The Trial of Atticus
Next year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee’s Pulitzer Prize-winning masterpiece, To Kill A Mockingbird, and the 48th anniversary of the film based on the novel, featuring an Academy Award-winning performance by Gregory Peck as Atticus Finch.
If you ask a lawyer to name his or her all-time favorite novel, the odds are overwhelming that he or she will quickly reply, “To Kill A Mockingbird.” And if you ask that same lawyer to name his or her all-time favorite movie, you will get the same response. Indeed, many lawyers of my generation (myself included) will tell you that they became a lawyer because they were inspired by Gregory Peck’s portrayal of Atticus Finch.
To give you some idea how much To Kill A Mockingbird means to me, I have a beagle. His name? Atticus. (I also have a cat named Boo Radley, but that is another story.)
But it is not only lawyers who revere Atticus Finch. In 2003, the American Film Institute surveyed moviegoers and asked them to name the greatest movie hero of the 20th Century. The winner? It wasn’t even close. Atticus Finch.
Now, you would think that the 50th anniversary of the publication of this great novel would be a time to celebrate Atticus Finch. After all, we need heroes, now more than ever.
But believe it or not, there are a growing number of so-called legal scholars and intellectuals who are stepping forward not to praise Atticus, but to bury him.
In fact, Atticus is now on trial. And in my opinion, the trial itself is as big an injustice as the conviction of Tom Robinson.
The August 10, 2009 edition of The New Yorker features an article entitled, “The Courthouse Ring: Atticus Finch and the Limits of Southern Liberalism.” The article is authored by Malcolm Gladwell, the best-selling author of The Outliers and The Tipping Point.
The theme of Gladwell’s article is one that is sure to offend many American lawyers, and it certainly did me. In case you haven’t read it, buckle your seatbelts. Gladwell’s theme is that Atticus Finch is no hero. In fact, Gladwell tries to make the case that Finch was a segregationist, a sexist, and a co-conspirator in obstruction of justice.
First, Gladwell argues that, Atticus was, at best, a “Jim Crow liberal,” who really wasn’t ready to take on racism in Maycomb, Alabama. Gladwell’s “evidence” in support of this point is Atticus’ reaction to the unjust jury verdict finding his innocent client, Tom Robinson, guilty. Gladwell writes:
If Finch were a civil-rights hero, he would be brimming with rage at the unjust verdict. But he isn’t. He’s not Thurgood Marshall looking for racial salvation through the law. He’s (Alabama Governor) Jim Folsom, looking for racial salvation through hearts and minds.
Gladwell goes on to cite what may be the most famous passage from To Kill A Mockingbird, wherein Atticus defends the jury to his daughter, Scout. Atticus tells Scout, “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”
He also cites Atticus’ observation to Scout that the white folks on the jury were suffering from a “sickness,” specifically the inability to see a black man as a real person.
Gladwell argues that Atticus really did not want to change the law, but rather the “hearts and minds” of the white folks in Maycomb. Gladwell makes it sounds like these are mutually exclusive alternatives.
Maybe Gladwell would have found Atticus a more heroic figure if he had responded to the verdict by pulling out a gun and shooting all the jurors. (I have some real concern that this might be the ending in To Kill a Mockingbird II, The Sequel, starring Slyvester Stallone as Atticus, which, for God’s sake, I hope we never see.)
In Gladwell’s view, Atticus is actually sort of a polite version of George Wallace in a seersucker suit, standing in the courtroom rather than at the schoolhouse door.
But Gladwell doesn’t stop here. Not only is Atticus a segregationist, he is also sexist. Gladwell’s evidence on Count II is that in his defense of Tom Robinson, Atticus attacks the alleged rape victim, Mayella Ewell. Gladwell says that in doing so, Atticus is using the classic “she wanted it” defense that sexist lawyers have used for years in defending clients charged with rape.
Gladwell says this would be bad enough, but that Atticus is even more shameless, in that he portrays Tom Robinson as “a good Negro,” while portraying Mayella Ewell as white trash, implying she had been the victim of incest by her father.
