Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools

AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION Chicago and London 2001

While extensive effort has gone into ensuring the reliability of information appearing in this book, the publisher makes no warranty, express or implied, on the accuracy or reliability of the information, and does not assume and hereby disclaims any liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions in this publication. Composition by the dotted i using ITC Caslon 224 and ITC Avant Garde in QuarkXPress 4.1 on a Macintosh platform Printed on 50-pound white offset, a pH-neutral stock, and bound in 10-point coated cover stock by Batson Printing The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.嘷 ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Reichman, Henry, 1947– Censorship and selection : issues and answers for schools / Henry Reichman. — 3rd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8389-0798-9 (alk. paper) 1. School libraries—Censorship—United States. 2. School libraries— Book selection—United States. 3. School libraries—Collection development—United States. 4. Education—Curricula—Censorship— United States. 5. Student publications—Censorship—United States. 6. Children’s literature—Censorship—United States. 7. Educational law and legislation—United States. I. American Library Association. II. Title. Z675.S3 R42 2001 025.2′1878′0973—dc21 00-067657 Copyright © 2001 by the American Library Association. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. Printed in the United States of America 05

04

03

02

01

5

4

3

2

1

CONTENTS

Foreword

vii

Chapter 1—Censorship in the Schools What Is Censorship?

1

2

Censorship and Education

4

Censorship and Educational Excellence Censorship or Selection? Academic Freedom

6

7

The Extent of the Problem Who Censors?

6

10

15

Motives for Censorship Self-Censorship

17

20

Chapter 2—Arenas of Conflict

24

The School Library and the Library Bill of Rights The School Library: Selection Policies The Classroom

30

The Student Press

34

Extracurricular Activities The Internet

37

38

Chapter 3—Issues in Dispute Politics

43

44

“Dirty” Words

46

Profanity and Policy Sexuality

47

51

Gay and Lesbian Literature Sex Education Violence

25

28

52

55

58

“Secular Humanism” and “New Age” Witchcraft and the Occult

59

62

Impressions and Harry Potter

66

iii

iv

Contents Horror Novels

68

Creationism

70

Racism and Sexism

72

The Case of Huck Finn

76

Chapter 4—Establishing Selection Policies Who Makes Policy?

81

Basic Components of a Selection Policy Objectives

Procedures

83

84

Responsibility for Selection Criteria

80

85

86 87

Controversial Materials Reconsideration

88

89

The Completed Policy A Working Document

92 93

Student Rights and the Student Press Videos and the Internet

93

94

Chapter 5—What Do We Do If . . . ? Some General Rules Preparing for a Crisis

97

98 101

Dealing with the News Media

102

Handling the Initial Complaint

103

The Reconsideration Committee

104

If They Won’t “Play by the Rules”

105

If “The Community Is Up in Arms” If the Challenge Succeeds

Chapter 6—What Is the Law? Basic Principles

106

107

109

110

Differing Views and Unresolved Issues School Libraries: The Pico Decision

111 112

The Lower Courts: An Ambiguous Record The Courts and Huck Finn

116

Religion in the Schools

118

Evolution and Creation

122

Student Rights and Student Press

123

114

Contents Library and Curricular Censorship after Hazelwood The Internet: Legal Terra Incognita

Response

128

130

Chapter 7—School System Checklist Preparation

v

133

133 134

Chapter 8—Conclusion

137

Appendixes A Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program B Free Access to Libraries for Minors C Diversity in Collection Development D Workbook for Selection Policy Writing E Sample Selection Policy F Guidelines for Student Publications G Dealing with Concerns about Library Resources H Selected List of Concerned National Organizations I

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

J A Selected, Annotated Bibliography on the First Amendment and Intellectual Freedom

Notes

201

Index

213

FOREWORD

ensorship! The word itself sparks debate—even more so when the context is the public school. Throughout the 1990s, complaints about school library materials, textbooks, and other educational resources have plunged teachers, parents, administrators, and school boards, in big cities and suburbs, rural areas and larger towns, in all regions of the country, into controversy and turmoil. Whether the issue is “dirty words,” “traditional values,” sex education, or racial insensitivity, censorship that goes unchallenged threatens the very fabric of public education. This timely revision of Censorship and Selection continues the American Library Association’s efforts to provide educators and citizens alike with information essential to sustaining the free marketplace of ideas in education. Preserving libraries and school media centers as places where children and youth are free to inquire and learn not only about the issues taught in the classroom, but also about those that are important to them but are not discussed in the classroom, fosters the individual child’s discernment and curiosity and assures that we are preparing future citizens who are able to fully participate in our democracy and think for themselves. In its earlier editions, Censorship and Selection won broad praise not only as the most thorough survey available of the school censorship controversy, but also as the only work to offer educators concrete and practical advice on how to prepare selection policies, handle complaints, and meet challenges. Covering the student press and religion in addition to library and curricular materials, this book has proven an indispensable guide for both strife-torn school districts and those seeking to avoid destructive conflicts. This new edition is updated and expanded to include material on the “hot” censorship disputes that persist into the new century. Internet filtering, challenges to gay and lesbian literature, and attempts to remove materials that allegedly promote witchcraft and the occult are all discussed in Censorship and Selection. The chapter on the legal environment now features an expanded examination of curricular censorship in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Hazelwood student press ruling, as well as a thorough review of the law governing free expression and filtering on the Internet.

C

vii

viii

Foreword

For anyone who cares deeply about the freedom to learn and the preservation of a free and democratic society based on openness, Censorship and Selection remains essential reading. JUDITH KRUG Director Office for Intellectual Freedom American Library Association

CHAPTER

1

Censorship in the Schools It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate. . . . In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District1

or educators the past two decades have been a time of controversy and, occasionally, fear. A growing and sometimes acrimonious debate over the proper role and function of public education in a free society has frequently placed teachers, librarians, and school administrators in a difficult position. Curricular changes are demanded from every quarter; methods of instruction have come under intense scrutiny; teacher shortages are widespread, while the competence of existing personnel is challenged—all amid an often somber fiscal atmosphere. From one side, we hear that standards have fallen, that too often schools do not leave their graduates with a grasp of even the most basic skills needed for survival in the modern world. From another side, we are told that students are given too much, that schools teach things best left unlearned, or—at the least—subjects better treated in the home by parents. For some, the problem is sex education: There is too much of it or, perhaps, not enough. For others, the concern is religion—from prayer in school to the teaching of evolution or even, as increasing numbers allege, of witchcraft and the occult. There is fear among many that, in seeking to avoid public entanglement with private religion, our schools fail to instill in students the kinds of educational and moral values shared by Americans of all faiths. Some even charge that public education has come to pro-

F

1

2

Chapter 1

mote its own religious doctrines—so-called “secular humanism,” “New Age,” or just plain Satanism. One Florida couple told their school board that “all the evils of society are nurtured by the books available” in schools.2 The Internet revolution has added an entirely new dimension to the controversy. Calls to connect school libraries and classrooms to the Internet have received a mixed response from educators and the public. While the opportunity to link students with the vast array of resources available online excites many, others fear that the freewheeling atmosphere of cyberspace will open doors best left closed. The debate over education is and should be ongoing and constructive. It is, after all, a debate about the future, about the fate of our most precious resource, our children. As in all discussion of complex issues, no one may claim a monopoly on truth. Valuable insights have come from advocates of virtually every philosophy. Welcome initiatives have been proposed by a wide variety of social, professional, and political groups. But it is precisely the wide-ranging and diverse character of our national discussion of education that gives rise to a growing concern about censorship. For ultimately, ideas proposed become actions taken. Although most participants in the debate over education respect the rights and sincerity of their opponents, some have sought to impose their views on the educational system, not through processes of persuasion and compromise, but by attempting to remove or restrict the use of certain instructional and library materials. A few have also called into question the processes by which these materials are selected, often demanding a special or expanded role for themselves or for others with similar convictions. Whether it is parents, clergy, educators, or agents of government who take action, efforts to impose on our schools a single political, religious, or moral agenda threaten to foreclose debate and cripple education.

What Is Censorship? Put briefly, censorship is the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic, or educational materials—of images, ideas, and information—on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in light of standards applied by the censor. Frequently, the single occurrence of an offending word will arouse protest. In other cases, objection will be made to the underlying

Censorship in the Schools

3

values and basic message conveyed—or said to be conveyed—by a given work. In the final analysis, censorship is simply a matter of someone saying: “No, you cannot read that magazine or book or see that film or videotape—because I don’t like it.” According to some, only agents of government may censor. Yet, in reality, pressures exerted by private citizens or citizen groups can also result in the removal or suppression of “objectionable” items. In such situations these private individuals and groups function as true and effective censors. Pressures to remove allegedly “offensive” classroom or school library materials have attracted considerable media attention. Typically, individual parents or parent/citizen groups bring some kind of pressure upon school boards or administrators, who in turn might tell librarians not to circulate, or teachers not to assign, a challenged work. More often than not, school systems resist such pressure. In some cases, however, professional educators or school boards have initiated the removal or restriction of materials. In other instances, teachers, librarians, and school principals acceded to censorship pressures, but were reversed by higher-level administrators or school boards. In March 1987, for the first time in U.S. history, a federal court took on the role of schoolbook censor when a Mobile, Alabama, judge ordered public school districts in that state to remove from classrooms 44 state-approved social studies, history, and home economics textbooks because they allegedly promote “secular humanism,” a violation, the judge ruled, of the constitutional separation of church and state. Fortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed that decision in August 1987. That instance notwithstanding, the courts have tended to give local school districts wide discretion in determining what they will teach and with which materials. In the 1968 case of Epperson v. Arkansas, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “Public education in our Nation is committed to the control of state and local authorities. Courts do not and cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the daily operation of school systems and which do not directly and sharply implicate basic constitutional values.”3 Still, in Epperson, the Supreme Court struck down a state law that prohibited the teaching of evolution. Court decisions give school authorities broad discretion in making educational decisions, but not judgments that smack of ideological, political, or religious motivations. The Supreme Court has frequently upheld the overriding importance of free expression. The First Amendment, the Court declared in 1976, “does not tolerate laws which cast a pall of ortho-

4

Chapter 1

doxy over the classroom. . . . students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.”4 In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled, in a plurality opinion written by Justice William J. Brennan Jr., that “local school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”5 Although censors almost invariably claim to be defending American values, educational censorship is harmful precisely because it undermines those very democratic values of tolerance and intellectual freedom that our educational system must seek to instill. In the process of acquiring knowledge and searching for truth, students learn to discriminate and choose—to make decisions rationally and logically in light of evidence. Removing a book from a classroom or school library because it offends some members of the community increases the likelihood that students will see suppression as an acceptable way of responding to controversial ideas and images. By suppressing materials containing ideas or themes with which they do not agree, censors produce a sterile conformity and a lack of intellectual and emotional growth in students. Freedom in the public schools is central to the quality of what and how students learn.

Censorship and Education Americans find censorship odious. Few in our society advocate the banning of all but a tiny handful of materials from sale, circulation, or display to adults. The commitment to free expression is not so clear, however, where minors are concerned, and the picture becomes more clouded still when the issue of schooling enters. The power to choose some textbooks or library materials and to reject others according to standards appropriate to education’s inculcative mission is central to the schooling enterprise. The purpose of education is not only to communicate factual information, but to develop in the young the ability to discriminate and choose. This, of necessity, involves some selective transmission of values. As legal scholar Mark Yudof has noted: Indoctrination is much of what schools are about. But it is not all that schools are about. If government is to educate children, to operate public schools, and to select teachers, books and courses, a basic decision has been made about the communication of skills, attitudes,

Censorship in the Schools

5

values, and beliefs between generations. Education and indoctrination, information and values, cannot be neatly disentangled. . . . And this learning is not value neutral. The problem, however, lies in devising educational systems that prepare children for adult life without simultaneously sacrificing their ability to reflect upon the ends for which they are being prepared, without indoctrinating them to unbridled allegiance to the status quo or to the rightness of current institutional arrangements. . . . Education can expand the mind and imagination or contract them. The child who is taught nothing of his or her country’s cultural, political, and intellectual heritage must be pitied as much as the child who is compelled to conform in all respects to the conventional wisdom.6

The question then becomes: Who determines what is to be taught in the public schools and how? Who takes charge of the necessary balancing between education and socialization, between the communication of diverse ideas and the inculcation of common values? In our country, this power is generally vested in elected representatives of the voters—school board members—whose actions are constrained, however, by broad constitutional and customary limits, and who most frequently delegate their authority to professional administrators and educators. But the matter is not really that simple. Teachers and librarians claim special wisdom in determining curriculum by virtue of their training and experience. They may demand additional rights to academic freedom and to reasonable autonomy in carrying out professional responsibilities. Parents, too, have an important interest in directing the upbringing of their children, and may justifiably demand influence over the curriculum beyond the power they wield together with non-parents as voters. Students themselves have also, not unreasonably, asserted rights to know, to read, to learn, and not to be subjected to materials they find offensive. When any of these groups object to certain educational materials, may they fairly be branded censors? Many say no. They charge that it is frequently the schools themselves that censor materials according to the views of the educational “establishment.” Some critics of education assert that schools may use their governmentally granted powers to indoctrinate students in ways that undermine the ability to think and act critically, or that subvert popular values which, for whatever reason, the state or its agents fear. The Florida textbook critics cited earlier told their school board that objectionable “books are forced on you because they are approved by the federal government and the state of Florida.”7 As Yudof

6

Chapter 1

points out, “The government’s capacity to shape beliefs and attitudes may be as destructive of democratic values as direct censorship.”8

Censorship and Educational Excellence But what of educational quality? Sometimes calls for censorship are confused with calls for educational improvement or reform. Frequently educators and librarians hear of challenges to books, videos, or other materials used in classrooms and wonder why such educationally inappropriate materials were used in the first place. In an atmosphere where some high school students may spend too much time in class watching Hollywood movies, is it no wonder that some parents suggest an outright ban on R-rated films, including those of indisputable educational value, like Schindler’s List? Isn’t it necessary for schools to censor in order to ensure quality? But it is precisely because we demand educational excellence from our schools that censorship is so dangerous. To be sure, schools must and will select appropriate classroom materials on the basis of their educational value. And school libraries must keep the institution’s overall educational mission at the center of their selection policies in ways that public libraries need not. But the purpose of education is not merely to assure that students are exposed to approved ideas and information. Education must seek to instill in students the spirit of independent intellectual inquiry. In short, the purpose of education is to teach students to think, and this they will be unable to do unless they are exposed to a variety of conflicting ideas, images, and viewpoints. Censorship opposes this.

Censorship or Selection? Objections made by parents and others to school classroom and library materials must be seen as an important and valuable part of the democratic and educational process. Although many, if not most, challenges to such materials do amount to little more than censorship attempts—and should therefore be rejected—the challenge process itself is a legitimate and very important avenue of communication. Legitimate constraints on intellectual freedom in education are not always easily distinguished from those that are improper. Nevertheless, a distinction can and must be made between selection and censorship. Intelligent selection of educational materials is by no

Censorship in the Schools

7

means an easy task. The interests and opinions of a wide variety of groups need to be balanced, and it is likely that charges of censorship or bias will be hurled at even the most diligent school system. Still, clearly articulated and professionally formulated selection policies and procedures differ fundamentally from the mode of operation of the censor. In general, selection is carried out by trained professionals, familiar with the wide variety of available choices and guided by a clear grasp of the educational purposes to be fulfilled. To be sure, the professional educator also has opinions, viewpoints, and values. One purpose of professional training, however, is to develop the ability to recognize and transcend personal bias. The professional should also know how to take into account and work with community and parental concerns, while still maintaining a high tolerance for our national diversity. By contrast, the censor’s judgment is that of the individual, and it is most frequently based on criteria that are inherently personal and often intolerant. Where the censor seeks reasons to exclude materials, those engaged in the process of selection look for ways to include the widest possible variety of textbooks, library materials, and curricular supplements within the context of a well-defined curriculum with clearly articulated goals. Censorship responds to diversity with suppression; the selection process seeks instead to familiarize students with the breadth of available images and information, while simultaneously erecting essential guideposts for the development of truly independent thought.

Academic Freedom “Academic freedom is the freedom to teach and to learn. In defending the freedom to teach and to learn, we affirm the democratic process itself.” These are the opening lines of “Free to Learn: A Policy on Academic Freedom and Public Education,” adopted by the Connecticut State Board of Education in 1981. In a similar vein, the Minnesota State Board of Education declared in 1985 that “the freedom to teach, to learn, and to express ideas without fear of censorship are fundamental rights held by public school teachers and students. . . .”9 Respect for academic freedom is a hallowed tradition in American education. Academic freedom is generally understood to guarantee the teacher’s right to teach and to select classroom materials,

8

Chapter 1

and the librarian’s right to build an appropriate collection, according to established policies and procedures, without external interference. But few would deny that this freedom has its limits, and that it means different things in different situations. Robert M. O’Neil, director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression and formerly president of the universities of Wisconsin and Virginia, has remarked: “Even the most ardent teacher-rights proponent would probably agree that elementary and secondary school instructors are not exactly like university professors, and that some dimensions of academic freedom diminish as one moves from graduate school to the younger grades.”10 Academic freedom has also come to embrace the student’s rights to learn and to expression. As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1969: School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school as well as out of school are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State.11

In particular, the courts have found that student publications, official and underground, enjoy broad—though not unfettered— protection against censorship. Still, a student’s right to learn generally does not include the right to choose his or her own textbooks, or to demand the teaching of specialized subjects. Students’ expressive rights are also constrained by the school’s interest in avoiding material and substantial disruptions of school activities. Limits on academic freedom may vary according to the subject matter. A high school English teacher formulating a syllabus for an advanced placement course may have wide latitude to choose provocative and important works of literature, while an earth science teacher in the same school is not free to select a text advocating a “flat earth” theory. An elementary school librarian needs freedom to select books that appeal to a variety of conflicting tastes, but a classroom teacher may be constrained to use a reading text from a standardized series used in all elementary grades. In general, as the distinction increasingly has been made between required texts and set curricula on the one hand, and collateral materials and a flexible curriculum on the other, the freedom and responsibility of teachers and librarians have grown. Expanded and diversified curricula have tended to enhance the role of teachers and school librarians in the selection of instructional materials.

Censorship in the Schools

9

A survey of high school curricula in 1894 found that no more than 40 separate subjects were taught. By 1950, the number of subjects taught in the same communities had risen to 274. A 1972 survey of Ohio schools revealed that of 392 schools responding, 65 offered electives in literature. A more recent national survey showed that more than a thousand distinct literature courses are being offered in American high schools.12 The purposes of censorship may be accomplished without the removal or restriction of specific materials, but through the power to more broadly limit curricula. As O’Neil concludes: An elected school board does enjoy substantial latitude in setting the curriculum and in changing it. If a district chooses to offer only basic subjects, teachers in that district will enjoy quite limited freedom of expression. If, on the other hand, the school board decides to enrich the curriculum by offering advanced courses in drama, literature, government, and other complex and possibly controversial subjects, it must bear the consequences. Instructors hired to teach such courses properly enjoy a measure of intellectual freedom not available to their colleagues in manual training, home economics, and typing.13

In Warsaw, Indiana, in 1977, the school board conducted a curriculum review which resulted in the discontinuance of certain courses, as well as the removal of some books, the dismissal of several teachers, and the discontinuance of publication of the high school newspaper. The board’s transparent motive in canceling courses in Black Literature, Gothic Literature, Folklore and Legend, and Science Fiction was to respond to objections made by some parents and board members against allegedly salacious or otherwise “objectionable” books used in those classes. Whether or not elementary and secondary school teachers enjoy academic freedom comparable to that of college faculty, most experts believe that they, like librarians, should be left largely free to exercise professional judgment in selecting materials and determining how a course is to be taught. A report by a commission of the American Association of University Professors declared: Uncertainty as to whether any particular instructional material may be suppressed can only inhibit teachers and librarians in the exercise of their professional judgment. . . . And if teachers and librarians cannot exercise their professional judgment as to what is educationally sound, within the legitimate constraints imposed by the schools, then the way is open for outside pressure groups to determine the limits of unobjectionable discourse in the schools.14

10

Chapter 1

Students learn how to think independently from their teachers— not only through instruction but also, and perhaps more directly, through example. As the famed legal scholar and civil liberties activist Alexander Meiklejohn said, “To require our teachers to say to their pupils, ‘I want you to learn from me how to do what I am forbidden to do,’ is to make of education the most utter nonsense.”15

The Extent of the Problem How big a problem is censorship in our public schools? No one can say for certain, since there is little agreement about how to measure the phenomenon and no one has yet funded a large enough and fully scientific survey. In the 1980s and early 1990s there was, however, almost universal agreement that, to quote a 1980 report, the problem was “real, nationwide, and growing.” Since the mid-1990s, however, there is some indication that incidents of book censorship may have peaked, as the interests of would-be censors seem to have shifted, although it is also possible that the pressures exerted by would-be censors have compelled schools to self-censor by limiting purchases of potentially controversial library or classroom materials. In 1998, some 478 challenges to library materials in public libraries, schools, and school libraries were reported to the American Library Association. This marked a decrease from a high of 762 in 1995.16 In March 1986, a report to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies, prepared by the U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), reached the following conclusions:17 After a decrease between 1975 and 1979, attempts to remove, restrict, or alter public school library materials increased dramatically, reaching a peak in 1982. From 1983 to the time of the report, the numbers remained roughly constant, although at a level higher than at any time since 1975. • Challenges were reported from all regions of the country and from urban, suburban, and rural locations. Challenged publications included materials for all grade levels. • As recently as a decade before the report, almost no case law existed in the area of library censorship. By the late 1980s there had emerged a substantial and growing body of case law on •

Censorship in the Schools

11

public school library censorship attempts, reflecting a dramatic increase in litigation and, presumably, in this sort of activity. For 14 years beginning in 1982, People for the American Way, a liberal public interest group, released annual reports on the censorship of public school library and curricular materials under the title Attacks on the Freedom to Learn. These revealed a steady increase in the number of reported censorship incidents, which peaked in the 1993–94 school year, with 462 recorded censorship attempts. Over the report’s initial five years, the number of incidents recorded rose by 168 percent. Between the school years 1987–88 and 1988–89, the number of reported incidents rose again, by approximately 10 percent, and another 40 percent increase was recorded in 1989–90. In 1990–91, the report cited 229 instances of attempted censorship in 45 states, a 20 percent increase that made it “the single worst year for school censorship in the history of our research,” according to Arthur J. Kropp, the organization’s president at the time. A year later, the 1991–92 report documented 376 incidents in 44 states, a whopping increase of 64 percent in a single year. The report said there were 348 cases in which organizations or individuals tried to remove or restrict the use of literature, instructional materials, activities, or programs in classrooms and school libraries. Twenty-eight related episodes involved ideological pressure upon schools, without specific materials being targeted. According to Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 1991–92, in 144 incidents, or 41 percent of the cases, challenges to library books and curricula actually led to removal or restriction of challenged materials. Ten years earlier, only 23 percent of the reported challenges were successful. Of the 229 incidents reported in the 1990–91 report, 72 (31 percent) were to works that no child was required to read— books in libraries and on optional reading lists. In another 41 cases (18 percent) teachers suggested alternate assignments, but challengers were not satisfied.18 In its 1994–95 report, People for the American Way recorded 458 attacks against books and school programs, including 338 attempts to remove books from classrooms or libraries and another 120 cases of “broad-based challenges to public education,” including attempts to ban Halloween celebrations and curtail sex education programs thought to promote homosexuality. But a record 50 percent, or 169, of the book removal attempts succeeded in removing materials that some parents or citizen groups found offensive.

12

Chapter 1

Faced with the growing complexity of materials challenges and the organization’s increasing interest in the related but distinct issue of religious freedom in schools, People for the American Way dropped its report in 1996.19 These studies were based on publicly reported incidents, which may tend to skew the results according to how much attention the media is paying to the issue. The NCLIS report estimated that only about 15 percent of all school censorship efforts are reported in the media. However, surveys conducted by a variety of organizations tend to confirm the conclusions of media-based reports. An extensive national survey of the problem was last conducted in 1980 by the Association of American Publishers (AAP), the American Library Association (ALA), and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). Responses to a 52-item questionnaire were received from 1,891 school principals, librarians, and district superintendents from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. These were supplemented by a separate survey of and extensive interviews with state-level adoption officials in 20 of the 22 states having statewide textbook adoption procedures. The survey report concluded without qualification that “challenges to instructional and library materials in the public schools occur in all regions of the country and in all types of communities, and that such pressures are increasing.”20 The report revealed several disturbing trends: Challenges to materials by survey respondents “sought, overwhelmingly, to limit rather than expand the materials available to students” (emphasis in original). More than half of all reported challenges to instructional or library materials resulted in either their removal or some other limitation on access or use. • Library materials were reported challenged significantly more often than classroom materials, and were more frequently removed or restricted as a result. Perhaps one of the most startling findings of the survey was that librarians named school personnel as initiating more than 30 percent of the incidents reported. • Approximately half of the objections raised were to isolated passages or features of the material (explicit representation of sexual relations, “dirty words,” and the like), rather than to the ideas in or the ideological nature of the work taken as a whole. In fact, about one in three challengers readily admitted to not having examined the material in full. Nor, in most cases, had •

Censorship in the Schools

13

the school communicated reasons for using the material, suggesting that challenges were often made without consideration of the challenged work’s overall educational value. • In half of the incidents reported, the challenged material was subjected to some degree of restriction or censorship prior to formal review. The majority of challenges were dealt with informally, rather than according to established policies and through structured procedures. In nearly half the reported cases, no one was assigned to reevaluate the challenged material. Under the sponsorship of the National Council of Teachers of English, Professor Lee Burress of the University of Wisconsin surveyed several thousand high school librarians in small, mediumsized, and large schools in 1966, 1973, 1977, and 1982. He found a steady increase in the reported number of censorship incidents and in the perception of censorship pressures by school librarians. He also discovered a significant increase in the percentage of challenges made by organized community groups rather than individuals, up from just 1 percent of all challenges in 1966 to 17 percent in 1982. Professor Burress compiled a list of 836 book titles against which objections were made, including many well-known classics.21 In 1990, with support from the U.S. Department of Education and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Professor Dianne McAfee Hopkins of the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Library and Information Studies surveyed over 6,500 public secondary school libraries and media centers, of which 72 percent responded. Of this group, 1,661, more than a third, reported one or more challenges to library or media center materials between 1986 and 1989. In nearly half these incidents the challenged materials were either removed or access to them was restricted.22 These findings are consistent with the results of a small, informal survey of school districts conducted specifically for the first edition of this book by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) in June 1987. Of the 215 school districts responding, 77 (or 36 percent) reported a total of more than 200 challenges to instructional or library materials since June 1982. Among all districts responding, 10 percent described the number of challenges as greater than five years before, 8 percent as fewer than five years before, and about half said the number was about the same, with the remaining respondents uncertain. Among those reporting incidents, however, about one in four said that challenges had increased in number, while only four of these districts reported a decline in such activity.

