sorkin’s Atticus Finch is not the hero I once idealized. Like everyone else, he confronts the challenge of applying the principles to which he is committed in his everyday relationships. Lee’s Atticus is absolutely certain that he demonstrates strength when he does not permit others to provoke him. When Sorkin’s Atticus is slow to respond to injustice, however, the audience must consider whether he is actually cowardly or weak. On principle, Lee’s Atticus shows respect by treating everyone with equal courtesy. Calpurnia, his housekeeper, challenges Sorkin’s Atticus to recognize that his undifferentiating courtesy is, in fact, egregiously disrespectful to people who have been victimized. Lee’s Atticus is committed to the truth, no matter what. Near the end of the play, Sorkin’s Atticus willingly accepts a lie in order to do what is right.
I am looking forward to these performances and to the opportunities they give all of us to think, once again, about the ideals we hold high and the challenge of living out those ideals in the collective life of our campus community.
George Sims
Interim Provost
Leave a Reply