Finally, Gladwell argues that at the end of the novel, Atticus is a co-conspirator in obstruction of justice. He notes that after Boo Radley kills Bob Ewell in defense of Scout and Jim, Sheriff Tate and Atticus agree to lie about what happened and come up with the story that Bob Ewell fell on his knife.
Gladwell says that in so doing, Atticus flunks a “moral test,” as he and the Sheriff “decide to obstruct justice in the name of saving their beloved neighbor (Boo) the burden of angel food cake.” Thus, Gladwell argues that Atticus is no better than the jurors who convicted Tom Robinson:
Atticus Finch is faced with jurors who have one set of standards for white people like the Ewells and another set for black folk like Tom Robinson. His response is to adopt one set of standards for respectable whites like Boo Radley and another for white trash like Bob Ewell.
Excuse me, but Boo Radley was “a respectable white”? I have to wonder whether Malcolm Gladwell actually read the novel.
Unfortunately, Gladwell is not alone in his indictment of Atticus. Northwestern University Law School Professor Steven Luvet has written in that his defense of Tom Robinson, Atticus showed a “willingness to rely upon cruel stereotypes” and played the “gender card.” Luvet argues that these tactics “should be criticized, not applauded.”
And in a similar vein, noted legal ethicist Monroe Freedman has written that while Atticus Finch was a “gentleman,” he was no role model since he worked within a system of “institutionalized racism and sexism.”
So there you have it, folks. The man so many of us have revered for nearly a half century is no hero, or at least that’s the charge in the case of Gladwell, et al. v. Finch.
Well, the next thing you know, we will need to reexamine Mother Teresa. All she did for 45 years was minister to the poor, the sick, the orphaned and the dying in Calcutta. In so doing, she was just preserving the status quo, like Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.
And does anybody really think Elvis could sing? And how about Sinatra, or the Beattles, or Plácido Domingo? What a bunch of frauds!
Well, I have heard all the proof against Atticus, and to borrow a line from a great closing argument, for God’s sake, I am ready to do my duty!
Here’s my verdict: Atticus was, is, and will always be a hero.
Case closed.
This was my column for the October, 2009 edition of the Tennessee Bar Journal.
Comments
buck wellford: Billy, do you not understand that no white Southern male before Jimmy Carter has any moral legitimacy? This includes Daniel Boone, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, of course Robert E. Lee. So why not Atticus Finch? These people apply an unreasonable level of moral purity to everyone but themselves and their heroes, for the most part. The rest of us will do well to emulate Atticus 20% of the time. Keep up the good work!
jack greiner : It's funny that you write about this. I read that article recently. I have to admit, I found it fascinating. I enjoy looking at things from a different point of view, whether I agree or not. But in the end, I'm with you. Atticus rules.
steve montgomery: In addition to your "case closed," I'd simply add one more word to your comments: Amen.
Joseph Hwang: Atticus Finch, Father of Law or Pushover? In the summer of 1960, Harper Lee published the historical fiction novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, which received raving acclamation from critics. Time Magazine stated that Lee’s novel was “Tactile brilliance… has an edge that cuts through cant… astonishing.” The main question is “What made this novel so very different from others?” The answer lies within the plethora of fictitious characters Ms. Lee conjured up. Although the narration is given by Ms. Scout Finch, the focal literary tension is placed on the shoulders of her father, Atticus Finch. Steadily, Atticus, who is a state lawyer, has become a judicial icon, an entity of immeasurable influence matched only by the likes of Confucius or Martin Luther King Jr. However, in the article “The Courthouse Ring” by Malcolm Gladwell, Gladwell accuses Finch of falling into the worthless footsteps of Former Alabama Governor Jim Folsom. On the contrary, I defend Finch from any heinous accusations made by Mr. Gladwell because I truly believe Atticus Finch is THE role model for modern attorneys. Atticus Finch, father of two, is appointed defense attorney for the controversial court case Ewell vs. Robinson. Mr. Tom Robinson is the good-everyday-religious black man who is accused of raping Mayella of the Ewells, who are considered the white trash of