14

Chapter 1

Of the 77 districts reporting challenges to materials, 10 reported the removal of instructional items, another 10 reported changes in classroom materials, and 20 reported the removal of books or other materials from libraries and media centers. One perception common among educators and the general public is that the problem of book censorship is confined to—or, at least, worst in—the South, especially those regions considered part of the “Bible Belt.” According to a 1985 survey of librarians in four southern states—Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Tennessee— conducted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 30.9 percent of public school libraries in those states had been targets of attempts to restrict access to or to remove materials since 1980. Of the 290 challenges to school library materials reported, the material in question was removed from the library 36.8 percent of the time.23 Survey studies of teachers in North Carolina in 1989 and Florida in 1990 revealed that more than a quarter of those responding to each survey had experienced a censorship challenge within the past few years.24 Another study of school librarians in half of Virginia’s public schools found that one in three libraries experienced censorship pressures between 1979 and 1982.25 In September 1997, the ACLU of Texas reported that more than 70 books had been removed from Texas school libraries between August 1995 and March 1997. A subsequent survey the following year, involving 917 of 1,059 school districts in the state, reported some 141 challenges resulting in at least 55 book removals during 1998.26 However, as Arthur J. Kropp of People for the American Way emphasized, “The notion that it’s a redneck, rural problem is a myth.”27 His group’s 1994–95 report documented incidents in every state but Hawaii. A high of 44 incidents were reported in California, 28 in Texas, 27 in Pennsylvania, and 23 in Oregon. Georgia, Ohio, and Washington each had 20 reported incidents. Only three states, Nebraska, New Mexico, and South Dakota, recorded just one incident and five others reported only two.28 A 1983 survey in Minnesota revealed that 90 of 244 secondary school libraries (36.8 percent) and 70 of 149 elementary school libraries (47 percent) had experienced challenges. In secondary schools, materials were removed or restricted in 36 percent of cases; in elementary schools, 33 percent. A follow-up survey completed eight years later revealed little change, with challenges reported by 39 percent of all school libraries responding.29 An Ohio survey found 21 percent of school librarians responding that they

Censorship in the Schools

15

had censorship problems, with “objectionable” materials removed in 45 percent of the cases, and restricted to closed shelves in 17 percent.30 In Oregon, the state’s Intellectual Freedom Clearinghouse has conducted annual surveys of school library censorship since the 1987–88 school year, with fluctuating results. In 1987–88, Oregon school libraries reported 7 challenges. This tripled to 21 the following year, but dropped to 9 in 1989–90. In 1990–91, the number of challenges reported was again 21, but in 1994–95 the number was 11, and in 1995–96 the number was just 2.31 In June 1989, the Missouri Coalition Against Censorship reported the results of a survey of more than 500 school districts throughout the state. More than half of the 30 percent of the districts responding reported censorship attempts during the previous two years, of which 53 percent succeeded. Put more bluntly, more than one of every four districts in Missouri had material removed, restricted, or otherwise made unavailable for use by students or teachers between 1987 and 1989. In another 1989 survey, 23 percent of Vermont school librarians reported censorship incidents.32 A 1994 survey of 373 Wisconsin high school librarians reported challenges to library materials at 91 schools between 1991 and 1994, of which 13 were in urban communities, 55 in rural communities, and 22 in suburbs. Although most challenged materials were retained in the library collection, some 13 percent were restricted and 16 percent were removed outright.33 Given that one in eight Americans lives in California, it is hardly surprising that the state has experienced the most incidents. In 1994–95, People for the American Way reported 44 incidents in California. But according to a 1990 survey conducted by a professor at California State University, Fullerton, under the auspices of the Educational Congress of California, the problem in the Golden State has been even worse than this figure would suggest. More than 40 percent of California’s school districts responded, of which group 35.6 percent reported a total of more than 300 challenges over a two-year period. Only about a fourth of the reported challenges were covered by local, state, or national media.34

Who Censors? Almost anything can be a target of censorship. According to one People for the American Way report, “Challenges were registered against classic works of literature, sex-education programs, a ‘nuclear peace’

16

Chapter 1

program, AIDS prevention and drug abuse prevention curricula, biology instruction, self-esteem development projects, guidance counseling programs, and a range of other materials.”35 In recent years particular fire has been directed against books about homosexuality, including the children’s books Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies, and those deemed to promote the occult, including the wildly popular Harry Potter novels by J. K. Rowling. But the list of heavily censored titles also includes old standbys like J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye and acknowledged classics like The Grapes of Wrath and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Over the past two decades, probably the most challenged author has been juvenile and young adult writer Judy Blume; young adult authors Robert Cormier and Norma Klein are also frequent targets of protest. But the list of challenged material includes many works by distinguished adult writers, such as Nobel or Pulitzer Prize winners Saul Bellow, William Golding, John Steinbeck, Alice Walker, John Updike, and Norman Mailer, as well as classic works by authors like William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, and Vladimir Nabokov. In 1987, censorship pressures in a Florida district led a school superintendent to ban 63 different titles requested by high school teachers for instructional use, including several Shakespeare plays, The Red Badge of Courage, The Great Gatsby, and works by Ernest Hemingway, Eugene O’Neill, and others.36 Who would object to such works, and what motivates them? Chapter 3 will discuss some of the major issues around which controversy has developed, and examine some typical and recent instances where objections have been raised. But here a few general observations about the impulse to censor are in order. The word “censor” often evokes the mental picture of an irrational, belligerent individual. In most instances, however, it is a sincerely concerned parent or citizen interested in the future of education who complains about curricular or library materials. Complainants may not have a broad knowledge of literature or of the principles of intellectual freedom, but their motives in questioning the use of educational materials are seldom unusual. Complainants may honestly believe that certain materials will corrupt children and adolescents, offend the sensitive or unwary reader, or undermine basic values and beliefs. Over the past two decades a number of national, regional, and local political or religious organizations have emerged that advocate the removal or restriction of library and classroom materials, usually as part of a broader program of educational reform. Some-

Censorship in the Schools

17

times members of these organizations have sought and won election to school and library boards. Whether such groups initiate censorship pressures or enter controversies already in progress, their presence often exacerbates tensions. The involvement of more organized and sometimes highly sophisticated political or religious groups— be they of a conservative Christian, minority rights, or other orientation—in real or potential censorship conflicts certainly creates additional problems for besieged educators. Educators need to recall, however, that these groups act within their rights when they seek to participate in school government and in the debate over educational policy. It is not the role of this book to condemn or to praise any specific educational program, or any organization or tendency, but to mobilize opposition to the imposition of censorship by anyone, including those who have organized to express sincerely held political or religious views. Although an attempt to stereotype the censor would be unfair, one generalization can be made: Regardless of specific motives, would-be censors share one belief; that they can recognize “evil” and that other people should be protected from it. Censors do not necessarily think their own morals need protection, but they do feel compelled to save their fellows, especially minors. Professor John Wakefield of the University of North Alabama served on his state’s textbook committee with an individual who, with the help of supporters, systematically sought the disapproval of teaching materials that violated his personal morality and religious faith. Wakefield’s assessment of this individual also describes many other would-be censors: His flaw in thinking came from his apparent inability to entertain intellectual perspectives other than his own. At one crucial juncture . . . I asked him if it were not important to suspend judgment long enough to understand the position of another, and I was surprised by his resounding “No.” He especially claimed that some prejudice always exists since suspension of judgment is theoretically impossible. He had a closed mind on some issues, and he was not interested in entertaining an intellectual view of what he considered to be exclusively moral matters.37

Motives for Censorship Motivations for censorship may be grouped into four general categories.38 These are by no means exclusive. Indeed, they often merge— both in outward appearance and in the censor’s mind. Underlying

18

Chapter 1

each is often a profound fear and distrust of pluralism, and an unexpressed (even unrecognized) desire to homogenize society to make others more like the censor (or, more accurately, like the censor’s self-image). Family values. A would-be censor may feel threatened by changes in accepted and traditional ways of life. Changes in attitudes toward the family and related customs are naturally reflected in library and classroom materials. Explicitly sexual works in particular are often viewed as obvious causes of repeated deviation from older norms. Some censors want to protect children from exposure to works dealing frankly with sexual topics and themes because these are perceived as a challenge to their values. • Political views. Changes in political life can be equally threatening. The censor may view a work that is thought to advocate radical change as subversive or “un-American.” If such works also contain less than polite language, it will not be difficult for the censor to mount an attack on the grounds of obscenity in addition to—and sometimes in order to disguise—objections on forthrightly political grounds. • Religion. A potential censor may view explicitly sexual works and politically or socially unorthodox ideas as attacks on religious faith. Materials deemed damaging to religious beliefs cause concern about a society many see as growing increasingly hostile to religious training and buttress fears about that society’s steady disintegration. • Minority rights. Not all would-be censors seek to preserve traditional values. The conservative censor has been joined by groups that want their own special group values recognized. For example, ethnic minorities and women struggling against longestablished stereotypes may want to reject materials that challenge their cause. And these groups, too, may use the devices of censorship. Well-meaning efforts to impose on educational materials new orthodoxies of what some have termed “political correctness” verge on censorship when they, too, seek to limit rather than expand the educational horizon. •

Whatever the censor’s motives, attempts to suppress certain educational materials may also stem from a confused understanding of the purposes of schooling. The censor recognizes the central importance of education in our society. But the censor may fail to

Censorship in the Schools

19

see that schools fulfill their obligations to a diverse community by teaching students to tolerate, understand, and appreciate diversity. Would-be censors may think that it is the purpose of the schools to support certain values or causes, which are, of course, their values and their causes. Moreover, they tend to believe that those values and causes are best promoted by denying a forum to competing values and causes. Christopher Collier, who along with his brother James Lincoln Collier, has written numerous historical novels for young readers and whose books have frequently been targeted by censors, identifies six lessons he has learned about censors:39 Lesson One: The censors have not read the book. Collier reports that in one challenge to his Jump Ship to Freedom it was argued “that the book was dangerous because some students will only flip through the beginning of the book and not read it all.” This prompted Collier to ask: “Must all books for school use be written so that no single page if read alone [can] offend anyone?” • Lesson Two: Censors are mindless. Collier reported the suggestion of one censor, the editor of an anthology for classroom use, who wanted “to substitute restaurant for the customary 18thcentury tavern in a story about the American Revolution. Restaurant is a French word not used in America for two generations after the Revolution. The same censor was told, apparently, to remove all the gods, damns, goddamns, etc. The same mindless censor also accepted our substitution of hard cider for wine, apparently wholly unaware that they both have the same alcoholic content.” • Lesson Three: Censors don’t understand the context of the situation. “A common basis for censorship,” Collier notes, “is to strike episodes that appear racist or sexist. Often these episodes are included [in literary works] in order to attack the attitudes they display.” • Lesson Four: Censors lack historical perspective—even of their own times. Collier, a history professor at the University of Connecticut, notes the absurdity of substituting “Native American” for “Indian” in novels set in the 19th-century West, or of having, say, Confederate troops use the term “Negro” or even “African-American” in a story of the Civil War. Yet, he notes, “lack of historical perspective goes way beyond the use of historically acceptable terms.” •

20

Chapter 1

Lesson Five: The concerns of censors change over time. “Sometimes,” Collier concludes, “if you just wait long enough, the censors will lose interest—though you can be sure that new ones, or the same old ones—will reappear with new concerns.” • Lesson Six: I have met the enemy and I am them. Advises Collier: “Make sure your books are grade-level appropriate. Consider carefully whether you should read them to students, have students read out loud in class, silently in class, or at home. Communities differ radically in their tolerance for obscenity, profanity, and racial and gender slurs. Be sensitive to those levels of tolerance. But in the end, the choice of classroom materials belongs to the professional, not the parents. Parents may know what is best for their own children, but teachers are better judges of what’s best for the whole class.” •

Self-Censorship The adoption of sound selection policies and procedures and of a fair procedure for the reconsideration of instructional and library materials are commonly viewed as the best defenses schools have against censorship. This is true, as long as it is understood that adoption of such policies and procedures by no means guarantees that challenges will not occur. Indeed, quite the opposite may be true. The AASA survey revealed that among districts reporting challenges, 72 percent had a formal written policy and set of procedures for the selection of library materials. Among those that did not report challenges, however, only 41 percent had such a policy and set of procedures. In the 1980 survey conducted by the AAP, ALA, and ASCD, those without established policies and procedures also reported fewer challenges than those with policies and procedures. One way to explain the difference is by noting that districts that have been targets of censorship efforts tend to learn from experience, and to adopt, revise, or update appropriate measures. But it should also be recognized that informal challenges resolved in ad hoc ways often go unreported. Where sound formal policies and procedures are lacking—or are not observed—censorship efforts may quietly succeed. In these types of situations, teachers, librarians, or administrators may accede to pressure without any “incident” being registered. Perhaps more ominously, school personnel may initiate removals on their own, either to deter perceived threats or to impose their own values and orthodoxies on the educational pro-

Censorship in the Schools

21

cess. In some cases, potentially controversial materials simply are not acquired in the first place. In Florida, for instance, a 1990 survey found that 28 percent of teachers reported that they had “refrained from teaching a controversial topic or book in the classroom for fear of complaints or retribution.” In 1986, when a textbook containing two classics— Lysistrata, by Aristophanes, and Chaucer’s The Miller’s Tale—was removed from classrooms in Columbia County, school officials in nearby Putnam County also dropped the book and ordered a new text, although they had not received any complaints about the old one.40 The 1980 AAP-ALA-ASCD survey found that, in nearly 85 percent of the reported challenges, there was no media coverage; and in only a fourth of the incidents did school or community groups become involved—either in support or in opposition. This lack of broad community involvement may well deprive schools of a potential safeguard against censorship from within by administrators or staff members who may not necessarily reflect the views of the entire community. Indeed, one school superintendent revealed that a censorial mentality underpinned his district’s selection procedures: “With all the good literature available, it would be my hope we could accentuate the best and leave a lot of the questionable stuff off the shelves and the reading lists,” this administrator wrote. “Wish the publishers could do a better job of sorting originally.” Still other comments suggested that some censorship results from the “chilling effect” of previous controversy and the desire to avoid conflict. One principal reported, “Parental badgering has caused rifts between teachers and administrators. Extreme care is taken in selecting any material.” Another superintendent wrote simply, “We really try not to select controversial materials going in.”41 In the Denver area, where challenges to instructional and library materials were frequent in the mid-1980s, teachers openly acknowledged that the pressures had a chilling effect, even though not a single challenge was successful. “I’ve consciously made the decision, ‘No, this is risky,’ and I don’t use the material I think will produce phone calls,” explained one English teacher. “If I were challenged, I think I’d win, but I can’t waste my resources. Meeting after meeting and ugly phone calls and threatening rumors really are draining and take away from what I’m supposed to be accomplishing.” “Though you may say one thing in public, it’s easy to make those subtle changes that do impoverish what you’re teaching without ever owning up to it,” a social studies teacher said. “The most

22

Chapter 1

powerful and important changes will happen inside the classrooms without teachers saying anything about it.”42 If they are to work, policies and procedures must be followed. In preparing its 1990–91 report Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, People for the American Way determined that in incidents where review processes were in place and followed, 74 percent resulted in retention of the challenged materials. Where policies were not followed, or where there was no policy, only 46 percent resulted in retention.43 In her extensive survey study, Professor Hopkins found that although most respondents had a board-approved materials selection policy, use of the policy during the challenge process varied considerably, with 37 percent of responses indicating that the policy was not used at all, and only a fourth confirming that its provisions were fully followed.44 According to the ACLU survey of four southern states, school librarians in Alabama, Louisiana, and Tennessee reported that policy was completely followed in less than a third of the challenges filed. Only in Georgia was policy followed more often than not— and then just barely, at a reported level of 50.5 percent. One Georgia librarian reported that “the policy is rarely followed. Usually if there is a challenge, the book is removed from the shelf by the school principal.” From Tennessee, a respondent wrote: “Books questioned are immediately removed from circulation. . . . Anything found with four-letter words is usually questioned. Principal demands removal from shelf. Librarian is given no voice in the matter.” An Alabama librarian reported that the “people ‘in charge’ are censors themselves.” It should be stressed that school administrators who ignore established policies and procedures in removing a book—or districts that have no policy and therefore can be said to have acted arbitrarily—probably place themselves in legal jeopardy. But, even more important, responses such as these point to the existence of widespread self-censorship, which may amount to as great a danger to education as any external censorship pressures. A Louisiana librarian wrote, “My main observation is that teachers, librarians, media personnel, and supervisors practice selfcensorship—‘Let’s do it for them before they do it to us,’ seems to be the prevailing attitude. Most of the time, the people doing the censoring do it out of fear [and] misinformation and they usually are very professional otherwise.” Volunteered a Tennessee librarian: “I have concluded that most censorship occurs by the librari-

Censorship in the Schools

23

ans themselves. They avoid buying materials that may be deemed questionable.”45 One important purpose of this book is to make available to school administrators, teachers, and librarians knowledge and skills essential for dealing with censorship pressures and for planning the selection of instructional and library materials. Central to these tasks is the formulation of policies and procedures that defend intellectual freedom, while simultaneously guaranteeing the individual complainant’s right to be heard. But the most eloquent statements in support of academic freedom, the most carefully crafted policies, and the fairest procedures will be useless if these are not founded upon a more fundamental commitment to diversity and free expression. Misguided censorship efforts aimed at instructional and school library materials can be readily defeated. Would-be censors are often very effective at making a great deal of noise. More often than not, however, all the sound and fury truly signify nothing. Censors need education; they need to be educated in the ways of democracy. But educators, too, need educating. Without a full understanding of the problem and of how to deal with it they may fight the wrong battle or sink into the mire of self-censorship.

CHAPTER

2

Arenas of Conflict Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. American Library Association, Library Bill of Rights1

Some people think that if we study something in a book, that condones it. There is no reason to think because something is portrayed in a book that the school is sanctioning that attitude. June Berkley, Department of English, Ohio University2

I’m not even sure any more where children’s rights begin and parental rights leave off. I’m not sure that children don’t have the right to read what they want to read even if their parents object to it. author Judy Blume3

chool censorship controversies may differ according to what kind of material is challenged and how that material is used in the school. School libraries have been the principal targets of efforts to remove or restrict materials, even though, in general, students are not compelled to make use of library resources. Although school libraries differ from public libraries in their mission and in the community they serve, as libraries they remain repositories of information, opinion, and representations, where all sides of every issue should be available.

S

24

Arenas of Conflict

25

Materials used in the classroom, including textbooks, supplementary readings, and audiovisual aids, differ from library materials insofar as students are generally required to use them. The library’s role is to allow the student to explore vast realms of knowledge and ideas, while classroom instruction strives principally to develop specified skills and to convey essential information. Although would-be censors frequently fail to distinguish between the school library and the classroom, these are two very different arenas of conflict. Principles of intellectual and academic freedom apply to both, but in somewhat different ways. As already noted, academic freedom includes the right of students to question, to learn, and to express themselves. The student’s right to learn has increasingly been understood to embrace a right to express controversial ideas, in written assignments, informally in class discussion and, in many schools, in publications and performances of their own. Hence, the student press, the student theater, and other media of student expression have emerged as additional arenas where censorship conflict may occur.

The School Library and the Library Bill of Rights Librarians have long been in the forefront of opposition to censorship. This should not be surprising, since libraries—as repositories of information, images, and ideas—must be free to acquire and provide materials without prejudice or restriction. It is in the library that students are free to learn to the limits of their abilities and to the limits of what is known. Courts have acknowledged the central importance of libraries in a system that cherishes freedom of expression. The American Library Association (ALA) and the library profession have developed principles, institutions, and programs that promote intellectual freedom and oppose censorship. The Library Bill of Rights, which derives from a statement originally developed by the Des Moines Public Library nearly 50 years ago, is the ALA’s basic policy on intellectual freedom and librarianship. Along with its several “interpretations,” this document provides an unambiguous statement in support of the library’s role as a guardian of diverse opinion and a resource for all. It is intended to apply to school libraries as well as public and research libraries, and should be directly incorporated in every school library selection policy. (The complete text of the Library Bill of Rights appears on the next page. Three of its interpretations are included in the appendix.)

26

Chapter 2

Library Bill of Rights Adopted June 18, 1948. Amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 23, 1996, by the ALA Council. The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

According to the ALA document “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program,” first adopted in 1986 and amended in 1990 and 2000 (see appendix A): The school library media program plays a unique role in promoting intellectual freedom. It serves as a point of voluntary access to information and ideas and as a learning laboratory for students as they acquire critical thinking and problem solving skills needed in a pluralistic society. Although the educational level and program of the school necessarily shapes the resources and services of a school library media program, the principles of the Library Bill of Rights apply equally to all libraries, including school library media programs.4

The Library Bill of Rights commits each and every library to providing information and enlightenment to all people in the com-

Arenas of Conflict

27

munity served by the library, regardless of origin, background, views, or age. “Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights” (see appendix B) notes further: “Librarians have a professional commitment to ensure that all members of the community they serve have free and equal access to the entire range of library resources regardless of content, approach, format, or amount of detail. This principle of library service applies equally to all users, minors as well as adults.” This document also emphasizes “that parents—and only parents—have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children—and only their children—to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials or facilities, should so advise their children.”5 Of course, the school library serves a community composed entirely (or nearly entirely) of minors, and this necessarily influences selection policies. Nevertheless, the American Library Association holds that building library collections to fit the needs of school library users need not limit young readers’ access to controversial materials. The appropriateness of a book for a school library should be determined principally on the basis of its relevance to the overall school curriculum and by the reading level to which it is directed, and not according to potential controversy surrounding its content. To take an admittedly extreme example: An elementary school library will avoid purchasing works of advanced political and social theory or adult literature—not because these should be denied to some precocious pupil willing to give them a try, but only because such precocity is quite rare, and purchase of such materials would be an obvious waste of limited resources. The relatively narrow age spectrum of the school library’s clientele can become an excuse for censorship. Materials might be removed from elementary or junior high school libraries and reshelved at a higher level because they are allegedly inappropriate for the younger grades. In fact, they simply may not meet some censor’s standard. In Peoria, Illinois, in 1984, three books by Judy Blume, Then Again, Maybe I Won’t, Deenie, and Blubber, were restricted to older students. The action amounted to a kind of censorship, since the lead character in Deenie is a seventh grader and Blubber was written for fifth-grade readers. By placing these books in a high school library, school officials guaranteed they would not be read.6 Other means of imposing effective censorship on school library patrons include requiring permissions from parents or teachers;

28

Chapter 2

establishing restricted shelves or closed collections; and labeling or expurgating works. These activities violate the Library Bill of Rights.

The School Library: Selection Policies Selection policies need to accommodate quite varied levels of intellectual development among students, as well as diverse family backgrounds and child-rearing philosophies of parents. As “Free Access to Libraries for Minors” notes: “Librarians cannot predict what resources will best fulfill the needs and interests of any individual user based on a single criterion such as chronological age, level of education, or legal emancipation.”7 The period of time during which children are interested in reading materials specifically designed for them grows steadily shorter, and librarians must recognize and adjust to this change if they wish to serve young people effectively. The Library Bill of Rights mandates the inclusion of “materials and information presenting all points of view.” As elaborated in the ALA document “Diversity in Collection Development” (see appendix C), this means: Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive. . . . Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if offensive to the librarian or the user. . . . A balanced collection reflects a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. . . . Collection development and the selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and established selection and review procedures. . . . Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues.8

Few educators and not many others would challenge the central importance of these principles for university and research libraries and for the overwhelming majority of public libraries, although public library censorship is also a significant problem. But strict application of the Library Bill of Rights to school libraries troubles many. The public library, some argue, is a community resource open to all to use as they see fit. By contrast, the school library is part of a larger educational structure whose goal is to mold young minds. The situation of the school library is also complicated because the librarian shares responsibility with the teachers, and both are

Arenas of Conflict

29

responsible to higher authorities—the school principal, district administrators, and, ultimately, the board of education. As one federal judge put it in a discussion of the censorship issue: Suppose they went out and bought a book teaching genocide. Suppose—I mean, just this principle that every idea is fine and can be in a library. Suppose they glorified Hitler or preached mass murder of Jews. Or take an example in a high school, suppose they had in a library a book which white children were taking out that was preaching inherent inferiority of blacks and it was disrupting things in the school. You have to have some limit on what you want kids to read. Don’t you really? I mean, do you really want them to read a book preaching genocide?9

Let us look for a moment at one book that does, in essence, preach genocide—Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Few, if any, educators would recommend this book to a student seeking to formulate an individual political perspective. But can a high school library adequately fulfill its mission in a school where a history course covering the Nazi experience is taught, if the fundamental document of the Nazi movement cannot be found for student reference? In such a situation, Mein Kampf—along with other more objective treatments of Hitler’s thought—should probably be in the high school library, funding and space permitting. But, it may be objected, a book that is purchased and shelved for reference purposes, to help students write term papers and learn to analyze controversial materials, will not necessarily be used solely in this manner. What if a little “Hitler cult” emerges in the school and students begin to read Mein Kampf—or some more contemporary racist work—not as an historical or political document, but as a meaningful tract for our times? The situation is troubling, but censorship offers no solution. If there is a problem with racism in a school, removing racist materials from the library will not solve it. Indeed, like other efforts to drive the problem underground, such removals may only exacerbate matters. A good school librarian will work with teachers and school officials continually to take the pulse of student interests. If a segment of the student body seems inordinately attracted to materials that run counter to the purposes of democratic education, then the faculty and staff must work to expose the weaknesses of these materials by discussing them with the students—in class if need be—and by directing students to positive alternatives. One special role played by the school library is to educate students about what libraries are. Students should be taught at an early age that the presence of a book in a library, including in the

30

Chapter 2

school library, does not mean that the book is somehow “endorsed” by the librarian or the school. The library is a resource that caters to varied interests; it is a place to go to find out for oneself. This lesson cannot be taught, however, if the school library is not such a place, if the student is in effect told: Come here to find out the things you want to know, but only if established authorities approve them in advance. The school library has an important role to play in educating young people to respect diversity by itself illustrating the breadth of diverse opinion and taste.

The Classroom Although school libraries seem most vulnerable to censorship pressures, challenges are perhaps more often focused on classroom instructional materials, chiefly textbooks, but also videos. Instructional materials used in class differ from library materials insofar as students are generally compelled to use specified works in class, whereas in the library they are given a choice. In theory, a library can be expanded to include all approaches to a given subject area, to accommodate almost every taste. But in a course of study a single textbook is often used, sometimes along with a limited number of supplementary materials. Certainly, charges that efforts to remove instructional materials amount to unwarranted censorship are more difficult to sustain than in the corresponding case of the library since, in the classroom, the key element of choice, if not entirely lacking, is surely restricted. Textbooks must be selected carefully both for accuracy and for sensitivity to community and minority feelings. This is one reason why, in many states, textbooks may be selected only from a list approved by state education authorities. In California in the early 1990s, a series of social studies texts published by Houghton Mifflin came under fire in a series of heated meetings before the state Board of Education where many different religious, ethnic, and racial groups unsuccessfully criticized the books for a lack of cultural diversity and alleged Eurocentrism. The books were commissioned by state education officials as part of a new multicultural curriculum and supporters contend the books, while flawed, are a vast improvement over previous social studies materials. Although school districts were not compelled to purchase the texts, without a special waiver the state would not approve the full cost of alternate materials. Nevertheless, the financially strapped Oakland

Arenas of Conflict

31

Board of Education voted against the books, compelling teachers to rely on xeroxed materials and other makeshift teaching aids.10 In the late 1980s and early 1990s, dozens of school districts in all parts of the country encountered controversy over a series of elementary school reading texts published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich under the overall title Impressions. Although sometimes used as required textbooks, the readers were frequently challenged even when districts used them only on a supplementary basis. Initially, those who objected to the books charged that they were too morbid and displayed disrespect for parents and authority in general. As the controversy entered the legal arena, however, opponents of Impressions began to assert that use of the books was unconstitutional, since they violate the separation of church and state by promoting “the religions of witchcraft and neo-paganism,” to use the language of one lawsuit. On April 2, 1992, however, the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, California, ruled that “there is no constitutional basis for the court to order that the activities in question be excluded from the classroom simply because isolated instances of those activities may happen to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of two relatively obscure religions.”11 Two similar decisions were handed down by courts in Illinois. Increasingly controversy at the local level also has arisen around supplementary classroom materials. Novels and plays read for discussion in English class or chosen by an individual student from a “recommended” list for a book report have become targets of criticism despite the fact that in most instances students were offered several alternatives. In countless such incidents, irate parents or others have sought the removal of such books from all classroom activities, required or optional. While many would-be censors do not care to draw very fine distinctions, others have been careful to note that, while they would not mind the presence of a given book in the school library, they do object to its assignment in class or to its presence on a recommended reading list which would seem to imply school endorsement of its content. In Virginia, a parent who challenged John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men stressed “that a book like this should not be required reading. If they want to have it in the library that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be required.” In that case, the school declined to remove the book from the curriculum, but agreed to provide substitute assignments for any offended families.12 In a Florida case that wound up in court, however, a school board ordered the removal to locked storage of a literature text-

32

Chapter 2

book containing excerpts from the classic Greek comedy Lysistrata, by Aristophanes, and The Miller’s Tale, by the medieval English poet Geoffrey Chaucer, because of parental complaints of “explicit sexuality and excessively vulgar language.” Although a federal appeals court felt compelled to “seriously question how young persons just below the age of majority can be harmed by these masterpieces of Western literature,” the board’s action was upheld. The court focused on the fact that these were materials used within the curriculum and thus could be understood to bear the imprimatur of school approval. It then found that the reason for the removal—sexuality and vulgar language—was a legitimate pedagogical concern. The court also found the board action reasonable because the textbook, as well as other versions of the disputed selections, remained available in the school library.13 Also targeted have been movies, videotapes, and filmstrips; guest speakers; newspaper and magazine articles; and various classroom exercises suggested in teacher manuals or other sources. In recent years, the convenience of movies on videocassettes has greatly increased their use in classroom instruction. One result has been a rise in protest against the showing of controversial or simply “R-rated” films, resulting in several instances in court decisions. In Jefferson County, Colorado, a teacher who showed his class of high school seniors a video of the Bernardo Bertolucci R-rated film 1900, which depicts the rise of fascism in Italy, was terminated after a parent’s complaint for not conforming to the district’s policy on controversial materials. The teacher sued, but the court upheld the district, rejecting the teacher’s First Amendment argument and concluding that the district’s policy reasonably addressed “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” That the students in question were all 17 or older was not important to the class context.14 Some districts have adopted blanket policies forbidding the showing of R-rated films in class. This is legally questionable, since the G, PG, PG-13, R, and NC-17 ratings are devised and administered by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a private organization, and carry no legal standing. A school district cannot effectively transfer authority over a section of the curriculum to a private agency. While school systems are well advised to adopt selection policies that regulate the selection of videos for classroom viewing, no simple blanket policy based on a single criterion, including the film’s MPAA rating, will be workable. As one appellate court stated, “Policies . . . cannot be all-encompassing, or else the manual for

Arenas of Conflict

33

teaching at a certain school would fill the school library. No, school administrators and parents rely on teachers possessing . . . common sense.”15 Sometimes whole curriculum modules have proved controversial. Not surprisingly, these often involve sex education, like the Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education. But counseling and “self-esteem” units like the “DUSO,” “Pumsy,” and Quest programs also have been targeted for removal from schools because, it is alleged, they undercut “family values” or parental authority. In several South Carolina counties the “Pumsy in Pursuit of Excellence” program, in which a dragon puppet is used to encourage self-esteem and critical thinking skills among elementary school pupils, was challenged as an unwarranted religious intrusion in public education. Opponents of the program charged that it incorporates Eastern mysticism and “New Age” philosophy.16 Again, what must be stressed is that simply reading and studying a book or other work of expression does not necessarily imply full endorsement of its contents—especially with respect to literature, but also with reference to political and some scientific works. Teachers must be free to present students with alternatives and choices if students are to be trained to make intelligent and informed decisions on their own. This is a fundamental principle of education. Unfortunately, many parents and citizens do not fully comprehend this principle, and so schools must endeavor to explain it. In some instances, nonetheless, parents may still firmly believe that any exposure to certain materials will somehow prove “damaging” to their child. The Supreme Court has given some support to parents who take this position on the basis of religious convictions. In a 1972 case, Amish parents won the right to remove their children from school and instead teach them at home because of a conflict between their religious values and the lessons emphasized in the public school attended by the children. However, parental objections that are based on personal or philosophical grounds, rather than religious reasons, do not enjoy constitutional protection.17 Moreover, the courts generally have not supported efforts by objecting parents to change the curriculum or otherwise impose their beliefs on the schools. Where possible, schools should respect parental beliefs, insofar as the parents do not attempt to impose them on others. Where it is not disruptive, there is nothing wrong with assigning an alternate reading for a student whose family finds a given work offensive, especially in the case of required book reports or other “outside read-

34

Chapter 2

ing” assignments. Such a policy can only go so far, though. In the final analysis, it is the responsibility of the educator and not the parent to determine the curriculum. No public school system could survive if it were compelled to tailor whole courses of study to individual family demands. Once a textbook is selected for a course, it should be used by all. Assignment of an occasional alternate reading indicates flexibility, not the abdication of authority. In one widely publicized 1987 case, several fundamentalist families in Church Hill, Tennessee, challenged an elementary school reading program for using books and materials that they described as “anti-Christian.” The parents asked that their children be dismissed from class when the offending reading texts were used and that they be provided with alternate materials. Although initially the Hawkins County school system tried to accommodate them, officials found that this placed too much strain on the system. The parents won the initial round in their challenge, but the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed a prior court order that would have institutionalized the system of dismissing the children from reading assignments that parents found objectionable. The appellate court reasoned that the First Amendment did not require the school system to cater to the parents’ religious beliefs, and that the parents had failed to prove that the act of reading amounted to a governmental compulsion to adopt the views expressed in the required texts.18

The Student Press In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court first explicitly recognized that public school students enjoy First Amendment rights. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court issued its now-famous ruling that neither “students [n]or teachers shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”19 The Tinker case concerned the right of students to wear armbands of protest against the Vietnam War in school. But the ramifications of the high court’s decision have been widespread. Other federal and state courts have applied the principles enumerated in Tinker to diverse forms of student expression, including speech and student journalism. Considerable controversy has arisen, especially over the rights of the student press—both officially sponsored curricular and extracurricular newspapers, journals, and yearbooks; and so-called “underground” publications.

