Hayden Mills

While I can understand Monteiro's points, I have to ultimately agree with the decision made by the 9th district court. I agree with Monterio that the reading of these books could increase the frequency of racism, but her claims entirely missed the point of reading these texts. The point of reading these texts is to see how our society differed in the past. Specifically, in Huck Finn, his perspective changes on how he views race, changing from racism and stereotypes to understanding Jim's depth and character and appreciating him for the person he is.

While these texts contain racism and can sew division and hatred, I believe that this is only possible if these texts were read in a non-serious or joking manner. If these texts were explored with the context given and the understanding that this is not how the world works today, I believe these texts can give a unique and powerful insight into the past.

I agree with Monteiro, the school should have done something about the students spouting racial slurs, but that responsibility falls on the school, not the required reading of these texts.

These texts still hold educational value to this day, and even if the content is disturbing, that does not invalidate the educational value and lessons contained within.

Overall I would have to say that the required reading of these texts was not a reason to file a case, but the schools' dismissal of the racial discrimination problem was.