Maycomb County. Now this is where Finch is criticized; Finch’s manner towards Negroes is similar to that of Jim Folsom, who uses morality to mitigate racism. Gladwell asserts that Finch is a pushover who lightly regards the use of law to bring necessary justice. Therefore, he wrote “On what side was Harper Lee’s Atticus Finch? Finch defended Tom Robinson, the black man falsely accused of what in nineteen-thirties Alabama was the gravest of sin, the rape of a white woman. In the years since, he has become a role model for the legal profession. But he’s much closer to Folsom’s side of the race question than he is to the civil-rights activists who were arriving in the South as Lee wrote her novel.” (Gladwell, 2) Gladwell also blames Atticus for eventually losing the case. In Finch’s closing statement, he said to the jury,” But there is one way in this country in which all men are created equal- there is one human institution that makes a pauper the equal of a Rockefeller, the stupid man the equal of an Einstein, and the ignorant man the equal of any college president. That institution, gentlemen, is a court.” (Lee, 205)It is true that Finch uses words to invoke the inner sense of justice within. But is this a weak gesture? What are lawyers supposed to do? To acknowledge the questioning of facts is human nature, but what Gladwell is trying to accomplish is simply illogical. Gladwell does an admirable job thinking “outside-the-box”, however, his arguments are one sided and narrow minded. An example of Gladwell’s assumptions is necessary to understand the full context of his argument. Midway through his article, he uses a certain Mr. Lubet’s argument saying, “The only potentially exculpatory evidence Finch can come up with is that Mayella’s bruises are on the right side of her face while Robinson’s left arm, owing to a childhood, injury is useless. Finch presents this fact with great fanfare. But, as Lubet argues, it’s not exactly clear why a strong right-handed man can’t hit a much smaller woman on the right side of her face. Couldn’t she have turned her head? Couldn’t he have hit her with a backhanded motion? Given the situation, Finch designs his defense, Lubet says,” to exploit a virtual catalog of misconceptions and fallacies about r ape, each one calculated to heighten mistrust of the female complainant.” (Gladwell, 4) Is it not more likely that a left-handed man hit her? Besides, the main argument in Finch’s cross examinations is to allow the jury to imagine the sort of life style the Ewell’s pertain. Gladwell and Lubet are just attempting to find major flaws in Finch’s arguments; however, so far they have FAILED dismally. As it is stated in Chapter 18 of To Kill a Mockingbird, “Do you love your father, Miss Mayella?”was his next. “Love, him, watcha mean?” “I mean,is he good to you, is he easy to get along with?” “He’s tollable, ‘cept when-“ Except when?” (Lee,183) This clearly shows that Mayella’s home life is absolutely horrific. Incest and abuse are implied. Atticus used excellent word choice during the case to stimulate pity and sentiment for Tom. In a time without advanced CSI technology, Finch uses the resources available to him commendably. Gladwell complains that Finch failed to use correct law; however, to perform as he does with a partial jury in 1930’s Alabama is a Herculean feat. There is no reason why Atticus shouldn’t retain his status. I rest my case.
Joe: You fail to discredit the arguments Gladwell makes, in large part (I suspect) because it's so easy to take for granted that Atticus is a moral paragon. He's far more interesting, in a literary sense, if he's flawed, and the brilliance of the text is what won it a Pulitzer, not it's creation of legal standards. While my employer produces the play version of this story, it's struck me just how uncomfortable Atticus makes me, and just how problematic his defense is. To Kill a Mockingbird is a truly great novel, but it is no guide to progressive living; Atticus defines rape in the same terms that the Republican Majority tried to roll it back to, eg to include the word "force" as an additional requirement alongside being non-consensual. Miss Maudie clearly doesn't think highly of "Colored folks" when she's assessing the stories of Boo Radley, either. For Atticus to decide that there would be no prosecution of Boo Radley meant that Justice, the grand ideal he expounds upon in his summation, would not be done in a case of obvious homicide. This can't be undone, no matter how trashy Bob Ewell was. Ewell's death was no different than the lynching that Atticus gets points for preventing earlier in the book.