Arenas of Conflict

35

Court decisions treating the rights and responsibilities of student journalists have varied (see chapter 6). In January 1988, the Supreme Court decided its first student press case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier. In that case, a principal removed two pages of a newspaper produced by a high school journalism class containing articles on teenage pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students. The principal defended his action on the grounds that he was protecting the privacy of the pregnant students described, protecting younger students from inappropriate references to sexual activity and birth control, and protecting the school from a potential libel action. The decision contrasted dramatically with previous rulings by federal and state courts across the country handed down over the previous 15 years that had given student journalists extensive First Amendment protections. Reversing an appellate court decision that had favored student journalists, the Court ruled that the First Amendment is not violated when an educator exercises “editorial control over the style and content of student speech” that is part of a “curricular” activity if that speech is inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission. “It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so ‘directly and sharply implicate[d],’ as to require judicial intervention to protect students’ constitutional rights,” the Court declared.20 The Hazelwood decision lent support to the concern of some school administrators that the unfettering of inexperienced and immature student journalists can affect the climate of a school and pose virtually insoluble disciplinary problems. But if the decision granted school administrators greater censorship muscle, like all court decisions upholding government authority to restrict expression, it by no means mandated or even recommended greater exercise of that authority. Whatever restrictions may now legally be placed on some school journalists, the question of student press regulation remains inextricably entwined with broader issues of censorship and academic freedom. Efforts by teachers and school officials to censor the content of student publications may open another door to censorship of educational materials more generally. Pressures exerted on student journalists, if successful, may encourage additional pressures on teachers and librarians to remove or restrict access to instructional and library materials.

36

Chapter 2

Although administrators’ fears about discipline and disruption may not lightly be dismissed, the more central matter of concern is the role of student publications in the educational process. The student press offers one important means of keeping students informed about the world in which they live. Students who find it difficult to understand or trust adult publications may place a higher value on information conveyed in their own idiom by journalists who are their peers. Young people may be woefully uninformed about the most important issues that directly affect their lives, including such potentially controversial matters as birth control, abortion, drug abuse, and even school funding and administration. Most professional journalists and educators believe that the student press should be free to address responsibly these types of issues, regardless of pressures exerted by varied elements within the schools or the community. Perhaps even more important, like the school library, student journalism offers young people initial experience with an institution they will encounter and use for their entire lives. Their crucial initial understanding of the role and functioning of these institutions will be established in the school. Unfortunately, what is a student to believe when taught about a free press and the First Amendment in class if the free expression of the school’s own journalists is suppressed? As New York Times columnist Tom Wicker put it: “All too many of these high school editors and reporters may well conclude, from hard experience, that freedom of the press is as bad a joke as the ones school boards would like for them to print in place of news and opinion; and holding that cynical view they are far more likely to become doctors, engineers, or politicians than reporters. If they do become reporters, having felt the knife so early, they are not likely to stick their necks out in the name of the First Amendment.”21 “The suppression of student free press rights should be an anomaly, but it is not,” Paul McMasters of the Freedom Forum wrote recently. “In fact, it is all too common.” Indeed, calls to the Student Press Law Center, a student press advocacy group, from student journalists and their advisers in all 50 states numbered 1,558 in 1997, up 10 percent from the previous year. For the first time, the center received more inquiries from public high school students than any other group.22 Certainly, the student press plays a role in the closed society of a school not unlike the role its commercial counterpart plays in society at large. Its mission should be to provide a forum for mem-

Arenas of Conflict

37

bers of the school community to voice opinions about issues of concern, and to do so free of outside censorship.

Extracurricular Activities Although the decision in Hazelwood concerned a student newspaper that was produced as part of the curriculum in a journalism class, its arguments have been used to limit student expression in a broad range of extracurricular activities. Perhaps most notable has been the censorship of student theatrical productions. In some cases these performances are produced by students in formal drama and theater classes, and are thus arguably subject to the restrictions on “school-sponsored” activities imposed by Hazelwood. In many other cases, however, students who voluntarily participate in school productions outside of class have found administrators censoring their work. In a widely publicized 1999 incident, Amherst Regional High School in Amherst, Massachusetts, canceled a production of the musical West Side Story after some students charged that its portrayal of Puerto Ricans was unflattering. “This isn’t about censorship,” the principal insisted, “it’s about sensitivity.” But censorship it surely was, since school administrators canceled the production for no other reason than to suppress the viewpoint—or more accurately the perceived viewpoint—of the drama.23 More frequently, student performances are canceled because the performance is deemed too “mature,” owing to sexual themes or profane language. In addition, student actors find themselves under pressure to delete or alter lines or whole scenes from productions that some find offensive or controversial, most often because of sexual references. In the West Side Story incident the pressure to censor came from students, but usually school principals, teachers, and administrators are the problem. Whether themselves offended or not, they often believe they must take action to protect audiences for the school production. Educators tread on thin ice in doing this, however, since copyright law generally forbids those who purchase the rights to a play from altering its script without permission of the copyright holder. This is not a problem, however, when the scripts to be censored are written by the students themselves, which is frequently the case. Individual student creativity may also be subject to censorship. The past decade has seen considerable controversy throughout

38

Chapter 2

society about the appropriateness of artistic works displayed in both museums and public places, including celebrated controversies over the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe and the dungsplattered Madonna displayed in New York’s Brooklyn Museum, to which Mayor Rudolph Giuliani vigorously objected. These controversies have spread to the schools, where student artists sometimes find their work removed from public display owing to nudity or other “objectionable” content. To take just one example, a Pennsylvania high school student received an A+ for a sculpture of a nude female torso, but the principal ruled that the piece could be “displayed” with other student works only if draped under a cloth. The student collected more than 350 signatures on a petition of protest, but to no avail.24 In the wake of several widely publicized school shootings, some schools moved to censor literary creations that they found potentially threatening, whether these were produced in or out of class. In one widely publicized case, nine students at Miami’s Killian High School—all members of the school’s art club—were arrested, jailed, and charged with hate crimes in January 1998 for their part in producing an obscenity-laced pamphlet that pondered the possibility of shooting the school’s principal. In Blaine, Washington, a U.S. District Court found that a student’s First Amendment rights were violated when he was expelled for writing a poem about school violence. In another incident a boy’s effort at horror fiction written for a personal journal resulted in his serving three days in jail after he brought the story to school.25 The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution links freedom of expression with freedom of assembly. Student expression is often linked with students’ ability to organize in clubs and social groups expressive of minority views. In recent years gay and lesbian student organizations have emerged to meet the needs of students whose sexual orientation differs from that of the majority. In some cases these groups have come under attack by school administrators and others. In an especially celebrated case, the Salt Lake City school board agreed to abolish all student organizations rather than recognize a gay and lesbian student group.

The Internet The recent explosive growth of online communication has had a dramatic impact on education. In schools across the country, stu-

Arenas of Conflict

39

dent access to the Internet through school libraries and media centers and in classrooms from kindergarten through high school has raised a host of new censorship controversies. These controversies are only now developing in communities across the United States and in the legal system as part of a broader debate about access to pornography, hate speech, and other controversial subjects to which the Internet has added a new dimension. It is therefore not yet clear how schools and school libraries ultimately will be affected. On June 26, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to send or display indecent material online in a way available to minors. The decision in ACLU v. Reno overturned the Communications Decency Act and established the legal principle that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection given to books and newspapers. Although Congress has since made new attempts to get around its strictures, this decision made it unlikely that any government-imposed restriction on Internet content would be upheld as long as the material has some constitutional value.26 In another landmark decision, on November 23, 1998, U.S. District Court Judge Leonie M. Brinkema struck down the Loudoun County, Virginia, public library’s policy of using filtering software on all its computer terminals. Filtering software limits user access to a predetermined list of sites, usually through a system of keywords. “Such a policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional,” wrote Judge Brinkema in Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library.27 These two court decisions provide the important legal context for any discussion of Internet censorship in schools. Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court has decreed that agencies of government must meet strict standards if they are to limit online expression. Judge Brinkema (and other courts) applied this standard to public libraries, determining that efforts to mandate limitations on patron access to the Internet via the use of filtering software do not pass constitutional muster. But what of school libraries and classrooms? Do the same principles apply? The answer, it must be acknowledged, is unclear, at least legally. Judge Brinkema’s decision on filtering software is not applicable nationwide, and many public libraries across the country continue to be plagued by controversy over the issue, although there are signs that public opinion is not as hostile to free access as some have thought.

40

Chapter 2

On February 23, 2000, voters in Holland, Michigan, soundly defeated a ballot measure that would have required the public library to install Internet filters to keep minors from looking at pornography.28 Still, school libraries and classrooms are not the same as public libraries, and it is not yet clear whether either the public or the courts will be as suspicious of the application of filtering software in the school context. Indeed, one Pennsylvania school district in 1998 adopted a strict filtering policy designed to “filter out the material we consider to be of an undesirable nature,” according to District Superintendent Dave Petrosky. One board member supported the policy by declaring the Internet to be “the worst thing that ever happened to America.”29 In January 1996, the American Library Association adopted an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights entitled “Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” which declares: “In making decisions about how to offer access to electronic information, each library should consider its mission, goals, objectives, cooperative agreements, and the needs of the entire community it serves.” The policy further postulates: “Libraries, acting within their mission and objectives, must support access to information on all subjects that serve the needs or interests of each user, regardless of the user’s age or the content of the material.”30 A second interpretation, “Questions and Answers: Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” adopted in June 1997, sought to clarify the implications and applications of the earlier document. With respect to filters it states: “The use of filters implies a promise to protect the user from objectionable material. This task is impossible given current technology and the inability to define absolutely the information to be blocked. The filters available would place the library in a position of restricting access to information. The library’s role is to provide access to information from which individuals choose the material for themselves.”31 Although neither of these documents directly addresses the application of these principles to the school library or classroom, the American Library Association assumes that school libraries are, indeed, libraries and hence subject to the same basic principles as all libraries. To date there has been relatively little public controversy and debate over the application of filtering software or other censorship schemes in school libraries. Whether this is because students in school libraries use the Internet under closer supervision by teachers or librarians than do patrons in public libraries, or because the

Arenas of Conflict

41

introduction of filtering software in schools has met with less criticism than in public libraries is difficult to say. Nevertheless, insofar as schools offer students access to the Internet they should do so in a manner that does not fetter their ability to seek out all information, ideas, and images appropriate to the school’s educational mission. The evidence indicates that filtering software makes this task more rather than less difficult. One study of school Internet use in Utah, where the Utah Education Network (UEN) provides Internet access for essentially all Utah public schools and many public libraries, suggests that filters create as many problems as they solve. When the UEN began providing Internet access to Utah schools, the original plan was to allow each school district to create its own list of sites that they did not wish to be accessible. Instead, a software filtering product called Smartfilter was employed to censor access. The UEN kept log files of the Internet accesses made through its service, and a survey of these files by the independent organization Censorware revealed that only 0.39 percent of the sites to which access was sought were banned by the filter, about one of every 260 requests. For school days the figure was lower, about one of every 280 requests, suggesting that attempts to access “objectionable” material were fewer on school than on public library computers. Although a small proportion of access requests were denied, many of those censored were “wrongful bans,” that is, sites banned by mistaken identification. For example, a music group called “Bud Good and the Goodbuds” was banned under the “drugs” category, as was an appellate court decision and the Iowa State Division of Narcotics. A government brochure entitled “Marijuana Facts for Teens” was banned too. Also banned, believe it or not, were the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution!32 Smartfilter is also used in the Broward County, Florida, schools, where it has blocked student access to information on breast cancer and body piercing or tattooing. Under the “lifestyle” category Smartfilter also bans all sites having to do with vegetarianism. When a Palmetto High School freshman in Miami, Florida, turned to the Internet for an honors biology report on cancer and smoking, he found a report he needed was blocked by SurfWatch, the filtering system installed in July 1998 by the Miami-Dade public schools. “When I went home to see it on my own computer, I couldn’t find any reason why it would be blocked,” the student said. “There were transcripts from Congress, presentations from nonsmoking groups. It seems they should be more careful about what they block.” Surf-

42

Chapter 2

Watch also blocked student inquiries about sea sponges, teen pregnancy, the Trojan War, venereal diseases, anything to do with Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr’s impeachment report, and even a human rights web site recommended to Dade County teachers in a workshop on the Holocaust.33 One aspect of Internet use that became controversial in schools, especially after the 1999 Littleton, Colorado, school shootings, has been the establishment of students’ personal web sites. Throughout the country high school and some middle school students have created web sites with school-related themes, sometimes on school computers but more frequently in private at home. In some cases these sites satirize teachers, school administrators, and other students, sometimes crudely, and schools have reacted by attempting to discipline the students. For example, a school near Akron, Ohio, tried to expel a student for calling the school “a living hell” on his personal web site, created on a home computer. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in Kansas and western Missouri represented a student who was suspended for his web site showing his school engulfed in a mushroom cloud. In Pennsylvania, an eighth grader was suspended for creating on his home computer a 30-second cartoon of his school gym locker blowing up and a female student being shot and sending it to a friend via the Internet. School administrators have justified such actions by declaring that they were not trying to discipline students for what they do off campus, but simply for bringing threatening words into the school. “But when someone calls up a web site on school grounds, that’s not the publisher’s fault,” said an ACLU attorney. Schools may have a case if students abuse their access to school computers, for example, by downloading and publishing copyrighted material or, perhaps, pornography. Beyond that, however, school administrators cannot regulate out-of-school Internet behavior unless they can demonstrate some immediate danger to the school or its students, faculty, or staff. “The web is new territory and schools that reacted harshly to students’ sites probably acted illegally,” said Paul Houston, executive director of the American Association of School Administrators. “Schools that overrun students’ rights will end up losing those court cases.”34

CHAPTER

3

Issues in Dispute Democracy is dependent upon the right of people to study and discuss issues freely, . . . it is dependent upon the citizenry . . . which keeps well informed, searches actively for divergent points of view, evaluates courses of action in the light of available evidence and basic democratic values. . . . Such behaviors do not develop by accident; they are learned in the schools within the context of societal problems, many of which are controversial in nature. National Association of Secondary School Principals1

here are almost as many motivations to censor as there are would-be censors. A school curriculum or library that does not arouse the ire of someone in our pluralistic society is probably not fully succeeding in its educational mission. To be sure, some objections that have been lodged against educational materials are just plain silly. Others are based on a readily corrected misjudgment of the material. In one now-famous instance, for example, a challenge was filed against a library book called Making It with Mademoiselle, which turned out to be a volume of sewing patterns. In one Florida county, Snow White—the traditional Grimm Brothers telling, not the Disney version—cannot be checked out in elementary schools without parental permission because of its violence. Elsewhere in Florida, Little Red Riding Hood was pulled from schools after teachers questioned a passage in which the young girl takes wine to her grandmother.2 In the majority of cases, however, controversy emerges when a complaint is seriously and sincerely supported by a significant body of opinion in the community. Recent efforts to remove or restrict access to school library or instructional materials have been most associated with politically

T

43

44

Chapter 3

conservative or fundamentalist religious views. However, those who object to materials come from all points on the ideological spectrum. Liberal activists fighting against race and gender stereotyping have sometimes used censorious tactics they are quick to condemn in others. Many conservatives are also staunch opponents of censorship, and religious leaders frequently have proved valuable allies for besieged educators fighting censorship attempts. As a rule, the motives and concerns of complainants cannot be easily pigeonholed into neatly labeled boxes. The political and social climate varies widely from community to community and over time. What is controversial today becomes orthodoxy tomorrow, and vice versa. It is, however, still possible to identify several key issues and concerns around which recent censorship controversies have tended to cluster.

Politics It is perhaps a credit to our democracy that relatively few challenges are lodged for blatantly political reasons. Although occasionally a work is charged with promoting “Communism” or “Marxism,” or even simply the Democrats or the Republicans, more often than not the underlying concerns motivating such charges are moral. The notion that students should learn about diverse political philosophies and creeds, including those hostile to commonly accepted American principles, seems fairly well accepted. Still, complaints have been lodged by some self-described conservatives against certain history and social studies texts for an alleged bias against the free enterprise system, or even the Republican Party. In some such cases extreme charges have been made against textbooks issued by responsible, mainstream publishers and judged by teachers—liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican— to be generally accurate and moderate. In San Bernardino, California, a series of 11 educational films on ethnic issues in American history was rejected by a school board in part because the portrayal of Castro’s Cuba in one film allegedly contained “un-American propaganda,” although one board member complained more about “the use of four-letter words.”3 In Alabama, the state textbook committee rejected a text entitled Americans All, which came under political fire from both conservatives and feminists. The latter complained that the book used the word “suffragette” rather than “suffragist” to describe those who

Issues in Dispute

45

fought for women’s right to vote. Conservative critics charged the book with lavishing “praise on blacks, women, labor unions, and Democrats,” while criticizing “just about everything that Americans have accomplished.”4 Objections have also come from the other end of the political spectrum. In the 1990s there was much talk about attempts to impose a left-liberal agenda of so-called political correctness in many colleges and universities. The issue has not been raised much with reference to elementary and secondary education. In Amherst, Massachusetts, however, a group of liberal parents complained that an eighth-grade social studies text oversimplified events and presented them in a conservative light. They said The History of the American Nation was “unforgivably misleading and biased” in its presentation of minority groups, women, the Civil Rights movement, and the Vietnam War. Even the book’s title posed a problem. Said one parent: “It’s an implicit denial of the existence of other American nations, such as Canada and Mexico and the countries of Central and South America.”5 Political controversies over environmental protection have produced some censorship pressures. In Pennsylvania, one school board rejected an Environmental Science text as “extremely biased” and too “politically correct” and another turned down a gift to school libraries of two animal-rights books. In Oregon, where logging interests and environmentalists have clashed, objections were raised to a library book, Eli’s Songs, which was labeled “logger bashing” and “a political book geared to children” by petitioners in a rural school district. “We are gravely concerned regarding the ‘ecomania’ that is being pushed on our children in the classroom,” the petitioners declared. In the most publicized such incident, in 1989 a rural northern California school board defeated an attempt to remove The Lorax, by Dr. Seuss, from its second-grade core reading list because of the book’s alleged hostility to the timber industry.6 More recently, the debate over gun control has in a few instances spilled over into school censorship controversies. In one rural Illinois community, a middle school principal ordered the magazine Guns and Ammo removed from the library and rejected a teacher’s proposal to replace it with another publication geared toward teaching young people hunting safety. “I wasn’t prepared to say that these were magazines we needed to have in our school library, given today’s climate,” the principal said.7 Sometimes objections raised on moral, social, or religious grounds may be joined to or reflect prejudices shaped by political

46

Chapter 3

ideology. For instance, in one Wisconsin school district the Vietnam War film Hearts and Minds was banned by the superintendent after teachers refused to excise a brothel scene. The teachers decided that, rather than show a censored version, they wouldn’t show the film at all. Apparently, some people on both sides of the dispute found it difficult to separate the film’s alleged sexual content from its antiwar political stance. Although the order to edit the film violated district policy at the time, the school board voted to uphold the decision. Several months later the board again overruled a reconsideration committee vote to permit screenings of the film.8

“Dirty” Words A frequent objection, especially against library books, is that they use “inappropriate” language or are even “obscene” or “pornographic.” Almost half the districts reporting challenges to the 1987 American Association of School Administrators (AASA) survey conducted for the first edition of this book indicated complaints had been filed against materials with “dirty” words. In 1992, an Oregon school board limited access to a reference thesaurus because of the presence of racial epithets and slang words for sex and drugs.9 Often the issue of language is closely entwined with that of “moral values.” A work may be challenged because it does not promote, or is even hostile to, the traditional family and traditional moral principles. The evidence offered to support this charge may be limited to the presence of one or more “four-letter words.” In one Florida community the school board banned from a middle school library an oral history of the Vietnam War that contained harsh language. Commenting on Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans, compiled by Wallace Terry, the school board attorney said foul language was unnecessary. “I served in a war myself,” he said, “and I don’t feel I need to revert to that language to recall my experiences.” But others disagreed, arguing that the soldiers’ harsh language was consistent with their experiences. “You wouldn’t expect them to say ‘Gloriosky!’ ” one parent remarked. The school media specialist filed a grievance, charging that the book was removed by the principal without an opinion from the school’s Media Center Advisory Committee, as required by district policy. The school board upheld the principal, arguing that the presence of objectionable language in a book “is a matter of imminent danger to the students.” In this case the board received some questionable advice from its attorney, who said, “You cannot allow

Issues in Dispute

47

segments of society to control your library” by claiming First Amendment rights, which, he charged, are often “prostituted.” In fact, as the courts have frequently recognized, removal of materials poses a far greater threat to education than demands by those exercising First Amendment rights for the inclusion of materials. An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney correctly informed the board that a school principal, no less than other complainants, must follow the board’s review process. To avoid situations where “an individual’s values are allowed to be so dominant,” the ACLU recommended that “the principal put all complaints— no matter where they originate—through the review committee.”10 A complaint about language was more effectively handled in Stoughton, Wisconsin, where an effort to remove Harry Mazer’s novel, Snow Bound, from a middle school reading program was resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. The district’s review committee suggested that parents be notified when the book is assigned and offered an alternative assignment where appropriate. The parent had originally asked that the book be “withdrawn from all students” because of several profane oaths, two four-letter words for bodily wastes, and use of the terms “crazy bitch” and “stupid female” by a character.11

Profanity and Policy A policy of parental notification should be adopted only with great caution, however. With respect to library materials, such a policy is generally not advisable, both for reasons of principle and practicality. Assigned classroom reading is admittedly a more complex issue, because the student is not usually free to choose assignments. Still, teachers who are compelled always to inform parents about the use of language someone might find objectionable will not only be burdened with unnecessary paperwork but, more important, may tend to select assigned readings according to the standards of the most restrictive families, thus trampling on the rights of the others. In Alamo Heights, Texas, almost 200 parents petitioned the school board “to add a selection criterion that instructional resource material shall not contain vulgar or profane language.” Such a blanket rule is not recommended, however. More appropriate is the policy of the Lincoln, Nebraska, schools, which states explicitly that materials containing profanity “shall not be disqualified automatically, but shall be subjected to a test of merit and suitability.”12 It is true, of course, that “freedom of speech was not intended to guarantee schools the right to intrude on traditional family values

48

Chapter 3

without warning and regardless of the availability of non-offensive alternatives,” as one Lincoln parent protesting the use of the words “lord,” “damn,” “snotty,” and “shut up” in the Newbery Awardwinning novel Bridge to Tarabithia declared. But parents who are especially concerned about their children’s contact with this sort of language must themselves take responsibility to more carefully monitor their children’s reading. The schools cannot and should not do this for them. “Great care must be used not to abandon quality works of literature that may offend individual patrons,” the Lincoln school board concluded in the Tarabithia case. The fear that quality will suffer is not unfounded. In Kentucky, a parent labeled Nobel Prize winner William Faulkner’s As I Lay Dying “pure filth” after “browsing through” its pages and finding profanity. “I believe I have an open mind and I can accept some cussing. But not like this,” she said. The book was removed from classrooms, although it was returned a week later after embarrassing national publicity. In Maryland, another parent objected to the language in the Faulkner novel and in Henrik Ibsen’s play Ghosts. The Grapes of Wrath and Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, another Nobel Prize winner, are favored targets of censors for their use of so-called “dirty” words. In 1992, over a thousand people in Tennessee signed a petition against Of Mice and Men, protesting its “blasphemous” language. In Ohio, one parent charged that the book contains 108 profanities, 12 racial slurs, and uses God’s name in vain 45 times.13 In Mount Vernon, Washington, a parent who objected to use of “the F-word” in a novel her daughter found in her middle school library declared, “It’s hypocritical for the school to prohibit obscenity but to provide it in the school library.” A similar sentiment was voiced in Lamar, Missouri, birthplace of Harry Truman, where J. D. Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye, a favorite censor’s target, was dropped from an optional reading list after a school board member objected to its use of obscenities. “If a child talks that way during class,” he said, “they will be suspended. Why should it be okay to read and teach the same things?”14 The answer, of course, is, first of all, that students whose classroom language is inappropriate, rarely, if ever, have learned to speak this way from literature. “If you could look on the [school] bus, this would be a Little Bo Beep story,” quipped one 11-year-old in defense of The Chocolate War, by Robert Cormier, a popular novel attacked in Connecticut (and many other places) for its language.15 Contemporary students are able to distinguish between discussions about

Issues in Dispute

49

language and the indiscriminate use of certain words. They can understand that literature and life are not identical; that the representation of reality through fiction is not the same as reality itself. It must be stressed that when characters in fiction use obscenity or profanity, this does not mean the author advocates the use of such language. (See “Why ‘Dirty Words’ in Books?”) Unfortunately, this is not always clear to those who protest. In one California elementary school, the novel Anastasia Krupnik, by Lois Lowry, was simply returned by school authorities to

Why “Dirty Words” in Books? An Author Explains In a 1979 letter to a young reader, author Robin Brancato, a former high school English teacher, explained why she uses “bad language” in her popular novels for young adult readers. She wrote: I suppose I don’t like “bad language” any more than you do. The main trouble with it from my point of view is that it is boring, unimaginative, and lazy. In conversation it often fills in where original and interesting language ought to be. However, my business as a writer is not so much to pass judgment on how people speak, but to try to record their speech accurately for the sake of telling a story whose underlying values, I hope, are moral and positive. When I employ “bad language,” as you call it, and references to sex, it is not because I think these are needed to sell books or to hold the reader’s interest, but because sex and body functions and the names for them, both polite and impolite, are parts of life, and I am interested in portraying life as it really is. If I fudge on details by creating an angry football player who says, “Oh, sugar!”, who will trust me later, when I try to convey the important things that athletes think and feel? I could, of course, choose to write only about people who use good language, but that would eliminate a lot of possibilities for characters. I guess what it comes down to is that even though I, too, dislike bad language, that doesn’t keep me from liking or even loving a lot of people who use it. I want them in my books, too, even at the risk of offending a few readers. I hope that you will continue your interest in reading and language. I hope that fewer people in the future will feel the need to use lazy, unimaginative language, so that it will fade away and I won’t have to put it in my books. And I also hope that you will come to agree with me that what is more important in judging people in both real life and literature is not the purity of their language but the goodness of their spirits. Reprinted from Norma Klein. “Some Thoughts on Censorship: An Author Symposium.” Top of the News, winter 1983, p. 139.

50

Chapter 3

the library with two offensive four-letter words whited out.16 Such practices violate democratic principles and are often illegal. Textbooks are produced exclusively for classroom instruction and must be revised regularly to remain useful. A novel, poem, or play, however, is an author’s own creation, irrespective of its use in a school setting. For this reason alone, expurgation or alteration of such works—including those done under the cover of “revision”—by anyone other than the author is impermissible in principle. Where applicable, it is a violation of copyright law. Sometimes, however, before a work of fiction reaches the school it may be altered by a publisher who has reissued the work in an anthology or other educational format. The changes may “correct” or “update” colloquial language, or a text may be altered or deleted to satisfy perceived sensibilities, as has happened to Mark Twain and Shakespeare, to name but two. Often deletions or changes are not even indicated with ellipses or some other device. Such practices have come under increasing criticism. In 1985, a committee of the National Council of Teachers of English passed a resolution against all changes in texts.17 Of course, were educators to insist only on complete and uncut texts, students might be denied all exposure to certain lengthy or complicated works and, as a rule, anthologies would be excluded. Publishers will undoubtedly continue to release various editions of classic and other works of literature, and educators will choose from among these according to their specific situations and needs. Nevertheless, schools should be guided first and foremost by commitments to openness and accuracy. As the American Association of University Professors has declared: We can think of no reason that is consistent with any proper concept of education in a free society for expurgating a novel, play, or poem. Where literature is concerned, we can think of no reason why the classroom and school library should ever be other than what they seem, places where a work of fiction is as it appears to be. There is no reason why teachers and librarians should be induced to deceive their students, or why students should be misled as to the actual nature or content of what they are reading. Not only does deception have no place whatever in the school, but trimming a work of fiction to fit today’s opinions is utterly reprehensible.18

Nevertheless, language that may have been acceptable to readers when a book was written might no longer be acceptable to contemporary audiences. The most notable example, of course, is the word “nigger,” which will be discussed later in this chapter. But, as author

Issues in Dispute

51

Christopher Collier has stressed, the connotations expressed by a number of words are not the same today as they were a generation ago. “In the verbal context of the early 1970s,” says Collier, “the full and steamy wake of the free speech movement of the previous decade, it took a damn or a hell to carry any emotional weight. But the free speech waters rose to flood tide and beyond. The filth of speech on television and in films today has become so outrageous that a backlash was sure to come, and the tide ebbed with a rush. Parents are so disgusted with obscenities in the media, that they are now much more aware and concerned about their kids’ verbal encounters at school. Indeed, even some of the kids are concerned.”19

Sexuality The treatment of sexuality in our culture is a major issue that is also linked to concern with morality. Frank treatments of adolescent sexual awakening or of perceived sexual “deviancy” in literature are frequent targets of complaints. Sometimes the mere depiction of sexual behavior is thought to be synonymous with advocating that behavior. Although works of fiction assigned as classroom reading are not commonly devoted to sexual themes, many works of contemporary young adult literature found in school libraries by authors like Judy Blume, Robert Cormier, and Norma Klein treat this issue with considerable frankness. One of Judy Blume’s most controversial works is her novel Forever, which deals with a young girl’s emergence into womanhood and her difficult first explorations of the meaning of love. Certainly the book is not to every parent’s taste. Blume herself has ruefully admitted that, if published today, Forever might be labeled an adult work.20 Yet the book has been welcomed with enthusiasm by young readers, and many parents and educators applaud its sensitive and compassionate approach to complex adolescent problems. One place where Forever became a target of censorship was Wyoming. A group of more than 36 parents called the book “pornographic” and said it would encourage readers “to experiment with sexual encounters.” Forever, one father charged, “condones premarital sex in every way. The only thing it leaves out is pictures and, the way they go into some of this detail, you don’t even need pictures. If that is educational, there’s something wrong with the education system. . . . If there’s more books like that in there, I say get them out,” he threatened.

52

Chapter 3

The school district followed its reconsideration policy, however, and Forever was retained in both junior and senior high school libraries. Moreover, at a public hearing support for the Blume book was widespread. Whereas 6 people signed up to speak for its removal, 41 signed up to defend its selection. Charles Levendosky, editorial page editor of the Casper Star-Tribune, told the committee, I think the most important issue here is not the issue of the selection of Judy Blume’s book nor the views about what the book means. I think the issue here, the central issue, is whether a parent has the right to limit other children’s right to read. . . . Mr. B__ has no right to limit the reading of my children or your children. It is at this juncture that Mr. B__ becomes a censor.21

A positive and practical suggestion, which could appropriately be directed to virtually all would-be school censors, was made by a Gillette, Wyoming, librarian. She advised those protesting Forever to submit a list of books that more reflect their view of the themes of maturity and growth, send the list to the librarian, and ask that these books be considered for purchase. . . . Rather than depriving some people of materials they feel suitable for their children, a group who has different views on maturity and growth can help the library media staff to meet the criteria of providing a wide range of views on these topics for their child.22

School libraries have also come under fire for making available teen-oriented periodicals, which frequently carry articles on sexually oriented topics. In one Long Island, New York, community three of the most popular magazines for teenage girls—Seventeen, Teen, and YM—were pulled from a middle school library after complaints by a group of parents and a priest. “Based upon the age of the students in the middle school and sound pedagogical principles, it was determined by me that the materials are not age appropriate,” said the district superintendent, who overruled the recommendation of a review committee.23

Gay and Lesbian Literature The development over the past two decades of the gay rights movement has begun since about 1989 to have an impact on school libraries and classrooms. Partly under the influence of external pressures and partly on their own initiative, many educators and librarians have sought to accommodate the needs of both homosex-

Issues in Dispute

53

ual students and pupils with gay or lesbian parents and to educate all students about diverse sexual orientations in a spirit of tolerance and opposition to discrimination. Much of the effort has focused on broadening sex education curricula (see below), but the emergence of specifically gay-oriented literature for children and especially young adults and the increasingly frank nature of other literature has challenged some school districts. Two young adult novels with a gay orientation, Annie on My Mind, by Nancy Garden, and All American Boys, by Frank Mosca, were donated in 1990 to three high school libraries in San Ramon, California, as part of a larger donation to all high schools in Contra Costa County. But the books were seized from librarians by school administrators, who then “lost” them.24 Whatever the merits or demerits of these books may be, such actions amount to censorship, pure and simple. Romantic literature about homosexual love should be judged according to the same criteria as romantic literature about heterosexual love. This was the view of the U.S. District Court in a 1996 case from Olathe, Kansas, in which school board members removed copies of Annie on My Mind and another gay novel donated to school libraries by a gay advocacy group. The court ruled that the removal was a case of “viewpoint discrimination” in violation of the First Amendment. “There is no basis to believe that these board members meant by ‘educational suitability’ anything other than their own disagreement with the ideas expressed in the book,” the judge wrote.25 To be sure, no school library need accept any donated item. However, especially in light of budgetary constraints that compel growing numbers of public schools to acquire much of their library holdings in such a manner, districts should make clear that donated materials are subject to the same selection criteria and procedures as purchased materials. If such materials are not accepted they must be returned and the donors informed of the decision and its rationale. For an administrator or librarian to short-circuit such policies and procedures through any sort of unilateral action based on the personal opinion of a self-appointed individual or group is impermissible—doubly so if done in secret. In the San Ramon incident, the donor could reasonably charge the district not only with censorship, but theft as well. Efforts to remove gay-themed books simply because of their content are generally unlikely to succeed when resisted. In Maine a local school board threatened to reject a purchase order for library

54

Chapter 3

books because the order included several titles with gay themes. After a group of concerned citizens mobilized, however, the board backed down. “You could tell that their decision to approve the book purchases was almost wholly influenced by the presence of unknown crowd members and the news cameras,” one sympathetic board member reported.26 In Barron, Wisconsin, a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of students and parents succeeded in reversing a 1998 decision to remove four books on gay and lesbian themes.27 In 1991, Boston-based Alyson Publications initiated a series of children’s books oriented toward explanation of gay lifestyles for children of gay parents and other children, including Daddy’s Roommate, by Michael Willhoite, and Heather Has Two Mommies, by Leslea Newman. Efforts by public libraries to acquire titles in the series met with protests, almost all of which were unsuccessful. The books also attracted attention in schools. In New York City, a community school board in Queens voted unanimously to reject a first-grade multicultural curriculum entitled “Children of the Rainbow” because its bibliography listed three Alyson titles. The books were not required of any student to read or teacher to teach, but were to be presented as resources.28 In 1994, Daddy’s Roommate became the single most commonly challenged title in the nation’s libraries and schools. In Connecticut, one person complained that “a child below the age of reason having read this book may come to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is common. It probably is.” That was the reason provided for removing the book from library shelves!29 At the American Library Association’s Annual Conference in 1995, Sasha Alyson, founder of Alyson Publications, spoke to librarians about the controversy over his imprint’s children’s books and about the importance of gay literature for children and young adults:30 When I decided to enter publishing . . . I think I understood on a real gut level that books, yes, they can entertain, but they can also do more than that. They can really have the power to change people’s lives, to affect people in a very real, important way. The first books I did were on a subject that was important to me—they were by and about gay teenagers. I tried to capture the stories of some young people who had “come out” in high school. . . . In One Teenager in Ten [subsequently reissued and revised as Two Teenagers in Twenty], we had some twenty-six kids each tell their very different stories about coming to terms with their identity. And in the years that followed, I tried to look for other groups whose needs and whose issues have never been addressed and to do books for them. . . .

Issues in Dispute

55

Even though, to me, to most of you, it seems like we have a lot less stereotyping and more positive gay images in the media these days, the fact is, when you’re fourteen it still feels very, very alone. If you’re thinking you might be gay, it’s very scary because you’re pretty much stuck where you are for four years. . . . In fact, there was a federal study done a few years ago of teenage suicide, which found that teenagers dealing with issues of sexual orientation were three times as likely to commit suicide as their peers. When you imagine the isolation those kids are in, the absolute lack of anybody to talk to, of any images of kids like themselves, it’s really easy to understand why. As librarians, you’re in a very unique position to help that last group. There’s lots of groups out there of other minorities who need to see themselves in books, but gay teenagers are the only group I can think of where they have to go to the library first, where they get, in most cases, no support from their family; where they feel that they have to go outside of their family in order to get any kind of support to figure out who they are. It is one experience that every gay person I know has in common, and that is that we remember looking through the card catalog sometime in junior high or high school trying desperately to find books, to find information about this subject that we, on some level, knew was important to us but didn’t really know anything about yet. . . . I would bet that any of you who have high school libraries or young adult sections in your public library, if you carry books like Reflections of a Rock Lobster or One Teenager in Ten, you’ve often found it in the farthest corner of the library where somebody was reading it, hoping not to be disturbed. It may not get checked out a lot, but those books are making a real difference.

Sex Education Treatment of sexuality and human reproduction sometimes poses a more difficult problem in required texts used in biology, health education, or similar classes. Here students are a “captive audience,” and parental and community concerns about such controversial themes as teenage pregnancy, homosexuality, abortion and contraception, AIDS, and even masturbation may exert strong and contradictory pressures on teachers and administrators. Although surveys show that more than 80 percent of the population supports sex education, a highly vocal minority objects not only to literary and artistic representations of sexuality, but also to more objective and factual discussions of this subject. Though consistently supported by an overwhelming majority of citizens, sex education classes are often targets of censorship efforts for going

56

Chapter 3

“too far” or for teaching “how to do it.” Some who object to materials used in these classes actually oppose the inclusion of any kind of sex education in school curricula, even as elective courses. Two Florida textbook critics called their district’s sex education program “a farce,” and questioned its necessity, since “the nitty-gritty of it can be taught in less than an hour.”31 Significant disagreements also remain about the permissible scope of sex education and about what students should be told. Some people believe that any instruction about how to use contraceptives or obtain an abortion will undermine traditional moral standards and parental efforts to encourage celibacy—even if birth control or abortion are not explicitly advocated, and even if they are directly discouraged. Others argue that to deny students such information is to make a farce of education. In Santa Barbara, California, the president of a school PTA demanded the removal of a sex education video because it did not sufficiently promote abstinence.32 Many sex education curricula now encourage “abstinence” as a method of birth control, and in some states promotion of abstinence is required. But most educators agree that, unless state laws otherwise require, encouraging abstinence should not exclude the presentation of information about other forms of birth control, abortion, or about sexuality in general. And it certainly should not countenance the removal or restriction of library books or other educational materials that portray sexual relations. Efforts to educate students about the dangers of AIDS have also led to controversy. In Bremerton, Washington, a parent objected to AIDS education in the textbook Human Sexuality, arguing that the term “safe sex” is an oxymoron. “I don’t believe this is necessary,” she said. In Atlanta, the same book was labeled “a ‘how-to’ book” that “promotes promiscuity in a subtle way . . . , encourages breaking the law, and tears down normal sexual barriers.”33 Designing an appropriate sex education program is well beyond the scope of this book. Each school district will have to structure its program in light of local preferences and in accordance with state guidelines. Districts should be aware, however, that virtually every available textbook and library resource material treating human sexuality is likely to be found objectionable by someone in the community, even if the sex education class is entirely elective. In Mount Morris, Illinois, controversy erupted over the use of two supplemental reading books, What’s Happening to My Body? Book for Boys and What’s Happening to My Body? Book for Girls,

Issues in Dispute

57

in a special program designed to help young people cope with growing up. This program, which is sponsored nationwide by the Lions Clubs, has also come under fire in Michigan. Other challenges to these books resulted in removals from school libraries in Washington and Florida.34 In south Florida a series of health education books for small children was placed on elementary school library restricted shelves after a parent and a minister objected to two pages describing the reproductive process that allegedly “reinforce the pornographic message on HBO and Cinemax.”35 Recognizing that a majority of American parents support some form of sex education, opponents have designed their own curricula and these have been adopted in some schools. One such program, called Sex Respect, was developed with federal grant money and has been used in over 1,500 school districts nationwide. A series of workbooks espousing “traditional values” and such unique concepts as “secondary virginity,” Sex Respect calls for sexually active teens to abstain from future premarital relations and thus regain “virgin” status. In Wisconsin, however, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged use of the curriculum as tantamount to discrimination based on gender, marital status, sexual orientation, and religion. The curriculum, the ACLU charged in a 1991 lawsuit, stereotypes boys as “sexual aggressors” and girls as “virginity protectors,” mischaracterizes AIDS as nature’s way of making “a statement on sexual behavior,” and presents two-parent heterosexual couples as “the sole model of a healthy, ‘real’ family.”36 Supporters of Sex Respect and others were quick to accuse the ACLU of promoting censorship, but the organization noted that while public schools enjoy great latitude in making choices and teaching from a chosen perspective, they may not indoctrinate students in a parochial set of beliefs and they may not discriminate. If sex education is offered, whether as an elective or as a unit within some other required course in health or biology, the same principles of accuracy, openness, and tolerance that govern the selection of learning materials in less controversial fields should be applied. Scientific truths should not be kept hidden out of deference to the religious or moral beliefs of community members, no matter how widespread and sincerely held those beliefs may be. Some parents, for instance, believe that masturbation is harmful and sinful and discourage their adolescent children from touching their sex organs. That is their parental right, which the school must respect. But this can in no way justify keeping from students the

58

Chapter 3

scientific truth that masturbation causes no physical harm, and that most experts believe its psychological consequences are, for the most part, benign.

Violence Many people from diverse perspectives have noted that American culture sometimes seems to endorse a hypocritical moral standard that looks askance at representations of even the most timid sexuality, while freely permitting portrayals of murder and mayhem. In this light, many well-intentioned people have sought to purge school libraries and classrooms of violent imagery. Complaints that library or teaching materials are too violent or simply too “depressing” have increased in number. Many are linked to complaints about sexuality or other issues, however, and those who offer these complaints are quite frequently more concerned about moral, religious, or even political issues than about violence per se. In Fairfield, Ohio, some parents objected to a series of books called Wizards, Warriors and You, citing several examples of “violent deaths.” The real issue, however, with which parents were concerned was the books’ alleged “acceptance and involvement in occult practices.” Complaints in numerous schools about the horror novels of Stephen King often focus on the books’ violent episodes, although usually greater stress is placed on their sexual passages or on their characters’ use of profanity. In one Maryland county, two school board members found novels about a girl who lived in a mental institution, the slave-era underground railroad, and the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews too violent and “depressing” for school use.37 Similarly, protests in Illinois against the historical novels My Brother Sam Is Dead and With Every Drop of Blood, by Christopher and James Lincoln Collier, about the Revolutionary and Civil Wars respectively, linked violence to foul language. But violence itself was clearly the issue when a Florida elementary school removed a book for kindergartners called Bang Bang You’re Dead. “Just the mere title indicates, without even seeing it, that it should be pulled,” said the principal.38 The depiction of violence—and for that matter sexuality—in films is often a problem. Some schools have adopted a general policy that they will not show any film that is rated R, although, of course, most educational films are unrated. Sometimes books from

Issues in Dispute

59

which R-rated films have been made are also criticized, with parents demanding that the standards of the motion picture industry be applied to library books. This is, of course, unacceptable. As the American Library Association’s “Statement on Labeling” declares, “Labeling is an attempt to prejudice attitudes and as such, it is a censor’s tool.” With respect to motion picture or other ratings systems created by private groups, the policy states: “For the library to adopt or enforce any of these private systems, to attach such ratings to library materials, to include them in bibliographic records, library catalogs, or other finding aids, or otherwise to endorse them would violate the Library Bill of Rights.”39

“Secular Humanism” and “New Age” In the 1980s the charge that library or teaching materials advocated the “religion” of “secular humanism” brought together a polyglot of more specific objections to materials generally thought to be too “liberal” or otherwise opposed to traditional religion and morality. After about 1987, when a major legal initiative by opponents of this philosophy failed, the turmoil subsided. Yet efforts to link what some people find morally objectionable to propagation of an allegedly anti-Christian religion have not ceased. Opponents of some school and library materials charge that these promote occult or Eastern religious practices (see below) or espouse a “New Age” or even “Satanist” doctrine that is religious in character. What exactly constitutes “secular humanism,” “New Age,” “Satanism”—or for that matter any occult faith or many other threatening “isms”—has never been clear to those who do not share the fear of these creeds. Groups trying to remove instructional or library materials from public schools have cited the following practices and content as examples of secular humanist or New Age indoctrination: drug education, death education, values clarification, global education, the study of socialism, the theory of evolution, depictions of women as professionals, and the look-say method of teaching reading. “Globalism, humanism, socialism, feminism, illuminism, New Age, etc. are all the same animal: the differences are semantic and inconsequential,” wrote one critic.40 Yet for some Americans the labels “secular humanism” and “New Age” now carry negative connotations equivalent to those more generally associated with words like “racism” and “sexism.” Opponents of allegedly “secular humanist” or “New Age” materials

60

Chapter 3

have argued that the use of such materials in public schools promotes religious belief in a manner violating the constitutional separation of church and state. Underlying this charge, however, is often a deep-seated and powerful fear for the status of their own religious faith that can verge on almost medieval paranoia, as evidenced in the following quote from a 1988 book: Our children have been at risk for decades now as Satan has worked The Plan, wielding his dark supernatural powers in unprecedented attack waves. His goal: to wipe out all vestiges of Christianity and the Bible from our schools and our culture and, by so doing, to win youth away from Christ. Atheism and Secular Humanism, though extremely successful, were only crude first attempts by the Devil. In the New Age movement and religion, Satan has latched on to something far more effective and more direct.41

In the 1980s, conservative textbook critics Mel and Norma Gabler and their firm, Educational Research Analysts, maintained that humanism was declared a religion by the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court has not ruled one way or the other about the nature of “secular humanism.” However, a Court decision on a related but distinct issue did refer briefly to “secular humanism” in a footnote that read: “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”42 A footnote in a later case also made brief reference to this note, but that is the full extent of the Supreme Court’s commentary on the matter. The first, and as yet only, court decision to define “secular humanism” as a religion was issued in Mobile, Alabama, in 1987 by U.S. District Court Judge W. Brevard Hand.43 Judge Hand ruled that 44 social studies, history, and home economics textbooks be removed from Alabama’s list of approved texts—and from the state’s classrooms—because they promote “secular humanism.” He was overruled six months later, and the fundamentalist Christians who brought the lawsuit decided not to seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Hand said the case was about “the allegedly improper promotion of certain religious beliefs.” Secular humanism, he ruled, teaches “that moral choices are purely personal and can only be based on some autonomous, as yet undiscovered and unfulfilled, inner self.” Moreover, according to Hand, the contested textbooks “discriminate against the very concept of religion and theistic reli-

Issues in Dispute

61

gions in particular, by omissions so serious that a student learning history from them would not be apprised of relevant facts about America’s history. . . . The texts reviewed are not merely bad history, but lack so many facts as to equal ideological promotion.” Many commentators on education agree that, in an effort to avoid controversy, many widely used history and social studies textbooks lack adequate discussions of religion in American life. But Hand’s notion that an absence of information on this subject constitutes “ideological promotion” of a secular faith was extraordinary. Who is to determine which facts are “relevant,” and how many of these must be mentioned to constitute fair treatment? It is bad enough for a court to label books “secular humanist” because of what they say, but it is patently absurd for any court— or private censors—to seek to ban books because of what they don’t say. Those who levied the charge that “secular humanism” was being promoted in the schools often seemed to believe that educators are especially active in the humanist movement. Of course, the fact that some influential educators like John Dewey have called themselves humanists should by no means suggest that all or even most educators today embrace such a creed. In fact, nearly 80 percent of American educators are members of a church or synagogue, and approximately 60 percent say they attend religious services weekly.44 No matter which religion educators espouse, however, the First Amendment requires public schools to remain neutral on the subject of religion. Most teachers and administrators take their obligation to uphold the Constitution very seriously. Those who charge that public school students are being unconstitutionally indoctrinated in “secular humanist” or “New Age” or other similar religious precepts often oppose Supreme Court rulings that have removed familiar religious practices such as prayer and Bible readings from the schools. This suggests that the real concern motivating these critics is not their opposition to the illegal establishment of a “religion,” but instead their desire that students exercise more traditional religious and moral beliefs that the would-be censors themselves espouse. When charges of promoting “secular humanism” or the “New Age” are made against library or instructional materials, those making the charges should be compelled to define their terms and to specify precisely how challenged materials promote these beliefs. More often than not, complainants are not really aroused by the

62

Chapter 3

supposedly “religious” content of the challenged material but by the material’s perceived moral, cultural, or political impact.

Witchcraft and the Occult It may surprise some educators to learn that probably the most hotly contested issue today is the charge that instructional or library materials promote witchcraft, Satanism, or simply a harmful interest in the occult. In the 1987 AASA survey, a greater number of districts reported complaints about witchcraft and the occult than reported complaints about “secular humanism.” All indications are that the number of such complaints has continued to rise, perhaps even exceeding complaints about profanity. Objections to witchcraft and the occult have come to resemble previous complaints about “secular humanism.” Definitions of “witchcraft” are expanded to include the most diverse practices and beliefs. Materials treating “witchcraft” have been found by some to promote not only blasphemy but also obscenity, political radicalism, and the teaching of evolution. Some complainants identify any teaching about non-Western religious traditions or about mythology with the teaching of witchcraft. As in the “secular humanism” and “New Age” issues, the argument is increasingly heard that schools are violating the First Amendment’s establishment clause by promoting Satanic religious beliefs. As a rule, these objections are not made in the name of rationalism and science—for instance, there have been few challenges to works about astrology as scientifically bogus. Instead, those who object to materials on the grounds that they promote witchcraft do so generally on religious grounds. Sometimes, they believe that devils and witches are a real and active force for evil in the world that must be combated. “It’s not fantasy, it’s true,” declared one upstate New York woman who sought the removal of Meet the Werewolf from an elementary school library.45 In one North Carolina middle school, officials seized books on witchcraft from three girls after classmates accused them of casting death spells, but later decided the books were harmless and returned them. Still, the girls were warned that they could be suspended if they brought the books back to school.46 More often, the charge of promoting witchcraft is used as a grab bag for a variety of complaints arising from a perceived decline in religious influence on education. “Anyone who reads the Holy Bible, they will find my complaint is legitimate,” said one complainant,

Issues in Dispute

63

who sought the removal of all books in a Nebraska library in the Dewey Decimal category for magic and ghost stories.47 The issue has been further complicated by the emergence of small groups of self-declared “witches,” who claim to practice a pre-Christian pagan religion, often called Wicca. These groups have begun to defend their rights to religious expression against critics of the occult. In a San Francisco suburb, for example, a self-proclaimed witch who “came out of the broom closet” demanded that a school district ban the fairy tale “Hansel and Gretel” because it teaches children that it is acceptable to kill witches. “They would not use a story that would put any other religion in a light like this,” she said.48 In many cases, traditional children’s stories and Halloween tales have come under attack, including quite a few picture books for preschoolers with titles like Witches, Witches, Witches and Witch Baby. In Gilbert, Arizona, nine elementary school library books with “scary” themes of witchcraft and Halloween were challenged by an outraged parent. “What I’m fighting is that this is a religion like God is a religion and they’re taking books on prayer out of the library. Some of these books explain Satanic rituals and make them sound like fun,” the parent said. She charged, for instance, that a picture book called Witches, Pumpkins and Grinning Ghosts “interests little minds into accepting the devil with all his evil works.”49 Also frequently targeted for their allegedly occult content are juvenile and young adult novels with supernatural themes. More significantly, perhaps, objections have been raised about library materials and curricula that highlight all sorts of folk literature, mythology, or comparative religion. In Nebraska, a book of Scandinavian mythology and another of folk tales from around the world were removed from a school library by a school board’s “Americanism committee” after a parent complained they promote witchcraft. In Colorado, a world literature course segment on Greek and Roman mythology was challenged as “a misleading way to get kids’ eyes on gods other than the almighty God.”50 Materials that make even the slightest reference to non-Western religious traditions have often been bracketed with more explicitly supernatural works. An Oregon school board rejected a supplemental health book that mentioned yoga and transcendental meditation. “My objection was that the school board, under the guise of wellness, was importing a form of eastern religious practices,” said one of three parents who challenged the book. “If you’re going to have an opening for eastern religious practices, you should have space for Christian religious practices too.” Wellness: Stress Man-

64

Chapter 3

agement was part of a series of supplemental readings for high school students that teachers had planned to place in the library. It was never proposed as required reading.51 In September 1992, a U.S. District Court judge in Pennsylvania ruled that Dragonwings, a novel about a Chinese aviator, did not violate the First Amendment’s prohibition against the establishment of religion. A church elder claimed that the book advanced the particular religion and beliefs of Taoism and reincarnation. It also allegedly promoted “secular humanism” by implying that man can achieve his goals without God’s intervention. “The fact that religions and religious concepts are mentioned in school does not automatically constitute a violation of the establishment clause,” the court declared. Beyond that, the book was used for a “purely secular purpose” and did not foster excessive state entanglement with religion. “In fact, little, if any, discussion of the book’s religious references took place and when it did, the teachers were completely neutral on the matter. Neither the book nor the teachers who taught it expounded a particular religion as the only correct belief or even the preferred belief,” the judge concluded.52 Opponents of witchcraft and the occult have also focused on curricular and extracurricular learning activities, including drug prevention and self-esteem programs. One such program, Pumsy in Pursuit of Excellence, asks young children to follow the adventures of Pumsy the dragon and her friend through various situations and feelings. The program is intended to teach children to make sound decisions, manage conflict, understand consequences, and gain selfrespect. According to critics, however, the program attempts to teach these values by promoting “New Age religion, meditation and hypnosis.” In numerous instances the simple fact that the program uses the supernatural image of a dragon was enough to draw criticism.53 In the 1980s, a special target of concern for many complainants was the game Dungeons and Dragons, which has been popular among some teenagers and has sometimes been used by teachers and librarians as a supplementary educational tool. Opponents of the game charge that those who play it are not only exposed to Satanic influences, but become obsessively involved in the activity. They claim that in several cases playing the game has led to suicide. However, the mother of one 13-year-old player who took his own life spoke against an effort in Connecticut to ban the game. She said, “It was not from any game that my son committed suicide. Not even Dungeons and Dragons. . . . I think it is a tragedy how a certain group of people can take a tragic death and use it for their own purpose.

Issues in Dispute

65

. . . To take this game out of school is wrong. If the families don’t want their children to play, then notify the school and request it.”54 “Magic: The Gathering” is a collectible card game that won considerable popularity among both teenagers and adults during the 1990s. It has in many places surpassed Dungeons and Dragons as a popular gaming fad. The game uses occultlike images on its cards, but it has yet to attract the kind of opposition that emerged against Dungeons and Dragons. In Bedford, New York, however, two women began a movement against the game, which was played informally before school and in an after-school enrichment program at a local middle school, that soon grew into a crusade against the entire curriculum of the Bedford schools. At its height more than 300 people came to a forum warning against occult and “New Age” influences in the schools. Pointing to cards with pentagrams and other Satanic symbols, the women claimed that allowing Magic cards in school violates the law by encouraging a religion. “I don’t want any religion in the schools,” claimed one woman. The pair also charged that folk songs performed at an Earth Day celebration were “New Age” and should be barred and that a sixth-grade “decision-making curriculum” developed by Yale University inappropriately teaches meditation. The case wound up in court, and although the judge noted that some of the school’s Earth Day activities were “bizarre,” he ruled the school was not promoting religion.55 Although objections to “secular humanism” and “New Age” religion may still be heard, the frequency of complaints about witchcraft suggests that this rubric offers would-be censors a more powerful mobilizing rationale for attacking the broad array of concerns that have been subsumed under the humanist and New Age labels. After all, the charge that secular humanists and “New Agers” are perverting children’s minds is consistent with the long-standing tradition of “witch hunting” that is one of the more unattractive features of our political culture. But to tell an audience that secular humanism and New Age are alien religions coming into the schools to replace Christianity, one has first to explain what these religions are. This has the advantage that they can then be made into anything the would-be censor wants; but it has the disadvantage of being too abstract. Insofar as there are identifiable secular humanists, for instance, they are of varied religious faiths and some have no religion at all. By contrast, adherents of occult religions may be few in number, but they are readily identified with a traditionally “dangerous” creed.

66

Chapter 3

Why do some people actually believe and fear that children are learning to be witches and Satanists in our public schools? The appeal, of course, is first and foremost to fear. There is a fear of difference, and, it must be noted, a fear of women, too. Concern with witchcraft has historically been associated with male fears of women and with concern among some males and females about the power of “emancipated women” in society. The concern with witchcraft and the occult is also a reaction to the loss of control that many people feel in their lives. Popular censors often act because they fear ideas and images that are beyond their control. Opponents of occult-oriented literature have, in many instances, turned to venerable cultural traditions for an explanation. The world is out of control because Satan—and human Satanists— manipulate it.

Impressions and Harry Potter Undoubtedly the work most censored on the basis of its alleged promotion of Satanism, witchcraft, or “New Age” religion was the elementary school reading series Impressions. In the early 1990s, it was probably the single most popular target of public school censorship in the country, having been challenged in at least 45 jurisdictions. Produced originally in Canada, the literature-based series comprises 15 books, including 822 selections from novels, poetry, drama, biographies, short stories, folklore, fantasy, and other forms of literature, by such authors as Martin Luther King Jr., Maurice Sendak, Rudyard Kipling, Laura Ingalls Wilder, A. A. Milne, Madeleine L’Engle, C. S. Lewis, and Dr. Seuss. Impressions has been used in more than 1,500 schools in 34 states.56 The first cited controversies over Impressions came in Washington and Oregon in 1987, where objectors focused on alleged “overtones of witchcraft, mysticism and fantasy” and “persistent themes of rebellion against parents and authority figures.” Others argued that the series was “depressing” and “violent.” The objections in these first incidents, and in most thereafter, focused on only a quite small portion of the material in the series—only 22 of the 822 selections deal with ghosts, goblins, or witches. But here, as in subsequent incidents, those who objected generally sought a complete ban on all the Impressions volumes. The controversy over Impressions escalated dramatically after a conservative Christian periodical published the first of several

Issues in Dispute

67

blistering attacks on the series in September 1990, and the journal’s sponsoring group began a concerted mobilization effort. In almost all instances, Impressions challengers complained that the series promoted Satanism, the occult, and “New Age” religion. The controversy developed initially on the West Coast, especially after California state education authorities adopted the series in 1989, but spread to urban, suburban, and rural districts across the country, with particular hotbeds in Alaska, California, Illinois, Maryland, and South Dakota. In 1992 the battle over Impressions entered the legal system. In a case that was watched closely by educators and religious interests, U.S. District Court Judge William Shoob in Sacramento, California, on April 2, 1992, dismissed a suit charging that the series violated the U.S. and California constitutions by promoting the “religions of witchcraft and neo-paganism.” Initially, the suit, filed with the support of the Reverend Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association by two fundamentalist Christians from Woodland, California, charged broadly that the series was too morbid, displayed disrespect toward parents, and contained too many references to witches and goblins. Later, however, the grounds were narrowed to allegations that 38 stories, poems, and supplementary activities recommended in teacher’s manuals promoted witchcraft and neo-paganism. “There is no constitutional basis,” Judge Shoob wrote, “for the court to order that the activities in question be excluded from the classroom simply because isolated instances of those activities may happen to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of two relatively obscure religions.”57 Similar conclusions were reached in two suits filed in U.S. District Court in Illinois, and after these decisions opposition to Impressions faded, although no doubt more than a few school districts discontinued its use. More recently, the phenomenally successful series of children’s books from England featuring the young witch Harry Potter—Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, by J. K. Rowling—have faced the wrath of those who fear the occult in literature. “The books are based on sorcery, which is an abomination to the Lord,” said one protesting parent in Michigan. “I read a couple of chapters and felt like God didn’t want me reading it. My daughter shouldn’t have to be subjected to that.”58 In a few instances, demands were raised to remove the Potter books from school libraries, but most of the controversy arose when teachers, excited by the enthusiasm for reading which the

68

Chapter 3

books seemed to inspire, read from them to elementary school classes. In most cases schools have refused to stop the readings, but have permitted parents to remove their children from class when the books are read. “If a teacher chose to read Jonah and the whale or others from the Christian point of view,” charged one Oregon parent, “they could be fired. But on the other hand, they could introduce this and there’s nothing we can do about it.”59 As in the Impressions controversy, opposition to the Potter books was fueled by a national organization, although with considerably less effect. Family Friendly Libraries, a group opposed to the American Library Association’s intellectual freedom policies, produced a nationally circulated “book report” warning that the Potter books are not appropriate for the public school classroom because of occult themes, violent content, and antifamily bias. The Potter series and similar occult books, the organization said, should be checked out of school libraries only with parental permission.60 Zeeland, Michigan, attracted national attention when its school superintendent, Gary Feenstra, issued a memo to librarians and teachers restricting school library checkout of the Potter books to fifth through eighth graders with written permission from their parents. Feenstra also prohibited the district from purchasing future installments in the series and barred Zeeland teachers from reading the books aloud in class. “I think there’s merit to having parents decide,” Feenstra said. “The way we have it set up, students won’t be reading it unless their parents know they’re reading it.” But the Potter books were much more widely read and recognized than the Impressions series, and Feenstra’s ruling came under withering public attack. Caught in the national media spotlight, Feenstra agreed to appoint a review committee to look at the books and within weeks had accepted its recommendation to return the books to open library shelves and lift all other restrictions on their use, maintaining only that parents who objected to the books could have their children excused from classes in which they were read.61

Horror Novels Related to concerns about both violence and the occult is opposition to juvenile novels of horror and the supernatural. The immensely popular novels of Stephen King have long been targets of censors in high school libraries and classrooms, although such efforts have done little to stem the popularity of King’s works. More recently,

Issues in Dispute

69

however, attention has shifted to works by authors aiming at younger audiences. One such writer is Christopher Pike, whose more than 50 novels with such titles as Bury Me Deep, The Last Vampire, and Whisper of Death are popular among elementary and especially middle school readers. In 1999, the trustees of the Escondido Union School District in southern California voted to remove 25 of 36 Pike novels from district libraries. In February 2000, Principal Jeff Read of Nampa West Middle School in Nampa, Idaho, began reading the 22 Pike novels in his school library and by March 1 had removed them all without consultation with teachers or librarians. “I wouldn’t pull it just because he wrote it,” Read said. “I’m pulling it because the material is objectionable.” Although Read was responding to a parent complaint, his action prompted similar moves at other Idaho schools where no complaints were made.62 The Goosebumps books, by R. L. Stine, which are geared toward readers in the lower elementary grades who like “scary stories” with titles like The Haunted Mask, It Came from Beneath the Sink, Night of the Living Dummy, and Horror at Camp Jellyjam, have also been targeted. In Anoka, Minnesota, a parent sought the books’ removal from an elementary school library. “While the books are only fiction and unreal,” she said, “children under the age of twelve, as well as many teenagers, may not be able to handle the frightening content of the books. The book covers alone are quite offensive.”63 That books by Stine, Pike, King, and similar writers may frighten some young readers is indisputable, and few, if any, educators would require children to read them. Insofar as would-be censors of horror fiction act upon a well-intentioned concern for the psychic health of young readers, one can sympathize with them. Surely these books are not for everyone. But as the Minnesota mother’s comment about the Goosebumps covers suggests, the nature of these books and their subject matter should be readily clear to anyone beginning to read them, no matter how young. Students easily frightened will surely turn to more attractive and less threatening titles on library shelves. But many young readers relish the “controlled and safe” fears produced by such reading and use these books to confront some of their own anxieties. Moreover, such books frequently interest students not otherwise excited by reading and can become a pathway into more varied and mature fare. This is why so many school libraries keep so many titles by Stine, Pike, and King on their shelves.

70

Chapter 3

Creationism The question of church and state, which is so tied up with debates over “occult” literature, is also integral to the debate over the teaching of evolution and so-called “creation science” in the schools, which has waxed and waned in American education for much of the past century. Although the controversy has abated somewhat from the intense level of the early and mid-1980s, objections continue to be raised against materials that allegedly promote evolutionary “theory” as science, and there were some signs in the late 1990s that the issue was regaining momentum. Advocates of “creationism” have been distinguished from other critics of instructional and library materials by their efforts to add materials to the curriculum that reflect their own views—views which most scientists believe are religiously based. Still, attempts to give “equal time” to creationist theories retain many of the hallmarks of a censorship effort. In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that teaching the Darwinian theory of evolution cannot be prohibited on the grounds that it runs counter to Christian religious belief about the origin of man.64 In Edwards v. Aguillard, decided in June 1987, the high court further ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that the teaching of evolution be “balanced” with teaching of “creation science” was unconstitutional on the grounds that the law lacked a clear secular purpose.65 Some legal experts believe that a constitutionally acceptable formula for teaching about creation beliefs could be found, but they doubt this would satisfy creationists. “If, as creationists maintain, creationist theory deserves inclusion in science classes for intellectual reasons, then it too must be verified by conventional scientific methods,” wrote one theorist.66 Only a tiny handful of scientists, however, believe that creationism is true science. The overwhelming majority of biologists treat evolution as fact, not theory. What is “theoretical” (but also accepted by the great majority of scientists) is the Darwinian explanation of evolution by means of natural selection. The National Academy of Sciences likened the introduction of “creation science” into school science courses to “requiring the teaching of Ptolemaic [pre-Copernican] astronomy or pre-Columbian geography.”67 For 10 years, the Texas State Board of Education required all textbooks that treat the theory of evolution to “identify it as only one of several explanations of the origins of mankind and avoid limiting young people in their search for meaning of their human

Issues in Dispute

71

existence.” Also, each textbook that treats evolution “must carry a statement on the introductory page that any material included in the book is clearly presented as theory rather than fact.”68 “In effect,” concluded the American Association of University Professors, the Texas rule encumbered educators in the schools in teaching that which is generally regarded by the scientific community as integral to scientific knowledge and understanding, and what the vast majority of Texas teachers no doubt understood to be the scientific truth about the origins of life. Teachers, in exercising their professional judgment, could have used supplementary materials to provide their students with a deeper understanding of evolution than that suggested by the truncated textbook. But the required use of the textbook would then have presented teachers with a repugnant choice. If they adhered to the admonition in the textbook concerning evolution, their teaching would not have reflected the best professional standards. On the other hand, if they taught biological evolution as a validated scientific hypothesis that is at the heart of all modern research into human evolution, they presumably would have been subject to some institutional sanction for failure to perform professional duties. The Texas experience suggests that changes in textbooks that contradict longstanding tenets of inquiry and understanding in a particular field of knowledge . . . or that are meant to advance, or have the effect of advancing, a religious belief, can seriously encroach upon freedom in the schools.69

Although the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards v. Aguillard slowed efforts to oppose the teaching of evolution or introduce creationism to the curriculum, by the mid-1990s such activity had accelerated anew. In Hall County, Georgia, a school district in 1996 adopted a policy calling for the teaching of creationism, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision did not apply. Although the high court had clearly indicated that creationism could not be inserted into the curriculum, the board member who introduced the policy declared that the Court had only “said an attempt to narrow the scope of science class will not fly, but we think to expand the scope of teaching would be OK.” Although the most concerted efforts have come in the South— Tennessee’s legislature has considered permitting school boards to dismiss teachers who present evolution as fact and Alabama approved a disclaimer, to be inserted in biology textbooks, calling evolution only “a controversial theory”—teaching creationism has reemerged as an issue in places as far-flung as Friendly, Nevada; Paradise, California; Moon, Pennsylvania; and Merrimack, New Hampshire.

72

Chapter 3

“It’s frightening how widespread this is,” says Wayne Carley, head of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “Even here in Fairfax County, Virginia, one of the richest counties in the country, over half the candidates for the school board were creationist fundamentalists. This is not just limited to the South. It’s everywhere.”70 The revival of efforts to teach creationism gained national attention when, in the summer of 1999 and to intense national publicity, the Kansas Board of Education voted to embrace new standards for science curricula that eliminate evolution as an underlying principle of biology and other sciences. The board voted on a modified version of curriculum guidelines that eliminated evolution as a way to describe the emergence of new species but left intact references to “microevolution,” or changes that occur within a single species. The decision came in the face of opposition from the presidents of Kansas’s six public universities, who wrote a letter declaring that the new standards “will set Kansas back a century and give hardto-find science teachers no choice but to pursue other career fields or assignments outside of Kansas.” Gov. Bill Graves, a Republican, also warned against the new curriculum, saying he would support an effort to abolish the board.71 Even where there are no legal efforts to restrict the teaching of evolution, teachers may feel pressured to avoid the subject. “Many teachers won’t teach evolution at all because of the stigma and the controversy,” said one Nashville, Tennessee, biology teacher. “I do polls of kids in my class. In my last class of thirty kids, three had studied evolution. I taught a course at a local college and maybe one or two had any instruction in evolution. Teachers are uncomfortable with it, so they don’t teach it at all.”72 Some believe it may, in the end, be educationally reasonable and constitutionally acceptable to excuse some students from discussions of evolution in deference to the sincerely held religious beliefs of their families. In any event, efforts that effectively seek to limit the teaching of up-to-date scientific knowledge about the descent and development of the human species amount to a form of censorship.

Racism and Sexism Increasing awareness over the past several decades of the rights and sensitivities of minorities and of women has resulted in, among other things, heightened efforts to remove racial and sexual stereo-

Issues in Dispute

73

types and slurs from educational materials. Overwhelmingly, educators and the general public have welcomed and embraced these efforts, and considerable progress has been made. Contemporary curricula are far from perfect; but the sensitivity of instructional and library materials to the legitimate concerns of minority groups, and the commitment of these materials to ethnic and sexual equality and to pluralism, certainly run deeper than ever before in our history. Unfortunately, however, requests to remove materials that may be construed as racist or sexist can pose a difficult dilemma for school librarians. Although, as noted in chapter 2, the school library’s mission is not exactly the same as that of the public library, its commitment to making available alternative views and ideas should be no less firm. Racial, sexual, and other prejudices are part of our country’s history and of its present reality. The school library will necessarily reflect this, which is not wholly a bad thing since students can hardly be taught to identify and reject prejudicial thought without directly confronting examples of bias and stereotyping. Nevertheless, occasionally members of a group that has been a target of bigotry or oppression will seek to limit access to works which they believe help to maintain or further that bigotry and oppression. The problem is not generally great when it comes to openly derogatory materials. These are not often found in school libraries and are mostly used in classroom instruction strictly as “negative examples.” More frequently, conflict arises when a work that most people believe opposes bigotry is understood by some critics quite differently. They may seek to impose an extreme or idiosyncratic definition of prejudicial material on the schools. Or they may judge a work solely on the basis of its use of inflammatory language, with little concern for its overall message or context. Members of oppressed and minority groups also rarely speak with a single voice. Where some find certain materials insulting, others in the group find these very same works liberating. For instance, some members of the black community find black feminist Alice Walker’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel The Color Purple insulting to black men. They are also often offended by the novel’s lesbian theme which, it is sometimes argued, would never be accepted for school use if the characters in the book were white. Black parents have objected to the book on these grounds in California and North Carolina. The majority of black and white educators, however, praise the book. Among the works whose presence in school libraries or use in the classroom have been challenged as prejudiced or stereotypical

74

Chapter 3

of some group are Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, which some Jewish organizations have accused of anti-Semitism; Mario Puzo’s The Godfather, which drew fire from some Italian-Americans; Harper Lee’s novel To Kill a Mockingbird, which some black groups claim is racist; and the Montana Blackfeet saga Fools Crow, which some Native Americans charge is prejudicial, in part because of its use of the word “squaw.” In 1984, a group of black educators called for a ban on classroom use of any book employing the word “nigger,” regardless of context and intent.73 Since then, complaints about books with the word have increased. Probably the most frequent target has been Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (see below), but other widely praised classics have also been criticized on these grounds. In the late 1990s, three independent single-person campaigns to have the word “nigger” dropped or redefined in the MerriamWebster’s Collegiate Dictionary eventually resulted in petitions with tens of thousands of signatures to some publishers and threats of dictionary boycotts. In 1997, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) announced that it would join the campaign to drop or change the definition, which described “nigger” as, among other things, “a black person.”74 It should (but, unfortunately, cannot) go without saying that “nigger” is now and has always been a vile racist epithet. No reasonable argument can be made for schools presenting this word in some sort of “neutral” or “value-free” manner. Having stressed this, however, it must be recognized that the word appears in a variety of contexts in a number of important and traditionally studied works of literature, including several whose overall message favors racial equality and tolerance. In Modesto, California, a parent and local NAACP official asked the school board to remove John Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men—a frequent target of those upset by profanity—from a reading list because of its use of the word. More recently, another California district voted to take the classic children’s novel Little House in the Big Woods, by Laura Ingalls Wilder, from a literature list because it refers to African-Americans as “darkeys.” Native American groups have also objected to the Wilder books.75 In one revealing incident a young teacher in Brooklyn, New York, who is white, read to her predominantly African-American and Hispanic students the book Nappy Hair, a story about a black girl with “the kinkiest, the nappiest, the fuzziest, the most screwed

Issues in Dispute

75

up, squeezed up, knotted up, tangled up, twisted up” hair. The students liked the rhythm of the story, which was written to promote ethnic pride, but they also liked that the girl looked like them. Yet when the teacher provided some students with photocopies of the book, in which its brightly colored illustrations appeared as crude caricatures, the school was besieged with protesters, only one of whom had a child in the class. The teacher was threatened with violence and, fearing for her safety, fled the school under police protection and resigned. After a day of review, the school backed the teacher and Nappy Hair. Another meeting of 60 parents saw only a minority criticize the book. But the damage was done. Despite an appeal by New York City Schools Superintendent Rudy Crew, the teacher declined to return to the school. The Nappy Hair controversy, while extreme, highlights some of the complexities of the debate over racism in children’s literature. A book intended by its African-American author, Carolivia Herron, as an attempt to build self-esteem was perceived as degrading by some of its intended audience. “I would hope that other teachers would use books that would give children positive images of themselves,” Crew said. “There are lots of people who will unfortunately see this and recoil at the prospect of using material that may be even the slightest bit insulting because they won’t know the particulars of a culture. At the same time we are trying to give children strong images of themselves, we’re also sending a message that you better not do it if you are a white teacher.” The Nappy Hair incident triggered another censorship incident in the same local district when a principal decided to bar the critically acclaimed book War Comes to Willy Freeman from classroom use by sixth graders. The book, by Christopher and James Lincoln Collier, uses the word “nigger” in a historical context in one passage. The principal decided against permitting its use out of fear it would generate the same kind of outcry as Nappy Hair.76 Christopher Collier has explained why his books use the word “nigger”: Our use of “the N-word” is intended to deepen the depiction of the misery of slavery and of the degraded status of free blacks, as well. Most of our readers are white. It is our effort to convey to them the trials of people of African antecedents in North America. We want youngsters to understand the difficulties of growing up black in America. . . . In all of these novels the word nigger is unavoidable if anything close to historical verisimilitude is to be drawn. But beyond

76

Chapter 3 that the word is necessary in order to portray in a way that evokes an emotional response that draws the reader into the story, the horrible condition of enslaved African-Americans. We know that our approach to the historical roots of the nation’s race problem works. These books are used in largely black populated inner-city schools. We get approving fan letters from students there. . . . . . . as we write we use neither curse words nor racial slurs without giving them thorough consideration. We do not use nigger when some other term will do as well.77

The issue of sexism can be especially frustrating for school systems because the role of women in American society continues to change dramatically. In response to these changes, there have been complaints against textbooks and library materials which promote both traditional and newer female roles. Various nursery rhymes and children’s stories, which some feminists say promote negative images of women, have come under fire, while elsewhere conservative women’s organizations have objected to reading textbooks that portray women as professionals or skilled workers. They sometimes have argued that these denigrate the contributions of housewives and others who do more traditional women’s work. Of course such complaints—indeed, all complaints—should be handled with sensitivity. After all, it can hardly be said that all contemporary textbooks—not to mention works of literature—are free of prejudicial stereotyping, and most school selection policies and the laws of many states mandate the elimination of recognized bias, if not from the library then certainly from the classroom. Still, materials charged with racism or sexism need not, fundamentally, be treated in a manner different from those accused of profanity or witchcraft. As a rule, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic an educator may be with the fundamental goals and values of those who protest, materials which meet selection criteria should be retained and those which do not should be removed.

The Case of Huck Finn Mark Twain’s classic novel, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, and its character Nigger Jim provide a case in point that has become a major focus of controversy. A growing number of AfricanAmerican parents, civil rights activists, and educators have called for an end to the teaching of this book in English classes, and a few

Issues in Dispute

77

have even demanded its removal from school libraries. In 1998, the Pennsylvania NAACP called on school districts to remove the book from required reading lists. “We do understand there are many educators who can present the book after giving complete nonbiased background, and we commend those individuals,” the group said. “But because this is not universal, we cannot leave to chance the conscious or unconscious delivery of a message that can affect the self-esteem of our youth.” The NAACP objected in particular to those districts in which “this book is read aloud and there may be only one or very few African American students in a classroom full of white students.”78 In Tempe, Arizona, the mother of a high school student sued the Tempe Union High School District, charging that it violated the Constitution by requiring students to read Huckleberry Finn and other books containing racial slurs, including a short story by Nobel Prize winner William Faulkner. The mother, Kathy Monteiro, a Phoenix teacher, won support from the Phoenix Urban League, the Arizona NAACP, and the Nation of Islam, and her campaign at one point led school officials to forcibly remove her from school grounds. On October 19, 1999, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Monteiro’s suit. Requiring public school students to read literary works that some find racially offensive is not discrimination prohibited by the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the court decided in Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District. Courts cannot “ban books or other literary works from school curricula on the basis of their content . . . even when the works are accused of being racist,” the court unanimously agreed.79 That Huckleberry Finn belongs in just about every school library in America is generally accepted. When it comes to classroom instruction, however, the issue is not as simple. To be sure, sophisticated readers of the novel quickly perceive that Twain’s message is one of tolerance, and that Nigger Jim is one of the few positive characters that Huck meets in his travels. It is precisely because Huck and Jim transcend race that they have become symbols for the outcast—by choice and by compulsion—in American culture. Students, however, are generally not yet sophisticated readers, and if these messages are not communicated to them explicitly by the teacher, it is argued, the awesome power of the word “nigger” may burn a very different message on their minds. As the novel’s opponents point out, there are many classic American works conveying similar themes that could easily replace Twain.

78

Chapter 3

Critics of Huckleberry Finn often point to the especially uncomfortable position of African-American students in classes that are predominantly white. Incidents can certainly be documented where African-American students have been compelled against their will to read the part of Nigger Jim, while their classmates snickered about the character’s dialect; or where other instances of a teacher’s insensitivity to the feelings evoked by the word “nigger” led to embarrassment or insult. It might further be pointed out that even greater problems may be associated with teaching the book in classes with no minority students, where the racial issues in the book may be avoided, allowing prejudice to go unchallenged. However, the inability of some teachers to address the problem of racism with compassion and insight is one matter; blaming a book for this serious educational problem is quite another. Professor Jocelyn Chadwick-Joshua, an African-American, has campaigned to keep Huckleberry Finn in school curricula. When she first taught the novel to eleventh graders nearly three decades ago, however, she thought differently. “I was hung up on the word ‘nigger,’” she said. But after learning about Twain, an abolitionist who paid the bills for one of the first African-American students to graduate from Yale Law School, she concluded that the book is a satirical attack on the hypocrisy of racism. “It’s anti-racist,” she decided. “It is a problem for minorities to read works that are sensitive like that,” she acknowledged. “But it makes the race strong. It makes us aware, culturally aware, of where we’ve come from.” She stresses that preparation is key. “If you’re going to teach that kind of work, students need to know the history before they begin the actual reading. Otherwise, they just don’t get it.”80 In 1995, a conference on the teaching of Huckleberry Finn was held in New Haven, Connecticut, under the sponsorship of the Mark Twain House museum, after the novel was banned from a New Haven classroom because of objections to the word “nigger” by African-American parents. The featured speaker was David Bradley, a novelist and professor of English at Temple University, who is African-American. He told those attending that in a classroom already rife with racial divisions, a book like Huckleberry Finn could make matters worse. But in recent years the novel has been too easily dismissed, he added, in the interests of keeping a lid on problems that could be examined and perhaps alleviated by studying Twain’s work. “Sometimes we have to remind ourselves we can handle this,” Bradley said. “And sometimes parents forget what a good teacher

Issues in Dispute

79

can do. So much of this involves the ‘authority of the skin.’ What bothers me is to see someone who’s been teaching for 20, 22, 28 years simply blown away by someone who’s loud and of the other color. Isn’t the classroom the safest place for a child to encounter a potentially harmful word—and in the hands of a skilled teacher— instead of on the playground?” Bradley contends that many who call Twain a racist “have forgotten what fiction is. We try to read fiction in this country as if it were the newspaper. It’s the idea that depicting the act is the same as promoting that act, as if an author putting words in a character’s mouth means [the author is] saying it.”81 It is not the purpose of this book to recommend or not recommend the teaching of Huckleberry Finn or any other specific work. That the book can be taught to both white and black students in a manner that develops the students’ appreciation of racial equality as well as of literature is incontestable. Whether every school or teacher is in a position to do this, however, may not always be so clear. Whatever the case, the decision should be made by the local school district on the basis of a thorough consideration and discussion, according to appropriate policies and procedures, of the educational merits and demerits of teaching this or any other book, and not in response to censorship pressures exerted on the school. Those who oppose the teaching of Huckleberry Finn or other allegedly racist or sexist materials, no more nor less than those who oppose the use of books on the occult or works of literature with frank depictions of sexuality, have every right to participate in and contribute to the selection process. What they may not do is impose their views in ways that prevent the schools from fulfilling their mission of educating youth in the democratic spirit of both decision by majority vote and tolerance of and respect for minority opinions and values.

CHAPTER

4

Establishing Selection Policies The integrity of the process of professional teachers making professional judgments in the selection of educational resources is protected against threats of censorship by having a school board which believes in resisting censorship and in supporting the Bill of Rights. Minnesota Civil Liberties Union1

any challenges to academic freedom go unchecked or are mishandled simply because preparations have not been made for an effective response. An arsenal of defenses must be available to the school at the moment a confrontation begins with a would-be censor. Every school system should, therefore, have a comprehensive written policy on the selection of all instructional and library materials—including textbooks, library books, periodicals, films, videotapes, and recordings. A materials selection policy will help define and promote the educational goals of the school. It also will serve as a defense against censorship efforts. A written policy is essential for three main reasons. First, haphazard patterns of acquisition are unprofessional and result in waste. Materials may overlap in content or may be unrelated to changing patterns of instruction. Second, a written policy encourages stability and continuity. Staff may come and go, but the policy and procedures manual, kept up-to-date, will help assure smooth transitions when organizational changes occur. Finally, ambiguity and confusion are far less likely to result if a school’s policies are set down clearly and concisely for all to see. A comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional and library

M

80

Establishing Selection Policies

81

materials assists school professionals in rationally explaining the school program to the community. In a crisis, when there are complaints about social studies texts, human development materials, or works of fiction in the library or classroom, the use of the “objectionable” item can be justified and explained in accordance with general principles established by the school system.

Who Makes Policy? Good selection policies and procedures will be formulated with input from a wide variety of sources. Depending upon the size and nature of the school system, policies may exist at several levels. There may be a district policy setting overall guidelines and a school policy that adapts district rules to a specific educational situation. Within a school, especially a large one, the librarian may enjoy a certain degree of autonomy in working out policies and procedures, as may individual departments. Although those preparing policies and procedures should welcome participation by citizen groups, parents, and students, responsibility for the selection and reconsideration of instructional and library materials lies ultimately with the school board and, more immediately, with the school district’s professional staff. The school board will receive input from the community regarding courses to be made available, and it has the right and the responsibility to set guidelines for adopting school courses, reevaluating the content of those courses, and formulating a due process procedure for handling complaints from the community. The school board ultimately has the responsibility to resolve controversial matters that cannot be worked out between the professional staff and the community. This should be stressed, however: Legal precedents establish that school board members do not have the right to impose “narrowly partisan or political” beliefs and biases on the district, even where these biases may reflect majority views (see chapter 6). As Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. has written, “Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas.” However, the Supreme Court has ruled that school boards may restrict literature that is “pervasively vulgar” (the Court offered no definition of this term) or educationally unsuitable.2 Although the school board’s responsibility is to establish guidelines, leaving elaboration and implementation to staff, board members are also obliged to stay in regular contact with district professionals;

82

Chapter 4

keep informed about selection decisions and potential conflicts; and offer systematic guidance, where appropriate. How this is done may vary from district to district. A single board member may be assigned special responsibilities in the area of materials selection, or there may be a standing committee, perhaps composed of board members, administrators, and instructional and library staff, responsible for regular oversight of resources and teaching methods. Often lists of books and other materials are submitted to boards for a vote, sometimes after a period during which these are made available to board members and the public for inspection. In no event, however, should the full board be kept in the dark, intentionally or inadvertently, about how materials are selected, about what kinds of materials are being used, and, most important, about the principles governing selection policy—including the professional principles of academic and intellectual freedom. Establishing avenues of communication and familiarizing board members with selection criteria and procedures and with library and classroom materials only in the midst of a crisis will not be conducive to effective conflict resolution. School professionals have the primary responsibility to determine the content of courses offered by the school district and to select appropriate teaching methods and educational resources. Teachers and librarians should work closely with administrators and school board members in formulating, revising, and implementing all selection policies and procedures. In most instances, policies will be developed or revised by teachers and librarians and referred to administrators and the board for approval or, if necessary, amendment. School board approval may be critical to giving the policy statement legal force. At the request of the principal or district administration, teachers and librarians have the responsibility to explain and clarify to the

AASA Resolution Supports Academic Freedom For a number of years, the American Association of School Administrators has gone on record to stress the importance of schools doing their part to uphold academic freedom. Its 1988 resolution stated: AASA is concerned about indiscriminate, arbitrary, and/or capricious efforts to censor and limit academic freedom. AASA urges school boards to adopt appropriate policy for the selection, evaluation, and removal of instructional materials.

Establishing Selection Policies

83

public any courses offered by the school district. The professional staff also has the responsibility to respond to complaints and to justify their choices of educational resources and teaching methods. They too, however, do not have the right to impose personal, political, religious, social, or aesthetic beliefs or biases on their students.

Basic Components of a Selection Policy A materials selection statement should be positive.3 It should be a viable, working document that relates to concrete, everyday practices and problems. The statement should, in effect: Provide a plan for strengthening the breadth and depth of library and media center collections and of the instructional program. • Provide adequate detail to give clear guidance to individual staff members. • Be general enough to offer the flexibility necessary for creative and imaginative educational decision making. •

The policy statement should, of course, comply with and take note of any and all state laws governing school textbook and instructional materials selection policy. Where appropriate, the statement may reproduce relevant excerpts from applicable statutes or codes. The policy statement should be clearly written and avoid jargon. It should be understandable and accessible to members of the community. Although the length of the statement will depend in great measure on the size and complexity of the district it is intended to serve, as a rule excess verbiage should be avoided. Long and rambling policy statements are not only unwieldy, they tend to be forgotten. An effective written materials selection policy will include the following six components: A brief discussion of the philosophy and objectives for the selection of educational resources in the district or school. • A statement delegating responsibilities for the selection of materials to appropriate professional school personnel (e.g., teachers representing various departments and grade levels and librarians). • A statement delineating specific criteria to be used in the selection of instructional and library materials and teaching methods. •

84

Chapter 4

A step-by-step description of selection procedures from initial screening to final selection. • A section directly addressing problems associated with the acquisition of controversial materials, including statements in support of academic and intellectual freedom and opposing censorship. • A clear statement of procedures for review of challenged materials and for community and parental input. Each specific step to be taken when a request for reconsideration is made, and all possible avenues of appeal, should be listed. •

Objectives A good materials selection statement will elucidate in succinct terms what the schools are trying to accomplish in their program of services and the specific objectives in given areas of service. The overarching goal may be expressed in the broadest terms. For example, for the district as a whole, the policy may state: Instructional materials are selected by the school district to implement, enrich, and support the educational program for the student. Materials must serve both the breadth of the curriculum and the needs and interests of individual students. It is the obligation of the district to provide for a wide range of abilities and to respect the diversity of many differing points of view. To this end, principles must be placed above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in the selection of materials of the highest quality and appropriateness.

For the library or media center the statement may declare that its main objective is “to provide the students with a wide range of educational materials that will enrich and support the curriculum and meet the needs of students and faculty.” This may then be broken down to more specific objectives such as providing background materials to supplement classroom instruction, to provide access to classics of American and world literature, or to provide a broad range of materials on current issues of controversy to help students develop critical analytic skills. It may also be noted that the library’s philosophy is “to provide resources on all levels of difficulty, with diversity of appeal, allowing for the presentation of many different points of view.” The objectives for selection should reflect the specific goals of the instructional program. In the case of textbooks, the goals may

Establishing Selection Policies

85

vary from subject to subject. For example, in the sciences, one principal goal might be accuracy in terms of the latest scientific knowledge; while in history, diversity and balance in the presentation of conflicting points of view might be emphasized.

Responsibility for Selection The policy will precisely define responsibility for selection of all types of materials. It will name by professional position those persons responsible in each area of selection. Since, in most states, the locally elected or appointed school board has, by law, broad powers and responsibility in the selection of instructional materials, this responsibility should be explicitly delegated in policy to appropriate professionals. The policy should state exactly who is responsible for selection of specified types of materials. Avenues of communication between professionals and the board and procedures for involving all parties, including the board, should be indicated in general terms. While selection of materials involves many people, including administrators, supervisors, teachers, library media specialists, students, and community residents, the responsibility for coordinating and recommending the selection and purchase of library media materials should rest with certificated library media personnel. Responsibility for coordinating the selection and purchase of textbooks and other classroom materials may rest with appropriate department chairs, textbook evaluation committees, or curriculum specialists. Teachers should retain some flexibility to choose for their own classes supplementary materials and, in some instances, textbooks—in accordance with criteria and procedures established in policy. Here is a sample statement of responsibility for a district: The Board of Education will delegate to the Superintendent the authority and responsibility for selection of all print and non-print materials. Responsibilities for actual selection will rest with appropriate professionally trained personnel who shall discharge this obligation consistent with the Board’s adopted selection criteria and procedures. Selection procedures will involve representatives of the professional staff directly affected by the selections, and persons qualified by preparation to aid in wise selection.

Such a statement should be followed by more detailed statements of responsibility for selection of basal textbooks, supplementary classroom materials, and library and media center resources.

86

Chapter 4

Criteria In terms of subject matter covered, the policy must include selection criteria, and the application of criteria, relevant to the various objectives stated previously in the policy. These will include artistic or literary excellence, appropriateness to level of user, authenticity, interest, cost, and circumstances of use. Technical criteria, such as clarity of sound in audio materials, can be included as well. Although specific criteria to be used in the evaluation of potentially controversial materials should be fully elaborated in a special section, the overall treatment of selection criteria should include statements indicating how the school puts into practice its commitments to diversity and tolerance. It may be advisable in many instances to list both general and more specific selection criteria. A statement of general selection criteria might include the following: Instructional and library materials will be selected according to the following criteria as they apply: 1. Learning resources will support and be consistent with the general educational goals of the state and district and the aims and objectives of individual schools and specific courses. 2. Learning resources will meet high standards of quality in factual content and presentation. 3. Learning resources will be appropriate for the subject area and for the age, emotional development, ability level, learning styles, and social development of the students for whom the materials are selected. 4. Physical format and appearance of learning resources will be suitable for their intended use. 5. Learning resources will be designed to help students gain an awareness of our diverse society. 6. Learning resources will be designed to motivate students and staff to examine their own attitudes and behaviors and to comprehend their own duties, responsibilities, rights, and privileges as participating citizens in our society. 7. Learning resources will be selected for their strengths, rather than rejected for their weaknesses. 8. The selection of learning resources on controversial issues will be directed toward maintaining a balanced collection representing various views. 9. Learning resources will clarify historical and contemporary forces by presenting and analyzing intergroup tension and con-

Establishing Selection Policies

87

flict objectively, placing emphasis on recognizing and understanding social and economic problems. To guide the professional staff with responsibility for selection, and to minimize the arbitrary and personal element that inevitably invades even the most carefully structured selection process, criteria should also be spelled out as specifically as possible for each type of material selected. Among specific criteria which may be listed in the policy are: • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Educational significance. Contribution the subject matter makes to the curriculum and to the interests of the students. Favorable reviews found in standard selection sources. Favorable recommendations based on preview and examination of materials by professional personnel. Reputation and significance of the author, producer, or publisher. Validity, up-to-dateness, and appropriateness of material. Contribution the material makes to breadth of representative viewpoints. High degree of potential user appeal. High artistic quality and/or literary style. Quality and variety of format. Value commensurate with cost and/or need. Timeliness or permanence. Integrity.

Bibliographies, review journals, and other selection aids to be consulted should be listed by name. But a policy should not permit ratings systems devised by outside agencies, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) motion picture rating system, to substitute for independent criteria established by the school district.

Procedures The policy statement should describe all steps in the selection process from initial screening to final selection. The purpose of this section of the policy statement is not only to indicate to responsible staff how criteria are to be applied, but also to clarify to community members how the school goes about acquiring instructional and library materials.

88

Chapter 4

Procedures should provide clear and effective mechanisms for coordination among departments and professional staff; for handling recommendations from faculty, students, parents, and community groups; and for the ongoing review of existing materials for replacement due to wear and tear, supersession by more up-to-date works, and so forth. Any special procedures pertinent to library collection development or classroom materials acquisition should be spelled out. If specific selection aids were not listed in the previous section of the policy, a statement indicating that those responsible for selection will consult reputable reviewing sources would be appropriate here. The statement should include at least a partial list of approved selection aids. In some cases, it may also be advisable to list review sources which are not to be used. The statement should note that gifts donated to the school library or media collection, or items submitted to the school for free distribution in class as educational materials, will be judged according to the same criteria as materials purchased by the school district. The policy might also explain any procedure whereby permission will be granted for the showing of videos not owned by the school district, whereby guest speakers will be allowed to address individual classes or larger groups of students or faculty, and indicate criteria and procedures governing student theatrical performances.

Controversial Materials The policy should directly address problems associated with the acquisition of potentially controversial materials. The document should include here a statement on academic freedom and the importance of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance in a democratic society. This is the appropriate place to emphasize, in the most sweeping manner, the district’s commitment to oppose censorship. The rights and responsibilities of both teachers and students to discuss and consider controversial issues in an atmosphere free from bias and prejudice should be delineated. With respect to libraries and media centers, the policy should specifically endorse the ALA Library Bill of Rights by including in the text a statement which might read: “The school system subscribes in principle to the statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed in the American Library Association Library Bill of Rights, a copy of which is appended to and made an integral part of this policy.” (Many existing district selection policies include

Establishing Selection Policies

89

endorsement of the American Association of School Librarians’ 1969 School Library Bill of Rights. This document has been superseded by the broader Library Bill of Rights, and selection policies should be amended to reflect this fact.) The statement might also endorse and even include the texts of some other relevant policy statements by national education organizations. Although the selection policy should mainly steer away from efforts to formulate distinct policy principles with regard to current and specific areas of controversy, some districts have found it useful to include in their selection policies statements concerning racism and sexism or vulgar language in classroom and library materials. A simple statement that profanity, “dirty” words, or sexually oriented subject matter do not in themselves constitute grounds for exclusion may be useful and appropriate. Beyond this, however, statements about areas of potential controversy should be phrased only in the broadest terms, using language designed to include as many worthwhile works as possible. While diverse and “balanced” library collections should be sought, the policy statement should definitely not mandate that individual works conform to some standard of objectivity and factual accuracy. In controversial areas, it is often precisely the definition of what can be called “objective” that is at issue. Library collections should include works with distinctive and conflicting points of view on controversial issues, and not only works that purport to stand above the fray and comment evenhandedly on several contesting opinions.

Reconsideration Despite the quality of the selection process, occasional objections to instructional and library materials are to be expected. Therefore, the procedure for handling complaints and for reconsidering challenged materials should be clearly enunciated in the policy statement. This procedure should establish a framework for registering a complaint that provides for a hearing with appropriate action. At the same time, it should defend the principles of academic freedom, the student’s right of access to materials, and the professional responsibility and integrity of the faculty. Review of challenged materials should be treated objectively and unemotionally—as an important, but routine action. Every effort should be made to weigh objections in the light of established

90

Chapter 4

policy criteria. The policy should stress that informal inquiries about curricular matters are welcome, permitting the swift resolution of complaints through calm and courteous discussion. It must be stressed, however, that informal reviews should only result in the retention of a challenged work. No materials should be removed without a formal hearing in accordance with the full reconsideration policy. Moreover, no materials should be removed upon the authority of a single staff member or school official, up to and including the superintendent of schools. Removals should be authorized only by a Reconsideration Committee responsible to the school board. Avenues of appeal to the board should be clearly delineated for both those who seek a work’s removal and those who desire its retention. The policy should indicate that, if informal discussion does not resolve the issue, a complainant is entitled to file a written complaint. The school district should supply a form for such a complaint, a sample version of which is included in appendix D of this volume. The policy should state that the “burden of proof,” so to speak, is on those who challenge materials already used in the school. While the reconsideration process is proceeding, challenged materials should remain available to faculty and students as before. Although a student whose family has filed an objection to classroom materials may sometimes be temporarily excused from using those materials or given a substitute according to district policy, library resources should remain on open shelves until found—after a full hearing—not to meet selection criteria. The policy should provide for a Reconsideration Committee. The composition of this committee will vary from place to place according to local conditions. Where possible, it should be a standing and not an ad hoc body, although this may not be possible where challenges are few. Where it is not feasible to indicate the composition of the committee in the policy itself, its method of appointment should be spelled out. Usually, it will be the responsibility of the principal or the district superintendent to name the committee. Direct appointment by the school board or even elective forms of composing the group may also be considered. If nothing else, these methods may protect against the charge that the body has been “packed” to favor a single administrator’s desires. The committee should, in any event, be composed principally of professional staff, including teachers and librarians, with representation from the school administration and, in some smaller dis-

Establishing Selection Policies

91

tricts, perhaps the school board. Many districts also include community members and parents on the Reconsideration Committee. This may be useful in building confidence and trust between the community and the school system, but it should be clearly spelled out that the power to decide the issue rests not with individual parents or activists, but with the responsible professional staff and, ultimately, with the school board, which in most places is elected by the community as a whole. Community members and parents should never constitute a majority on the committee, and, if possible, they should have a consultative voice, but no vote. By no means should the person filing the complaint be part of the committee. Some districts have mandated the inclusion of local clergy on Reconsideration Committees. While religious leaders share with others the right to actively participate as individuals in school affairs and on all school committees, it is not advisable—and probably unconstitutional—for a public school system to mandate the participation of local religious authorities in the work of a Reconsideration Committee. The Reconsideration Committee should have clearly defined procedures for functioning, and the policy should indicate to whom its decision is to be referred. Complainants should be given an opportunity to present their specific charges orally, as well as being required to present them in writing. Procedures for organizing public hearings and soliciting testimony in favor of retaining challenged materials should also be spelled out. The Reconsideration Committee should consider all complaints with an open mind, and even if the complainant has not reviewed an entire work, but only “browsed through” it, committee members should still base their judgment on an assessment of the work as a whole. The committee should resolve the controversy by applying the objectives and criteria adopted in the relevant selection policy. As already noted, avenues of appeal should be open to both those who favor and those who oppose the removal of specific classroom or library materials. Usually, the body to which appeals are addressed will be the school board or, in especially large districts, perhaps a board committee. Procedures for filing appeals with the board should be included in the policy statement. All hearings before the board should be open to the public. Of course, those who do not wish to abide by a board decision have ultimate recourse to the courts, but this will be relatively rare (see chapter 6).

92

Chapter 4

The Completed Policy It hardly needs to be said that preparation of a complete policy statement requires work—a great amount of it. A model policy is included in appendix E, but no model will be appropriate to each and every district. The final format and organization of the materials selection statement will depend, of course, on the particularities of the school system concerned. One possible table of contents, however, might look like this:

Part 1: Selection of Materials I. Statement of Policy II. Selection Objectives III. Responsibility for Selection A. Delegation of Responsibility to Professional Staff B. Responsibility for Library/Media Center Selection C. Responsibility for Textbook Selection D. Responsibility for Selection of Supplementary Classroom Materials IV. Selection Criteria A. General Criteria B. Specific Criteria: Library Materials C. Specific Criteria: Classroom Materials D. Specific Criteria: Videos, Speakers, etc. V. Policy on Controversial Materials A. General Statement B. Library Bill of Rights Part 2: Selection Procedures I. Procedures for Policy Implementation A. Selection Aids B. Recommendation Procedures C. Gifts D. Special Concerns II. Evaluation and Review of Existing Materials III. Procedures for Dealing with Challenges A. Request for Informal Review B. Request for Formal Review C. The Reconsideration Committee D. Resolution and Appeal

Establishing Selection Policies

93

A Working Document Once adopted, the materials selection policy should not simply be filed away and forgotten. It must be kept up-to-date and used. All professional staff members should be given a copy of the policy, and workshops should be held to explain its principles and operation. A good policy can also be an effective organizing tool in defending the district against censorship. The process by which the policy is formulated should provide an opportunity for administrators and staff to familiarize the school board with the important principles upon which a good selection policy will be based. This effort can and should continue once the policy is adopted. It may even be appropriate regularly to resubmit the selection policy statement to review by the board, perhaps after each election. This will provide an opportunity for school officials and staff to “take the pulse” of the board and to express their own continued support for academic and intellectual freedom. The policy can also be useful in developing public understanding. Some districts have found it effective to print relevant sections of their policy statements as attractive and readable brochures for public distribution. Formulating and maintaining an effective materials selection policy is one way of building a network of support for intellectual freedom in education before a censorship incident occurs. For ultimately the best defense against school censorship is an aroused and supportive community, represented by an informed and committed school board.

Student Rights and the Student Press In addition to a materials selection statement, school districts need to develop written policies delineating student expressive rights and specifically, where applicable, the rights of student journalists, both those working on periodicals sponsored by the school and those who seek to distribute their own or other outside publications on school grounds.4 Such a policy should include a general statement of student rights and responsibilities. Since student expression that will cause “substantial disruption” to school functions may legally be curtailed, the nature of such disruption and examples of impermissible forms of expression should be clearly indicated in language that students will easily understand.

94

Chapter 4

With regard to the student press, according to model guidelines formulated by the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C. (see appendix F), a policy statement should: • • •

• •

•

Explicitly indicate that school-sponsored publications are “forums for student expression.” Outline the responsibilities of student journalists. List the kinds of materials student publications are prohibited from publishing. These should include only obscene, libelous, and “substantially disruptive” material. It should be explicitly indicated that material stimulating heated discussion or debate does not necessarily constitute the type of disruption prohibited. Establish broad guidelines for advertising, if advertising is to be accepted. Outline guidelines for the distribution of nonschool-sponsored publications. These publications should enjoy substantially the same protections as sponsored publications. Specify the rights of any faculty adviser to a student publication. Ideally, a statement should be included to the effect that no teacher will be disciplined for failure to exercise editorial control over a student publication or to otherwise suppress the rights of free expression of student journalists.

School publications should not be censored because of their treatment of controversial public issues, if that treatment is not libelous, obscene, or an invasion of privacy. School publications policy should not prohibit criticism of school policies or practices, and funds should be guaranteed irrespective of editorial policy. School publications should be allowed to print material written by nonstudents.

Videos and the Internet Selection policies should include criteria and procedures for the acquisition of educational videos, computer software, and other such instructional materials. Although most video purchases by school districts are of unrated educational productions, districts that also purchase commercial movies should establish clear criteria for their acquisition other than the MPAA rating system. A distinction should also be made between videos purchased for classroom use and videos available to students through the school library. Library video col-

Establishing Selection Policies

95

lections are free to include a broader range of viewpoints and subject matter than a collection developed solely for classroom viewing and should be governed by the library’s overall selection policy, based on the principles of the Library Bill of Rights. Given the high cost of many video productions and their often ready and inexpensive availability through public libraries and video rental companies, schools and individual teachers frequently obtain videos for classroom use from outside the school’s own collection. The school or individual teachers may rent videos for educational purposes or simply to entertain students, both during and outside of school hours. Districts should create a clear policy statement governing such use of outside videos. The policy should establish when and where the showing of such videos is appropriate on school property and should define appropriate and inappropriate classroom uses of such videos. The policy may indicate that videos should have a clear educational connection to the established curriculum. If commercial videos are to be shown for student entertainment, criteria for appropriate times and the kinds of films to be shown should be included. As previously noted, such criteria must not be based solely, or even mainly, on MPAA or other film ratings systems. Such a policy should also establish clear procedures whereby the showing of videos will be approved. If individual teachers are given discretion in the choice of videos, the criteria they must use should be explicitly articulated. While it is not recommended that school administrators approve every video showing in advance, clear lines of authority and responsibility for video selection should be established. One alternative would be to create a video review committee of faculty and administrators to serve as an advisory, approval, or appeals body. Like the overall materials selection policy, the video policy should include a discussion of controversial materials, including a discussion of videos with educational merit but which also include images of sexual activity or violence. Procedures might be established whereby parents are notified when some controversial videos will be shown, although this should not become commonplace. In no instance should a policy simply ban all R-rated films.5 The school district should also create a policy regarding student and faculty computer use and access to the Internet. The policy should clearly indicate appropriate uses of computers, including appropriate times and locations for Internet access. The policy should make clear that computers in the school library, including those

96

Chapter 4

with Internet access, are part of the library and hence subject to the same principles of intellectual freedom and access applicable to the print collection. It is not recommended that districts install filtering software on computers in either school libraries or classrooms. If Internet access is to be made available in classrooms, the purpose of such access should be clear. Computers with Internet access in school libraries should be available to students under well-defined rules that permit access to the broadest array of resources on the Internet for the greatest number of students. If district resources permit only a limited number of terminals, reasonable criteria and procedures for rationing access may be established. Where there is concern that students may use Internet access in ways inappropriate to the school’s mission—for instance, by viewing pornography—the policy can develop practical alternatives to filtering. For one thing, the policy should clearly define appropriate uses of the Internet. It might be indicated that Internet access is provided for student research projects only, or, alternately, the district may indicate that Internet access is available to students without restriction to this purpose. The policy should also define inappropriate uses, including access to sites that offer potentially obscene materials or materials that may be deemed “harmful to minors,” although here care should be taken to conform with applicable legal definitions of these terms. Notices defining appropriate and inappropriate use of the Internet should be made available to students and posted prominently in libraries and classrooms where such access is available. The policy should also establish procedures whereby librarians or teachers may discipline students who abuse Internet access in ways defined by the policy, as well as establishing procedures for students to appeal such actions. One practical way that schools can limit inappropriate computer use in school is to situate all terminals accessible to students in such a manner that their screens are clearly visible, including to the librarian or teacher in charge. Finally, a district Internet policy should establish well-defined criteria and procedures for the creation of student web pages on school servers, if the school offers such a service. The principles governing such criteria and procedures will resemble those governing student print publications. Court decisions indicate that a school may not regulate student web sites created on home computers or on a private server, although such sites—like all Internet sites—may be accessed on school computers, unless such sites visibly interfere with school functions or create a clear danger to students or staff.

CHAPTER

5

What Do We Do If . . . ? In a democratic society, where it is natural for parents and others to have concern for the education of children, it is reasonable to expect that there will be questions and complaints regarding content of educational resources, class programs, and teaching methods. Such complaints are allowable in our society and should never be labeled as inappropriate or harmful in and of themselves. Minnesota Civil Liberties Union1

hen school districts follow the policies and procedures outlined in this book, the overwhelming majority of complaints will be resolved without undue controversy, very often to the mutual satisfaction of the district and the complainant.2 But sometimes, despite the protections offered by a sound materials selection policy and review procedure, a major censorship incident still develops. A censorship incident usually begins with a citizen’s complaint about specific school library or classroom materials. The complaint may be lodged with the librarian or teacher, or a complainant may go directly to a principal or other administrator or even to a school board member. In general, the complainant’s immediate aim is to inform the school that the materials in question are unacceptable, but sometimes there is already an element of “grandstanding” at play. In some cases, the complainant may assume that the school will immediately agree that the materials are not appropriate. This may reflect ignorance about basic principles of education, which can readily be corrected in one or two informal discussions. In other cases, however, even a neutral response from the school that the complaint will need to be considered according to established review procedures and that until a formal decision is made, the

W

97

98

Chapter 5

material will remain in use, may provoke outrage and charges that the school is harming the community’s youth. A would-be censor may want to state publicly that “objectionable” materials have been found in the schools and may even attend a meeting of the school board to announce this “discovery.” Sections of the objectionable work may be read aloud or distributed in writing to the school board, local press, and public, sometimes even before an oral, not to mention written, complaint has been submitted to school personnel. An ad hoc censorship organization may be formed, or some previously organized pressure group may jump on the censorship bandwagon, sometimes at the initiative of a complainant, but not infrequently without his or her support or even knowledge. Even if a pressure group is loosely organized, would-be censors can use it effectively to promote a statement of purposes among other community groups; to conduct letter-writing campaigns to district officials, board members, and the media; and to circulate petitions. The organization might also seek to influence school funding, administrative appointments, and the election of board members.

Some General Rules When a censorship incident does threaten to mushroom into a crisis, the first basic rule for everyone involved is do not panic! No matter how belligerent and seemingly unreasonable complainants or their supporters may become—no matter how much some local politicians, the media, or assorted independent careerists and crusaders may distort the issues—the school district and its professional staff should strive to maintain a calm and professional attitude. Those involved should insist that established policies and procedures be upheld. Though a careful and reasoned response must be made to all allegations, the discussion should be focused on the real issues. Defenders of intellectual and academic freedom should at all times refrain from making personal attacks on their opponents, no matter how justified this may at times seem. One form of panic is to overreact to a complaint. Although it may be tempting to immediately “pull out all the stops” in meeting a censorship challenge, this could be detrimental. Too many false alarms make it difficult to mobilize broad support when it is truly needed. Outside involvement may also force people and institu-

What Do We Do If . . . ?

99

tions into dogmatic positions from which they find it difficult to compromise or retreat. It is generally not useful to place people in positions in which they will “lose face” by backing down. Each censorship incident has its own peculiar history. School personnel must generally plot their strategy and tactics on a case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, the following principles have generally proven useful: •

Keep staff informed. If the incident involves a single school library or classroom teacher, all professional staff members should be kept fully abreast of the situation as it develops. A lack of internal communication could lead to serious and needless internal controversy and confusion.

•

Keep the board informed. Make certain that all members of the school district’s governing board are kept informed about the incident. Use this opportunity to reinforce their beliefs about the principles of academic freedom.

•

Follow district policy. Pro-censorship forces should not be allowed single-handedly to determine the agenda of debate. As soon as an incident develops, the school district should make clear that censorship is the issue and that existing district selection and review policies offer an adequate defense against truly inappropriate materials. The school’s ongoing program of public education about the principles of intellectual freedom should be intensified. All professional staff, board members, media representatives, and concerned citizens should receive a copy of the materials selection policy statement and other relevant materials.

•

Maintain neutrality. Until a review committee decision is made, the school district should maintain its neutrality about the merits or demerits of the challenged material, both in public statements by review committee members and school officials and by keeping the material in circulation pending review. Individual teachers and librarians, however, should be free to defend or criticize any challenged work according to their understanding of its merits and demerits and their interpretation of district policy.

•

Coordinate media relations. All statements to national, state, and local media should be centrally coordinated. Especially in larger districts where direct communication may be limited,

100

Chapter 5

school administrators should be sure to clear all public statements with teachers and librarians directly affected, and vice versa. In dealing with the media, it is important to stress the principles involved in the incident, to point out the implications of censorship for First Amendment freedoms, and to emphasize the school’s responsibility to educate its students to respect the diverse and pluralistic nature of our democracy. •

Build community support. Supporters of academic freedom should be informed of all public hearings and board and other meetings where the incident will be discussed. If radio or television talk shows or interviews are scheduled, supporters should be alerted so that they may attend or even participate. Pro-censorship forces should not be permitted to “pack” the audience at such events.

•

Maintain communication. In even the most strained situation, lines of communication with the complainants should always remain open. When communication breaks down, debate becomes emotional rather than intellectual. For this reason, it is best to meet with people in small groups, wherever possible. First Amendment rights of teachers and students are not negotiable, but an acceptable and principled solution to a crisis is generally better attained through dialogue than confrontation.

•

Involve legal counsel. If legal action is threatened, the school district’s legal counsel should be so advised at once. If the district does not have legal counsel, assistance can be obtained through several national organizations, including the Freedom to Read Foundation, whose attorneys are also available for consultation with local counsel. Lawsuits that initially seem of only local importance sometimes unexpectedly have a national impact.

•

Thank media, supporters. When an incident is settled, a responsible representative of the school district should write or personally thank the media representatives, organizations, legislators, officials, and other individuals who came forward to support academic freedom. If the issue is unresolved, these supporters should be kept regularly advised of the situation.

•

Evaluate efforts. After a challenge is resolved, key members of the professional staff, the school board, relevant government officials, and others involved with the incident should meet to summarize how the issue was handled and consider how procedures might be improved in the future.

What Do We Do If . . . ?

101

Preparing for a Crisis Well in advance of the appearance of a would-be censor, the school system must establish a materials selection policy, a procedure for handling complaints, and a public relations program. In addition, all school personnel should be made aware—by means including staff training and in-service programs—that at some time there will be complaints about educational materials and resources and, perhaps, about selection policy as well. As previously noted, school board members should be kept up-to-date on selection policies and procedures, and they should become familiar with the kinds of materials to be found in school classrooms and libraries. Both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have taken strong stands against school censorship. Administrators may wish to seek ways to involve local chapters of these teacher organizations in preparing for censorship incidents. It is essential to know what attitudes and forces exist in a given community or state and how these relate to national trends. Which people in the community have influence? What are their views about education and intellectual freedom? Which political, social, religious, business, and labor groups are potential allies? Which are potential supporters of censorship? What are their principal concerns? One important source of information and support in opposition to censorship is the library community. School librarians and administrators should develop a working relationship with the local public library. They should also be aware that all state library associations maintain standing Intellectual Freedom Committees that not only provide assistance in times of crisis, but frequently will work with school librarians to prepare for and prevent incidents. On the national level, the American Library Association maintains a full-time Office for Intellectual Freedom. The more that is known about the philosophies and beliefs held by potential censors, as well as their organizational goals and concerns, the better prepared schools will be to engage them in meaningful dialogue. In gathering information on potential censors, however, there is a danger of opposing censorship with the tactics of the censor. Educators should avoid practices that involve the prejudgment and labeling of groups and individuals as censors. Since almost any individual or group with strong opinions can use the tactics of a censor, maintaining lists of “censorship organizations” and potential complainants is both wrong and ineffective. School personnel should try to avoid developing an adversary relationship

102

Chapter 5

with any individual or group interested in education, even if that interest seems likely to result in censorship activity. Building a reputation for receptivity, openness, fairness, and friendliness toward the entire community can only enhance the standing of public schools and strengthen the defense of academic freedom. In general, members of the mass media are among the best potential allies in the fight against school censorship. Much has already been done to make the national media aware of the problem. Just about every major television network, every major newspaper, and many national magazines have carried feature stories on challenges to instructional and school library materials. Although the more nationally oriented the media, the more likely they seem to be sympathetic to educators’ concerns, many local journalists have also proved to be strong supporters of academic freedom. The media seek out conflict. Hence, at moments of controversy, school administrators, teachers, and librarians may find media attention suddenly thrust upon them. But such attention will be easier to handle, and more likely to result in a fair presentation of the schools’ position, if at all times regular contact is maintained with appropriate media personnel. Those charged by a school district with media relations should consider it part of their ongoing activity to publicize the district’s materials selection principles and policies. Letters to the editor, newspaper columns, radio and television interviews, and talk shows are some useful ways to get out the word. In addition, any staff members likely to find themselves at the center of a censorship controversy should receive some in-service training in public and media relations.

Dealing with the News Media The following general principles will be useful to those contacted by the media: Try to get all the information possible about the story or program. Don’t be afraid to ask questions of the reporter. • Have the facts at hand. Avoid commenting without first thinking through the situation. It is permissible to get questions from a reporter and answer them at a later time, especially if the reporter has simply telephoned. • Don’t offer personal opinions. Stick to facts, policy, and the explication of basic principles. •

What Do We Do If . . . ? • •

•

• •

103

Try not to become embroiled in particulars. Move the discussion to the larger issue of intellectual freedom and censorship. Don’t assume those with whom you are speaking know the background of the issue. Be prepared to provide background information and to recommend resources. Don’t make long speeches. Reduce your arguments to one or two pithy sentences so you won’t be quoted “out of context.” This is especially important with the broadcast media. Control your emotions. Try to identify with your audience and speak to their concerns. Try to think of all the questions you might be asked and prepare convincing responses in advance. A meeting with a writer or reporter, or an appearance on radio or television, no matter how brief, needs preparation.

Handling the Initial Complaint As in handling any type of complaint about school operations, a courteous and calm approach is essential. Above all, complainants must know that they will be given serious consideration and that interest in the schools is welcome. Complainants who come to the school in person or telephone should be listened to courteously and invited to file a written complaint, if the problem cannot be resolved informally. If the complaint comes by letter, it should be acknowledged promptly. In either case, the complainant should be offered a prepared form for submitting a formal challenge. In addition, the rationale for having a formal complaint and review procedure should be explained. Having a prepared form is not just an additional piece of record keeping. There are a number of advantages. First, knowing that a response is ready and that there is a procedure to be followed, the teacher, librarian, or administrator will be relieved of much of the initial panic that may arise from a confrontation with an outspoken— even irate—parent or citizen. Also important, the complaint form asks complainants to state their objections in logical, unemotional terms. In addition, the form benefits the complainant. When citizens with complaints are asked to follow an established procedure for lodging their objections, they feel assured they are being properly heard and that their views will be considered. Filling out the form also compels complainants to “think through” their objections and clearly state their goals.

104

Chapter 5

If the initial complaint is made to a teacher or librarian directly, the appropriate administrator should be immediately informed of the encounter, regardless of its outcome. If the complaint is made to an administrator, one or two members of the professional staff who were involved in the selection decision or who use the material in question should, in most cases, be invited to participate. If the complaint is made to a school board member or to the board as a whole, the complainant should be permitted a brief statement and referred to the appropriate school official. Under no circumstance should a board member respond to such a complaint by voicing an opinion in advance of staff review. Rather, the board should express its confidence in the selection and review policy it has adopted. In any event, the initial response of the person receiving the complaint should be to listen. Find out what concerns motivate the complainant and investigate the complainant’s understanding of both the material in question and educational practice. Be sensitive to nonverbal as well as verbal forms of communication. It is not necessary to launch into a thorough defense of the challenged material at this time. Indeed, in some instances it may be advisable to withhold all judgment. More important is to explain how materials are selected and to stress the important principles of academic freedom and respect for diversity and pluralism which form the basis of the selection policy. The complainant should be informed that the school believes that the overwhelming majority of selection decisions do conform to district criteria, but that a reconsideration procedure is available. Since mistakes are possible, in a few cases the staff member may become convinced that the complaint is clearly justified, that the material in question does not meet district standards. In such a case, this opinion should not be voiced, at that time. The full review procedure should still be followed.

The Reconsideration Committee As soon as a written complaint form is filed, the objections should be reviewed. The review should consist of specific steps, although the number will vary according to the school situation. Once the committee is appointed, it should do the following: •

First, the person or committee that selected the item or, if not available, an appropriate substitute should evaluate the original reasons for the purchase. The objections should be considered

What Do We Do If . . . ?

105

in terms of the school’s materials selection policy, broader academic freedom principles, and the opinions of the various reviewing sources used in materials selection. • Second, the objections and the response should be forwarded to the individual with final responsibility for selection. This may be a teacher, librarian, or administrator, depending upon the school and the nature of the material challenged. Then, this person should prepare a written response to the complaint. It is critical that the reconsideration process be as objective as possible. The Reconsideration Committee members should all read any challenged book or periodical, view any challenged film or videotape, or listen to any challenged recording in its entirety. The committee also may consult the publisher of the material about challenges that might have been filed elsewhere and in order to hear arguments in defense of the work. Sometimes a publisher will put those involved in meeting a censorship effort directly in touch with the author of a challenged work. Although state open meeting laws vary, it is generally best that the Reconsideration Committee hold its hearings in public, although requests by individual complainants for anonymity may be respected if this conforms to state law. It is not necessary to widely publicize a committee meeting if the complainant has not sought media attention. The committee should, however, be sure to arrange to hear testimony from all interested opponents and defenders of the challenged material, including individual teachers, librarians, parents, and citizen activists. If, as is most often the case, the committee decides that the material does meet the selection criteria and is deemed suitable for continued use in the schools, the appropriate school official (either the review committee chair or the administrator who appointed the committee) should respond promptly to the complaint in writing. This response should briefly outline the reasoning behind the decision. It should also inform the complainant how to pursue an appeal and that further discussion of the decision is welcome. The complainant should be thanked for his or her interest in the schools.

If They Won’t “Play by the Rules” Although the formal review procedures recommended in this book ultimately benefit all sides in a censorship conflict, some would-be

106

Chapter 5

censors are, for varying reasons, unwilling to follow accepted public procedures. Sometimes they will charge that “the deck is stacked” against them. In other instances, the specific challenge appears less important than stirring up controversy and staging confrontations for their own sake, or for the sake of a much broader political or educational agenda. If a group in the community wants to change the public schools, that is their right. There is nothing the school district can or should do to stop them from promoting their cause. However, no objection to instructional or library materials should be formally considered unless a written request for reconsideration is filed. This should be an ironclad rule. Moreover, the schools cannot stand idly by while would-be censors work to mold public opinion. A censorship campaign that is not accompanied by a formal challenge should be met with a renewed and vigorous effort by the school district to educate the appropriate authorities and the public about materials selection policies and, most important, about the principles of academic and intellectual freedom that underlie them. Teachers, librarians, parents, and citizens should be free to defend materials that are under attack in the media or elsewhere, all the while making clear that avenues for review remain open. Indeed, censorship campaigns of this sort are often effectively stopped by a forthright challenge to the would-be censors to file a written complaint. If nothing else, this prevents them from continually shifting their rhetoric and demands to prevent a truly constructive resolution of the conflict.

If “The Community Is Up in Arms” It is always easier to impose one’s will if one is perceived to be in the majority. And most would-be censors claim that their views are held by most others. In fact, that is generally not the case. Countless opinion polls and numerous censorship battles have revealed that opponents of curricular and library materials represent a relatively small segment of the public. Few share their objections to specific materials, and even fewer share their willingness to deny access to those materials to others. This may not always be apparent, however. Through skillful manipulation of petition drives, public rallies, and media attention, would-be censors may appear to command broad support even if their forces are actually quite small. An individual censor may rally

What Do We Do If . . . ?

107

others by appearing as a courageous individual up against an entrenched bureaucracy. Those who would defend against censorship, on the other hand, may seem like a true “silent majority.” One key to dealing with any censorship campaign is to mobilize the support of this “silent majority” and to give it voice. The goal here is not to “smother” the protest, but to encourage fruitful discussion and debate. In many instances, the more the community is mobilized to really listen to the complainants, the more their support for them wanes. Censorship of instructional and school library materials can be resisted by informing a number of support sources. These include: • • • • •

Community leaders and community organizations that understand and support the school’s defense of academic freedom. Local news media. Local librarians and other educators in the community and state. The publisher of the challenged material and, perhaps, the authors. Local, state, and national education and civil liberties groups (see appendix H).

Still, not every censorship effort will be the work of a handful. In some cases, the majority of the community will oppose the continued use in class or the school library of some controversial work. Especially in the case of the library, this does not mean that the challenged material needs to be removed or restricted. The sole criterion for such action should be the material’s failure to conform to the standards of the district’s materials selection policy—assuming these standards themselves conform to the principles of intellectual freedom. In these instances, it is the duty of the schools to uphold the right of the minority against the wishes of the majority. Eighty percent of the population should not deprive the other 20 percent of their rights. A censorship attempt presents the schools with a good opportunity to explain the philosophy that underlies our system of democratic public education.

If the Challenge Succeeds It is important to keep in mind that not every attempt to resist censorship will be successful. Some instructional and library materials will be removed or restricted, no matter what policies and proce-

108

Chapter 5

dures are followed and adopted. If the challenged item does not meet a school’s own criteria for selection, the school must be ready to acknowledge that it is indeed unsuitable. A work may be ruled unsuitable by a Reconsideration Committee because an honest mistake was made in the original selection process. A work may also be ruled unsuitable because the selection policy was not adequate to defend controversial, but educationally suitable, materials. In such a case, teachers, librarians, and administrators should work to revise and improve the selection policy in accordance with the guidelines outlined in this book. Should a review committee remove or restrict materials that teachers, librarians, administrators, parents, or others believe suitable or in conformity with selection criteria, an appeal can be made to the school board. Should the board reject that appeal or—as more frequently occurs—should it reverse a favorable decision by a Reconsideration Committee, the anti-censorship forces may have to accept what they believe to be an incorrect decision. They may decide that the best course of action is to work more closely with the school board members or to work for their replacement. There is also the possibility of legal action. The U.S. Supreme Court has granted local school boards considerable power in the daily operation of school systems. The courts have, however, looked askance at efforts by school boards to impose their personal biases on students. Moreover, as discussed at length in the following chapter, in those cases where school boards have violated their own policies, or where these policies clearly contradict constitutional precepts, the courts have ruled in favor of those protesting school board decisions to remove or restrict books, especially from school libraries. In many instances developments will take a discouraging turn, and each individual will have to decide how forcefully to fight for higher principles and what sacrifices will be acceptable in that fight. It is certain, however, that if educators are not prepared to offer any resistance to censorship pressures, no battle will be won.

CHAPTER

6

What Is the Law? The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty and property, to free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette1

he 1970s and 1980s probably saw more legal and constitutional challenges to public school library and textbook decisions than in all previous American history. The reasons for this remarkable increase in litigation were no doubt many and varied. As legal scholar Mark Yudof noted:

T

Resolution of disputes in the public schools is increasingly dominated by rules and formal procedures and legislation and lawsuits, and it is natural that the legalization apparent with regard to collective bargaining, student records, desegregation, treatment of the handicapped, and the like, should spill over into the textbook area. Public opinion polls also show a declining confidence in professionals and public officials, and many are perhaps less accepting of decisions made by experts or elected school representatives. . . . And with the decline in the view that public schools are above politics, the dissension in values that pervades so many areas . . . may result in an increased willingness of the losers in the political process to do battle in the courts.2

The growing body of case law, however, has not reversed the long-standing history of judicial reluctance to become involved in the daily operation of the schools. “The education of the Nation’s 109

110

Chapter 6

youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges,” the U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1988.3 In the 1990s, although lawsuits involving challenges to school classroom and library materials proliferated, higher courts proved hesitant to expand upon or reverse earlier decisions. As a result, there was little substantive change in the legal environment. Still, the courts will get involved in conflicts about education when constitutionally protected rights are violated or when there are questions about the validity of state or federal statutes under the Constitution.

Basic Principles On the issue of school library and curricular censorship, there is no single definitive judicial opinion, and many critical issues remain unresolved. Nevertheless, three conclusions seem to be substantiated by the diverse judicial record: The personal beliefs of individuals—political, social, moral, or religious—may not be used to justify the removal of school resources. • Resources may legally be removed for reasons of space, obsolescence, lack of educational suitability, and—here the waters are somewhat murky—perhaps owing to “pervasive vulgarity.” The courts, however, do tend to distinguish between the school library and the classroom in determining the limits of school board discretion. • School board policies and procedures must be followed in all reviews of library and instructional materials. The failure of school boards and their administrative agents to follow constitutionally valid policies and procedures—that is, to abide by due process protections—will, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, be grounds for invalidating decisions to remove or restrict access to library and instructional materials. Indeed, removals or restrictive decisions that might be permitted by the courts when policies and procedures are followed, are likely to be overturned when these are ignored or violated. •

In a nutshell, the message conveyed by outstanding case law appears to be that school personnel would be wise to: •

Use written criteria for the selection of resources.

What Is the Law?

111

Make removal decisions on the basis of the educational suitability of the resource. • Not allow personal views to govern selection or removal decisions. • Follow appropriate policies and procedures during any review process. •

Differing Views and Unresolved Issues As attorney William North has argued, in most decisions touching upon the rights to intellectual freedom of teachers, librarians, and students, the courts have ruled according to the justices’ view of the role of schools in our society. If the school’s role is seen primarily as one of indoctrination and inculcation of community values, school boards will have almost unlimited discretion in the selection and removal of materials that are part of the school’s curriculum. If, however, the view is that the school is a marketplace of ideas where students may have access to a variety of viewpoints, the limits imposed upon the school board are expanded considerably. Both these views are held to varying degrees by judges at all levels, including the U.S. Supreme Court. This is hardly surprising given the complexity of the issue, and it is unlikely that the judiciary— even at the highest level—will be able in the foreseeable future to adopt a completely uniform and unambiguous approach.4 The legal situation is further complicated not only by disagreements within the judiciary, but also by the continually shifting course of litigation. The most important legal decisions so far have come in cases initiated by those seeking to reverse decisions by local school authorities to remove library or instructional materials. Some litigants have sought, however, with little success, to get the courts themselves to remove or somehow restrict the use of materials they find objectionable, usually on the grounds that they violate religious freedoms. In addition, the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in the landmark student press case, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, opened new legal possibilities that the judiciary has only begun to explore. Most of the cases to date have involved what Robert O’Neil has called “noncirculation decisions” in which school authorities have removed or restricted materials already acquired or used, principally by school libraries or media centers. It is possible, however, to conceive of at least three other situations in which legal reasoning might vary. There is, first, what O’Neil called the “nonacquisi-

112

Chapter 6

tion” case, in which an initial judgment not to acquire or use some material is challenged by plaintiffs as an act of censorship. Second, moving from the library to the classroom, the courts have begun to examine the “questionable adoption” situation, in which a decision to assign (or to stop assigning) controversial material in class is questioned. Finally, there is the still largely unresolved issue of the “curricular modification” situation, in which a course of study rather than a specified text or other educational resource is challenged or has been modified in a way that might invite legal challenge.5 This chapter will not try to predict the possible directions future litigation and legal reasoning may take. Its more modest purpose is to introduce the reader to the historical development and current status of federal law. (Since the issue of intellectual and academic freedom is overwhelmingly a constitutional question dependent upon judicial interpretation of the First Amendment, virtually all relevant litigation has been carried on in the federal rather than the state courts. Since the Hazelwood decision, however, the perception has grown that First Amendment protections of student rights are more limited. In those states whose constitutions provide stronger protections than the First Amendment, litigation involving student expression and school censorship has entered the state courts.) To be sure, only a small handful of school districts will find themselves embroiled in litigation. Nevertheless, school personnel should have a fundamental awareness of their legal situation. The best defense against a lawsuit is to act according to the law. To do so, it is necessary to know what the law says. If a real or potential legal problem does arise, school administrators should consult legal counsel. The information in this book should not be used as a substitute for professional representation and advice. Few attorneys, however, including many involved in education or working regularly with or for public school systems, are adequately conversant with the myriad subtle issues involved in this area. School districts with regular counsel should encourage their attorneys to become familiar with the issues and cases discussed here before a controversy arises.

School Libraries: The Pico Decision “It is easy to forget how recent is the development of law dealing with textbook and curricular censorship,” Robert O’Neil wrote in

What Is the Law?

113

1983.6 Before the 1970s, there were a few legal skirmishes, but no case directly addressed the issues with which the courts later became concerned. Then, beginning in 1972, a series of cases began to focus on the question of whether a school board could constitutionally remove from circulation school library books previously acquired and used by students for reasons pertaining to the controversial content of these books. The issue reached the U.S. Supreme Court with the case of Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, which was decided on June 25, 1982. Even though it did not produce a majority opinion, the Pico case was one of the most significant First Amendment decisions to be rendered by the Supreme Court in the past two decades. The Pico case involved the right of one junior high school and four high school students to challenge the removal from school libraries by a Long Island (New York) school board of all copies of nine books because they were, in the board’s view, “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.” Five books were removed despite a committee report that recommended their retention. There was evidence, too, that the board violated its own policies and procedures. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the board, but on appeal a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by a 2–l majority reversed that decision, remanding the case for trial. The Supreme Court upheld that reversal by a narrow 5–4 margin. Rather than go to trial, the school board returned the books to the shelves and reached an out-ofcourt settlement. “Just as access to ideas makes it possible for citizens generally to exercise their rights of free speech and press in a meaningful manner, such access prepares students for active and effective participation in the pluralistic, often contentious society in which they will soon be adult members,” Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in the lead opinion. According to Brennan’s opinion in Pico, school boards have significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. . . . If petitioners [the school board] intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners’ decision, then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution.7

114

Chapter 6

The Court noted that the Island Trees school board’s failure to follow established procedures lent support to suspicions about its motives. “This would be a very different case if the record demonstrated that petitioners had employed established, regular, and facially unbiased procedures for the review of controversial materials,” Brennan wrote. Only three other justices joined Brennan’s plurality opinion, however. Moreover, Brennan emphasized “the limited nature of the substantive question presented by the case,” which applied only to “library books, books that by their nature are optional rather than required books” and did “not involve the acquisition of books.” The Court identified, without definition or explanation, “pervasive vulgarity” and “educational suitability” as constitutionally valid reasons for removal of school library books. This lack of definition also limits application of the decision to subsequent cases.

The Lower Courts: An Ambiguous Record Pico did not resolve all the issues raised by previous lower court and appellate decisions, and these must still be considered an important part of outstanding case law.8 The earliest school library book suppression opinion was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s 1972 decision in Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25 (New York City). There, the court upheld the removal of a library book on the ground that court action against the board was precluded by the Supreme Court’s evolution decision in Epperson v. Arkansas. In Presidents Council, the court did not perceive the elimination of the book as involving an effort to aid or oppose religion, nor did it perceive the elimination of the book from the library as analogous to a ban on nondisruptive silent speech, which the Supreme Court condemned in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.9 In 1976, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit was confronted, in Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, with a challenge to the removal of Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 and two novels by Kurt Vonnegut. In contrast to the Second Circuit, the court in Minarcini held that “the removal of books from a school library is a much more serious burden upon freedom of classroom discussion than the action found unconstitutional in Tinker. . . .” It based this holding, first, on its perception that “[a] library is a mighty resource in the free marketplace of ideas” and, second, on its understanding that the First Amendment protects the “right to know.”10

What Is the Law?

115

Relying on Minarcini, in 1978, a Massachusetts District Court required a school board to return to the high school library an anthology that included a poem the committee found “objectionable,” “obnoxious,” “filthy,” and “vile and offensive garbage” (Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea). The court found that “no substantial governmental interest was served by” removing the book. As in Minarcini, the court distinguished between the school board’s power to control curriculum content and its power to control library collections. It also distinguished between the school board’s power to select books for the library and its power to remove books, once selected. Adopting the Chelsea analysis, in 1979, the federal District Court for New Hampshire, in Salvail v. Nashua Board of Education, required the board to return to its high school library copies of Ms. magazine because the school district had failed “to demonstrate a substantial and legitimate government interest sufficient to warrant the removal. . . .”11 The 1980s opened with two federal circuits presented with three major cases challenging the removal of materials from high school libraries. In two of these cases, the challenge was rejected. The third case was Pico. In Zykan v. Warsaw (Indiana) Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees, which came before the Seventh Circuit Court, the record showed that the school board had turned “offending” books over to complaining citizens who caused them to be burned. While the court condemned this ceremony, it still concluded that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The court held that two factors tend to limit the relevance of “academic freedom” at the secondary school level. First, the student’s right to and need for such freedom is bounded by the level of his or her intellectual development. . . . Second, the importance of secondary schools in the development of intellectual faculties is only one part of a broad formative role encompassing the encouragement and nurturing of those fundamental social, political, and moral values that will permit a student to take his place in the community. . . . [Therefore,] complaints filed by secondary school students to contest the educational decisions of local authorities are sometimes cognizable but generally must cross a relatively high threshold before entering upon the field of a constitutional claim suitable for federal court litigation.12

While the Seventh Circuit was deciding Zykan, the Second Circuit was presented with two opportunities to reconsider its 1972 Presidents Council opinion. The first was Pico and the second was

116

Chapter 6

Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School Board. Decided the same day, by the same panel, both Pico and Bicknell involved the removal from school libraries of books of considerable literary reputation. The dismissal of the complaint in Bicknell was affirmed and the dismissal of the complaint in Pico was reversed, both by 2–1 majorities. One judge saw both cases as an unconstitutional effort to purge the school library of ideas deemed inconsistent with the value inculcation objectives of the curriculum. A second judge saw both cases as an appropriate and constitutionally proper exercise of the value inculcation function. The deciding judge in each case distinguished between Bicknell and Pico on the basis of the board’s motive for removal. In Bicknell, he found the motive to be the books’ “vulgar and indecent language,” which justified removal, while in Pico, he found the motive to be the books’ “ideas” or content, apart from vulgar or indecent language, which did not justify removal.13 As William North has commented: While all of these cases, including Pico, arose in the context of First Amendment challenges to the removal of books from school libraries, they all turned on differences in judicial perceptions of the proper role of school officials in the educational process. As a consequence, the primary effect of the Supreme Court’s consideration in Pico was to identify what must be characterized as a fundamental philosophical dispute over the nature and function of elementary and secondary education in America. This dispute, revealed most graphically in the Pico opinions, has divided the Court into two substantially equal and determined factions.14

In fact, the “factional” division extends throughout the judicial system, which should come as little surprise. The courts are no more immune from our national debate over education than any other institution. Moreover, the debate is a continuous one which, perhaps, can never be brought to a close. As a result, school administrators, faculty, and librarians should expect the law governing school and school library censorship cases to continue to evolve.

The Courts and Huck Finn In the 1990s, most cases involving censorship of instructional or school library materials applied the principles of Pico and related cases rather than developing new case law. For instance, in Stevana Case v. Unified School District No. 233, which reversed a

What Is the Law?

117

school board’s removal from school libraries of donated copies of the lesbian romance novel Annie on My Mind, the court directly applied Pico: “If the decisive factor behind the removal of Annie on My Mind was the school board members’ personal disapproval of the ideas contained in the book, then under Pico the removal was unconstitutional.” Accordingly, the court concluded “that defendants removed Annie on My Mind because they disagreed with ideas expressed in the book and that this factor was the substantial motivation in their removal decisions. . . . The highly irregular and erratic manner in which defendants removed Annie on My Mind from the district’s libraries and their disregard of established policy and procedure are important evidence of their improper motivation.”15 More recently, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was compelled to address a somewhat novel censorship argument involving Mark Twain’s classic and controversial novel The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. The challenge was based not on the First Amendment but on the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and on Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District, decided in October 1999, the court ruled on a suit filed by a woman who wished to remove Huckleberry Finn and a short story by William Faulkner from the required reading list at her daughter’s Arizona high school because they were racist (see chapter 3). The decision was of particular importance because it involved not a challenge to a school board’s abridgment of First Amendment rights, as in Pico, but instead a third party’s effort to limit the materials that school officials wish students to read. The court allowed the parent, Kathy Monteiro, to sue the school district for allegedly failing to respond to complaints that white students were harassing blacks. But the judges said the school could not be required to remove the books as a way to reduce such harassment. Monteiro charged that white students called her daughter and others “nigger” and that assignment of the Twain and Faulkner readings, which use the word, exacerbated the situation. Curriculum judgments “are ordinarily best left to school boards and educational officials,” the court said, adding that “we reject the notion that putting books on trial in our courts is the proper way to determine the appropriateness of their use in the classroom.” The court acknowledged a “particularly difficult” conflict between “the First Amendment rights of high school students to receive information or ideas—even when contained in literary works

118

Chapter 6

that may in today’s world appear to have racist overtones—and the rights of those same students to receive a public education that neither fosters nor acquiesces in a racially hostile environment.” But while recognizing that “books can hurt, and words can hurt,” the court concluded that the issue remained whether courts could ban books on the basis of their content. “Certainly when a school board identifies information that it believes to be a useful part of a student’s education, that student has a right to receive the information,” the court said. “Permitting lawsuits against school districts on the basis of the content of literary works to proceed past the complaint stage could have a significant chilling effect on a school district’s willingness to assign books with themes, characters, snippets of dialogue, or words that might offend the sensibilities of any number of persons or groups.” The judges argued that a contrary ruling would have “an extremely wide—if not unlimited—range,” creating grounds for a slew of lawsuits. “White plaintiffs could seek to remove books by Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou and other prominent black authors on the ground that they portray Caucasians in a derogatory fashion; Jews might try to impose civil liability for the teaching of Shakespeare. . . . Female students could attempt to make a case for damages for the assignment of the works of Tennessee Williams, Hemingway, or Freud, and male students for the writings of Andrea Dworkin or Margaret Atwood.” The court concluded that “a necessary component of any education is learning to think critically about offensive ideas—without that ability one can do little to respond to them.” It is “important for young people . . . to discover both the good and the bad in our history.”16

Religion in the Schools Since Pico, the focus of litigation has shifted from the library to the classroom. Cases decided over the last decade have mainly involved appeals to the courts by opponents of controversial materials to eliminate or exempt their children from classroom instruction or instructional materials they find objectionable for racial or other reasons, as in Monteiro, but most often on religious grounds. Other such lawsuits have contested materials as a violation of the First Amendment’s ban on the establishment by government of a religious orthodoxy that is somehow secular in nature.

What Is the Law?

119

The most celebrated cases have been that of the Church Hill, Tennessee, parents who sought exemption for their children from a reading program that allegedly inculcated values at odds with their fundamentalist religion (Mozert v. Hawkins County), which was discussed in chapter 2; and the Mobile, Alabama, case (Smith v. Board of School Commissioners), which led to the temporary courtordered removal of 44 “secular humanist” textbooks from the state’s public schools (see chapter 3). Both decisions were reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court refused to consider a further appeal in Mozert, and the Smith plaintiffs declined to seek Supreme Court review. Legal challenges to the Impressions reading series and some other works charging that adoption of these works amounted to the establishment of occult or “New Age” religion were also rejected by U.S. District Courts in California, Illinois, and Pennsylvania (see chapter 3).17 These cases and the legal controversy over the teaching of Darwinian evolution have focused considerable attention on the legal parameters defining the relationship between religious belief and public education. It is beyond the scope of this book to give guidance to school administrators and personnel on their legal rights and responsibilities with respect to religion in the schools. The American Association of School Administrators in 1986 published a pamphlet on Religion in the Public Schools which provides an exhaustive yet accessible treatment of all the major legal issues to that time.18 Here it is necessary only to summarize briefly a few legal principles and decisions of special relevance to the censorship issue and to discuss at somewhat greater length the Supreme Court’s 1987 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard, which declared unconstitutional a Louisiana statute mandating the teaching of “creation science” whenever evolution is taught. The First Amendment’s guarantee of religious liberty contains two clauses, commonly referred to as the “Establishment Clause” and the “Free Exercise Clause”: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Scholars and judges have engaged in extensive debate over what the authors of the Bill of Rights intended by these two clauses. As Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor observed, however: The simple truth is that free public education was virtually nonexistent in the late eighteenth century. . . . Since there then existed few government-run schools, it is unlikely that the persons who drafted the First Amendment, or the state legislators who ratified it,

120

Chapter 6 anticipated the problems of interaction of church and state in the public schools.19

The Supreme Court itself has noted that, “It is far easier to agree on the purpose that underlies the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses than to obtain agreement on the standards that should govern their application.”20 Nonetheless, some general standards have developed. With respect to the Free Exercise Clause, Supreme Court opinions lead to the conclusion that a religious practice is protected if it can pass three tests: It must be dictated directly by religious beliefs that are sincerely held. • It must not seriously interfere with a compelling or overriding state interest. • The state interest may be achieved by an alternative method that does not restrict the religious practice.21 •

Interpretation of the Establishment Clause has most frequently been at issue in school censorship litigation. As Justice Brennan wrote in 1987, “The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools. . . . Consequently, the Court has been required often to invalidate statutes which advance religion in public elementary and secondary schools.”22 The classic enumeration of the limitations on government mandated by the Establishment Clause was written by Justice Hugo Black in 1947: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount . . . can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.23

In 1971, in the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court devised a three-pronged test to determine whether legislation comports with the Establishment Clause. To be constitutionally permissible under the “Lemon test,” a statute or practice must:

What Is the Law?

121

Have been adopted with a secular purpose. • Have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. • Not result in an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”24 •

State action violates the Establishment Clause if it fails to satisfy any of the three prongs of the Lemon test. Applying these various principles, the courts have found constitutional violations in school-sponsored prayer or devotional Bible readings, strictly limited public aid to religious schools, and struck down a variety of statutes and practices which sought to introduce religious instruction in the public schools, while continuing to recognize the schools’ freedom to teach about religion. By the late 1980s, however, a majority of the Supreme Court had expressed unhappiness with the Lemon test and many observers anticipated that the case of Lee v. Weisman, in which a Jewish family challenged an officially sponsored nondenominational prayer included in the program of a public school graduation, might provide an opportunity for the justices to abandon or radically revise the test. Instead, however, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court by a 5–4 margin barred the prayer and upheld the test, at least in the school context. “The First Amendment’s religion clauses mean that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be either proscribed or prescribed by the state,” Kennedy wrote. If citizens are “subjected to state-sponsored religious exercises,” the government itself fails in its “duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people. . . . No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise.”25 Since then some school districts around the country, but especially in the South, have sought to get around the restrictions of Lee v. Weisman by instituting student-initiated “statements,” which often turn out to be prayers, or moments of silence at graduations and similar schoolwide convocations, including athletic events. In June 2000, however, the Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 margin that prayers led by students at high school football games are unconstitutional since “the delivery of a pregame prayer has the improper effect of coercing those present to participate in an act of religious worship.” A week later the Court ordered a lower federal court to

122

Chapter 6

reconsider its ruling in an Alabama case that permitted students to lead audiences in prayer at school events.26

Evolution and Creation The issue of religion in the curriculum has been most focused perhaps in the debate over the teaching of evolution and “creationism,” which is also clearly joined to the censorship/selection controversy. As previously noted, in 1968, the Supreme Court ruled in Epperson v. Arkansas that a ban on the teaching of evolution is constitutionally impermissible. “There is and can be no doubt that the First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma,” Justice Abe Fortas wrote for the Court.27 In other words, the Court held that it is unconstitutional for school districts to remove a particular subject—or, by implication, a specified educational resource or instructional material—from the curriculum primarily to accommodate the religious views of a particular group of citizens, even where that group may be the majority. But the Court also implied that school officials have other grounds for removing subject matter. In a concurring opinion, Justice Black wrote: “[T]here is no reason . . . why a State is without power to withdraw from its curriculum any subject deemed too emotional and controversial for its public schools.”28 In most cases, the Court reaffirmed, control of educational policy should be left to state and local authorities. Epperson covered only the question of excluding certain materials from the curriculum primarily on religious grounds. However, in 1987, the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a Louisiana statute requiring public schools that teach the theory of evolution to include in their course of study “creation science” as well. The 7–2 decision in Edwards v. Aguillard said the state’s “balanced treatment” law, enacted in 1981 but never enforced, lacked a clear secular purpose and violated the constitutionally required separation of church and state. The decision did not bar the teaching of creation science in public schools, but said a legislature could not require it. “The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety,” Justice William J. Bren-

What Is the Law?

123

nan Jr. wrote for the majority. “The act violates the Establishment Clause . . . because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose.”29 Although the Louisiana law contained no references to God, a Creator, the Bible, or any religion, Brennan declared that it was enacted in the context of the historic collisions between religious movements and scientific advocates of evolutionary theory. “The purpose of the Creationism Act was to restructure the science curriculum to conform with a particular religious viewpoint,” he wrote. “Out of the many possible science subjects taught in the public schools, the legislature chose to affect the teaching of the one scientific theory that historically has been opposed by certain religious sects.”30 Despite renewed efforts in recent years either to bar the teaching of evolution or reinject creationism into school curricula (see chapter 3), Epperson and Edwards remain the governing cases with regard to the teaching of evolution and creation in U.S. public schools. Indeed, in June 2000 the Supreme Court declined to review a Louisiana public school district’s attempt to require that the teaching of evolution be accompanied by a disclaimer, letting stand rulings that struck down the policy.

Student Rights and Student Press In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court first explicitly recognized that public school students enjoy First Amendment protections. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court made the oft-quoted statement, “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”31 Although Tinker involved the issue of symbolic expression (wearing black armbands), other federal and state courts subsequently applied its principles to cases involving direct student speech and student publications. These cases have given students important rights to free expression and to a free student press. It is outside the scope of this book to offer a full discussion of the law governing student press rights and responsibilities, although this issue has become increasingly controversial and important in many schools and colleges. The Washington-based Student Press Law Center has published a detailed and informative study, Law of the Student Press, which is recommended to school administrators

124

Chapter 6

seeking clarity on this topic.32 The paragraphs that follow briefly summarize the most general points. The argument is frequently made that, as “publishers,” school officials have complete control over the material that appears in their official school publications. The fact that a school may make a school newspaper an “official” publication and contribute heavily to its financing, however, does not necessarily give school officials full control over the material that appears in the publication. According to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1988 student press decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, it is crucial to determine if school authorities “by policy or by practice” have intentionally made the publication an open forum for student expression. When that is the case, school-sponsored publications enjoy much of the press rights guaranteed to outside newspapers. If the publication is reserved for another purpose, however, and no public forum has been created, then “school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community.”33 The reasoning in Hazelwood implies a distinction, still vaguely defined, between “official” publications produced as part of the classroom curriculum and those for which students do not receive any sort of academic credit. Even when a student publication does not qualify as a public forum, the school cannot always dictate that publication’s content. As one lower court succinctly put it, “The state is not necessarily the unrestrained master of what it creates and fosters.”34 The Hazelwood decision was in dramatic contrast to the decisions of courts across the country that had, over the previous two decades, given student journalists extensive First Amendment protections. Writing for the Supreme Court in Hazelwood, Justice Byron White set out the school’s authority over the expressive activities that it sponsors: Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over [schoolsponsored] student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school play “disassociate itself” . . . not only from speech that would “substantially interfere with [its] work . . . or impinge upon the rights of other students,” . . . but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.35

What Is the Law?

125

In short, the Court declared, when a school’s decision to censor a student publication (or other form of student expression) that is not a public forum for student expression is “reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns” it will be permissible. “It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so ‘directly and sharply implicate[d],’ as to require judicial intervention to protect students’ constitutional rights.”36 The Hazelwood decision was also particularly mindful of the school’s responsibility for any libelous statements in one of its publications, as well as the effect of an invasion of privacy on a student or the student’s family in the closed community of a school. For these reasons, the decision said that “[a] school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its ‘basic educational mission,’ . . . even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”37 The majority’s opinion drew a sharp dissent from Justice William J. Brennan Jr., joined by Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, who declared that the First Amendment prohibits “censorship of any student expression that neither disrupts classwork nor invades the rights of others, and . . . any censorship that is not narrowly tailored to serve its purpose.”38 The long-term impact of Hazelwood on student journalism more than a decade after the decision has been extensive. According to the Student Press Law Center, cases of prepublication censorship by school authorities have increased in number, although controversies continue. Hazelwood’s logic has also been applied by courts to other cases of student and even faculty rights. As the third edition of this book goes to press, a case is working its way through the federal appellate courts which threatens to apply Hazelwood to college journalists, who were explicitly exempted from the original opinion. However, Hazelwood’s emphasis on school sponsorship has opened some legal space to protect the rights of those who create “alternative” publications, including recently Internet web sites. In California, the nation’s most populous state, Section 48907 of the Education Code forbids school officials from censoring student journalism unless a story is “obscene, libelous, slanderous,” or advocates “substantial disruption” of the school system. According to the California code, even where censorship is permitted, school officials carry the burden of “showing justification, without undue delay, prior to any limitation of student expression.” In the wake of the Hazelwood decision similar provisions were adopted by some other states and

126

Chapter 6

have been proposed in quite a few more. Although Hazelwood enhanced the power that school officials may wield over student expression, it by no means advocated the exercise of that power in all or even most permissible instances. Whatever the ultimate effects of the ruling may be, the school’s obligation to promote respect for and understanding of free press principles remains unchallenged. The courts have also several times found that unofficial or socalled “underground” student publications are protected by the First Amendment and that they enjoy the right to distribution on school grounds. After Hazelwood—which distinguished between officially sponsored materials and “personal statements”—these protections remain. Indeed, it is not entirely clear whether students legally denied the right to publish material in an official, curricular publication may not, in certain cases, be free to circulate the same material in an “underground” fashion. The courts have recognized, however, that school officials may make reasonable regulations at least as to the time, place, and manner of distribution of unofficial publications.39 In fact, school officials may find that the distinction drawn by the Supreme Court between censorship of school-sponsored or curricular publications and “personal statements” may not be so easy to define or enforce and, legal considerations aside, it may even, at times, cause administrators more trouble than it prevents. In December 1987, for example, an Arlington, Virginia, principal decided to ban a student survey on drug and alcohol use from a high school yearbook. According to Hazelwood this act of censorship may well have been legal. However, in response some students began organizing a clearly unofficial and extracurricular group they called “Free Press,” which sought to distribute pamphlets, armbands, and stickers on school grounds. According to both Tinker and Hazelwood, legally the principal could not do much to restrict this protest activity.40 Although Tinker indicated that students are entitled to strong First Amendment protection, it did not give them rights coextensive with those of adults. Because of the peculiar characteristics of the school environment, the Court declared that it would allow school officials to restrict student expression only when it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”41 Subsequent lower court decisions have developed and applied this standard in determining when censorship of student publications is permissible. The Tinker ruling made clear that “substantial disruption” requires more than “the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”42 Although actual disruptions

What Is the Law?

127

need not occur to justify censorious action, the burden is on the school to show that its fears of disruption are well founded. In most instances, courts have required evidence of a potential physical disruption of school functioning. Most courts have recognized that material that is obscene as to minors can be censored. To be legally obscene, though, even for minors, something must be sexually explicit and appeal to a prurient interest, not just be profane or offensive. Several court decisions have found that “earthy words relating to bodily functions and sexual intercourse” may not be censored from student newspapers.43 However, the freedom to publish that kind of material may be limited by the age of the students to whom the publication is distributed. The Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, decided by a 7–2 margin, suggested that “vulgar and offensive” terms and “offensively lewd and indecent” forms of speech, though permissible to adults, may also lie beyond the constitutional protections afforded students. Fraser upheld the punishment of a student who used sexual puns in a speech before a school assembly and thus involved a verbal intrusion on students who were, in effect, a captive audience. Whether the Supreme Court will apply Fraser to student publications remains unclear more than a decade later. Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion in the case specifically stated that he, for one, would not do so, though the Hazelwood majority suggested, in a footnote, that they would. The courts have also concluded that libelous material may be censored from student publications by high school officials. However, there appear to be no reported cases in which a high school publication lost a libel suit, and school officials seeking to exercise censorship on these grounds must proceed with great care and caution. The Supreme Court has declared that statements of pure opinion usually expressed in the form of an editorial cannot be libelous. Hence, an editorial complaining that a principal’s policy permitting paddling of students by teachers was the “product of a sick mind” was ruled an expression of opinion, which would not have been the case had the paper untruthfully claimed that the principal had spent time in a mental hospital.44 Moreover, public figures alleging libel face a more difficult task in proving the charge than do other plaintiffs. Not only must the allegation be false, but it must be shown to have been motivated by actual malice or a reckless disregard of the facts. There is no easy formula to determine who is or is not a public figure, but several cases suggest that in most situations, statements about a school

128

Chapter 6

official relating to the performance of his or her duties will be considered as if the official were a public figure.45

Library and Curricular Censorship after Hazelwood Many critics feared that the Hazelwood decision could become a rogue elephant upsetting the entire field of established First Amendment precedents because it appeared to place educationally motivated censorship beyond the ambit of First Amendment protections.46 Hazelwood, it was argued, could render much of the judicial record reviewed in the earlier sections of this chapter largely irrelevant. To date, however, there is little in the judicial record to suggest anything close to such a sweeping reversal. After all, even in Tinker and Pico, the Supreme Court recognized that legitimate educational purposes can justify some infringement of free expression. Still, one relatively new pattern is discernible. The most plausible “educational reason,” in the eyes of the courts, for removing a book or otherwise censoring educational materials or student creations is vulgarity or indecency. These, of course, are not constitutionally acceptable reasons for banning material from, say, a public library. But courts have found, on the basis of Hazelwood, that “the special characteristics of the school environment” make them permissible criteria. Applying the Supreme Court’s arguments in Hazelwood, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in 1989 upheld a school board’s removal of a previously approved classroom text because of its perceived vulgarity and sexual explicitness. In Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, a high school literature textbook was banned because of selections from Lysistrata, the classic Greek comedy by Aristophanes, and The Miller’s Tale, by Geoffrey Chaucer. The court was compelled to “seriously question how young persons just below the age of majority can be harmed by these masterpieces of Western literature,” but still upheld the school board’s censorship action. The court focused on two aspects of the case. The first was the curricular nature of the material, which seemed to give the material in question the imprimatur of school approval. The second was the argument that the book was removed for “explicit sexuality and excessively vulgar language,” which was held to be a legitimate pedagogical concern, although in previous cases the same circuit had disallowed the censorship of violent materials and ones which

What Is the Law?

129

allegedly threatened religious and family values as “ideologically motivated.”47 The court found the school board’s action reasonable because the textbook, as well as other versions of the disputed selections, remained in the school library. A similar differentiation between curricular activity and other activities within the school environment was adopted by a federal court in New York in 1989 in the case of Romano v. Harrington, where a faculty adviser’s responsibility for supervising the content of an extracurricular student newspaper was at issue.48 Similarly, courts have implicitly used these standards to uphold the barring of classroom showings of R-rated movies. Although, as previously noted, it is by no means clear whether school districts are legally entitled to employ Motion Picture Association of America film ratings as a sole criterion of acceptability, in one Wisconsin case this was upheld when a federal judge approved the Kenosha School District’s ban on the Academy Award-winning Holocaust epic Schindler’s List because of its R rating. “The School Board has established, through literature on the Motion Picture Association of America, that relying on the ratings is a reasonable way of determining which movies are more likely to contain harsh language, nudity, and inappropriate material for high school students,” the judge declared. “An R-rating indicates that reasonable people could determine that high school students should not view the film. That ‘reasonableness’ is all that is necessary in a high school setting.”49 In 1997, a federal appeals court in North Carolina joined a growing number of jurisdictions when it ruled that Hazelwood applied to the classroom speech of teachers as well as students. A Buncombe County, North Carolina, high school drama teacher had selected and directed a student play that a parent found objectionable. The teacher notified the principal of her selection and sent the students home with scripts to discuss the play with their parents. Neither the principal nor the parents objected and the students performed the play in regional competition, where it won numerous awards. But before the state competition another teacher suggested that the play be performed in her class. Although permission slips were sought from parents, one parent later complained that she had not received one. The principal read the script and barred performance of the play in the state finals without major deletions. At the end of the year the teacher was transferred to a middle school and she filed suit.

130

Chapter 6

The District Court dismissed the case without trial, ruling that selection of the play did not constitute “speech” subject to protection. The court based its decision on Hazelwood. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the teacher’s selection was “speech,” but the court also accepted that the Hazelwood standard was appropriately applied. It remanded the case for trial, however, to determine whether the standard had actually been met. The case then went to the full court, which ruled in a narrow 7–6 decision against the teacher, dismissing the suit. “Someone must fix the curriculum of any school, public or private,” the majority said. “In the case of a public school, in our opinion, it is far better public policy . . . that the makeup of the curriculum be entrusted to the local school authorities who are in some sense responsible, rather than to teachers, who would be responsible only to judges.”50 In Maine the state’s highest court ruled that a school board had the right to set conditions on how a controversial book should be taught, overturning decisions by a lower court and an arbitrator. A parent had complained that Bastard out of Carolina, by Dorothy Allison, contained sexually graphic passages and should not be taught. The school board decided not to ban the book and instead established conditions that had to be followed in order to teach it. One condition was that the book must be taught in conjunction with at least one other approved novel addressing similar themes. Supported by her union, a teacher sued and the issue became the teacher’s level of classroom authority and, by implication, academic freedom. The Maine Supreme Court said the school board had the right to make the final decision on controversial reading material and “the conditions imposed by the board reflect the value choices that the board is authorized to make on behalf of the public it serves.”51 These cases, building on Hazelwood, appear to establish even more firmly the distinction between library and classroom materials.

The Internet: Legal Terra Incognita The law governing free expression on the Internet, especially in the educational context, is still undeveloped. As noted in chapter 2, two important cases currently govern the law on Internet access.52 First and foremost is the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1997 ruling against the Communications Decency Act in Reno v. ACLU (which consolidated the parallel challenge in American Library

What Is the Law?

131

Association v. U.S. Department of Justice).53 The forceful opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court gives to books and newspapers. That stands in contrast to the more limited First Amendment rights accorded to speech on broadcast and cable television, where the Court has tolerated a wide array of government regulation. The Court found that the Internet “constitutes a vast platform from which to address and hear from a world-wide audience of millions of readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers,” and that “any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox.” The law had made it a crime to use a computer to transmit indecent material to someone under 18 years of age or to display such material “in a manner available” to a person under 18. Justice Stevens said that given the nature of the Internet, there was no way someone transmitting indecent material could be sure that a minor would not see it. He also noted that indecent material was not precisely defined under the 1996 law. “The interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship,” Stevens wrote. The opinion noted that people could not “confidently assume” that discussions of birth control, homosexuality, or prison rape, or even the transmission of “the card catalogue of the Carnegie Library,” would not violate the law and place computer network users at risk of severe criminal penalties. “The severity of criminal sanction may well cause speakers to remain silent rather than communicate even arguably lawful words, ideas, and images.” Analyzing the law’s impact on libraries, including school libraries, the law firm of Jenner & Block, counsel to the American Library Association (ALA) and other plaintiffs in the challenge, stressed that a “most critical holding of the Supreme Court is that libraries that make content available on the Internet can continue to do so with the same constitutional protections that apply to the books on libraries’ shelves. A library’s posting on the Internet of literature, or research, or popular culture, or even a card catalog is constitutionally protected, even if some of the material is controversial or might be considered by some to be offensive.” “The Court’s conclusion that ‘the vast democratic fora of the Internet’ merit full constitutional protection will also serve to protect libraries that provide their patrons with access to the Internet,” the analysis added. “The Court recognized the importance of

132

Chapter 6

enabling individuals to speak to the entire world, and to receive speech from the entire world. The library can provide that opportunity to many who would not otherwise have it.” The second important decision was that by U.S. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema in Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library in November 1999, which struck down the Loudoun County, Virginia, public library’s policy of using filtering software on all computer terminals. “Such a policy offends the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional,” the decision said. Judge Brinkema argued that the use of filters, made by a private company, to limit Internet access was also a form of prior restraint on distribution of speech and asserted that “a defendant cannot avoid its constitutional obligation by contracting out its decision-making to a private entity.”54 Clearly, taken together these two decisions create a powerful wall of protection from censorship for the Internet. Although the Loudoun case, which was not appealed, is not applicable nationally, its ramifications will surely be widespread. But what will be the impact of these decisions on the law governing public school access to the Internet? The answer is unknown. In a speech at the ALA Annual Conference in 1997, Bruce Ennis, the attorney who argued Reno v. ACLU before the Supreme Court, stressed “the distinction between school libraries on the one hand and community libraries on the other. There is an important distinction in First Amendment doctrine between these two types of libraries. Basically, although all the gray areas are not resolved, it is clear that the Supreme Court will allow greater restrictions on expressive material in school libraries than it will in community libraries. The reason for that is the perception that one of the jobs of the school library is actually to be selective and to be pedagogical and to inculcate values in students, not just make information available to them. Whether you agree or disagree with that is immaterial—that’s the Supreme Court’s view. So, broadly speaking, there will be more freedom from the First Amendment for public school libraries to filter than there will be for public community libraries.”55 How much more freedom remains to be seen. Will the courts give school administrators greater leeway to filter or otherwise censor public school student access to the Internet? How will the courts regulate student web pages, both those produced at school and those produced elsewhere but accessed at school? These are questions that the courts will no doubt be compelled to address in the near future.

CHAPTER

7

School System Checklist Selection and review procedures can help when school materials are challenged; but there is no substitute for good community relations in reducing those challenges in the first place. Michelle Marder Kamhi1

he following checklist of suggestions summarizes the principal actions school districts should take to prepare for and respond to censorship efforts.

T

Preparation Before challenges arise, school districts should: Adopt a written materials selection policy. Policy statements should specify the criteria and procedures for selecting curricular and library materials. The policy should conform to all applicable federal and state laws and to relevant court rulings (see chapter 6). It should endorse the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights and the principles of intellectual and academic freedom in general. School personnel, including administrators at all levels, should be familiar with and strictly adhere to the established policy and procedures in the selection of all material. The policy should be approved and regularly reviewed by the school board. Establish, in writing, a clearly defined procedure for dealing with complaints. Formal procedures for the review of challenged materials should be integral to the selection policy statement. Review procedures should, inter alia, include: •

A “request-for-review” form to be used to identify, in writing, the complainant’s specific concerns and objections, for evaluation during the review process. 133

134

Chapter 7

A broad-based committee to review challenged materials. The committee may include parents and community leaders as well as teachers, librarians, and school administrators, but it should be structured so that the review decision will be made according to professional application of written policies. • A provision barring any restrictions on the use of challenged materials until the entire review process has been completed. • Avenues for appeal of review committee decisions by both those who oppose and those who favor continued use of the challenged material. •

Maintain communication between school personnel and the school board. School administrators have the responsibility to keep board members well informed about selection policies and practices. It is especially important that the board be made aware of any and all pressures exerted on the schools by outsiders to restrict materials or alter teaching practices. Establish and maintain continuing communication with the public served by the schools. School personnel should keep the local community informed, on a regular basis, about educational objectives, curricula, and classroom and library programs, and should be accessible to all concerned local residents to hear their views. It is especially important that the community be informed about the policies and procedures for selecting and reviewing books and other instructional and library materials. Seek to work with all groups and individuals in the community who support intellectual freedom and oppose censorship. As part of their public relations activities, school districts should work with the local media, parent and citizen groups, and professional organizations to develop programs and resources aimed at enlightening the public about the censorship problem and about the principles of academic freedom.

Response If a challenge arises, school districts should: Treat all complainants with courtesy and respect. There should be no such thing as a groundless complaint. Those who complain about educational resources vary widely in their life experience, educational level attained, sophistication, and in the nature of their commitment to democratic public education. Virtually all, however,

School System Checklist

135

hold sincere and deeply rooted convictions, which school personnel are bound to respect. Even where complainants resort to abusive language or behavior, school personnel should strive at all times to maintain a professional and dignified demeanor with both protesters and the general public. Attempt to resolve the challenge informally. When a complaint is first received, appropriate personnel should meet informally with the complainant to hear the specific objections being raised and to explain how and why the challenged material was selected. If at the end of this informal discussion, the complainant still wishes to challenge the material in question, the request-for-review form should be provided. No material should be removed or restricted without a formal review of a written complaint according to procedures outlined in the materials selection policy. This should be the case even when individual school personnel who meet with a complainant conclude that a mistake has indeed been made in selection and that the complaint is justified. Act promptly to review challenged materials when a formal request has been filed. When a written request for review is submitted, established review procedures should be implemented immediately and according to school policy. At this time, the school board or other governing body should be fully informed of the details of the complaint. If there is no standing review committee, the necessary committee should now be established. Strictly adhere to established procedures throughout the review process. All school personnel should be reminded that no restrictions are to be placed on the use of the challenged material until the entire review process has been completed. Individual teachers and librarians should be free to defend or criticize challenged materials, but until a decision has been made, members of the review committee, administrators, and the district as a whole should take a neutral stance. Complaints made by individual school personnel or by school board members should be treated exactly as a complaint submitted by a parent or community member. In no instance should a decision to remove or restrict library or instructional materials be made by a single individual. Failure to follow school policies and procedures and to provide due process protections may leave the school liable to legal action. Inform the general public. Any review of challenged materials should be conducted openly. However, when a complainant seeks anonymity and does not attempt to exploit the incident in the media, the school district should act accordingly. On the other hand, if

136

Chapter 7

public attention is drawn to an incident, the district should work vigorously to keep the community informed through the media and local organizational channels, such as the parents’ association or school newsletters. Attention should be focused on the issue of censorship and academic freedom and on the district’s selection policy and, to a lesser degree, on the challenged material itself. School personnel should avoid personal attacks on complainants or their supporters and should respond to any attacks on themselves of that sort in a professional and dignified manner. Seek support. Although very few challenges will end up in court, it is wise to consult legal counsel early in the review process. In addition, local and national groups can offer advice and support. It is best to alert such groups when a complaint is first received. They can often help schools resolve challenges equitably; at the very least, they can provide moral support and resources. (A list of national organizations that offer information and, in some cases, legal advice or other assistance to those involved in censorship disputes is included as appendix H.)

CHAPTER

8

Conclusion The vigilant protection of constitutional freedoms is nowhere more vital than in the community of American schools. Shelton v. Tucker1

If freedom of expression becomes merely an empty slogan in the minds of enough children, it will be dead by the time they are adults. Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom2

he policies and procedures recommended in this book may help ensure that conflicts over instructional and library materials will be resolved more equitably, with less damage to academic freedom. But the conflicts themselves demand precious time and energy, and their occurrence can signal the existence of deeper problems. To be sure, many of these problems are societal, beyond the control of educators. But very often, to paraphrase a famous movie line, what we have here is a failure of communication. If there is a single lesson to be learned from the past few decades of controversy over education, it is that more and better communication is needed. Parents and citizens need to hear more from educators; and educators need to listen more carefully to their critics in the public. More than 20 years ago June Berkley, a veteran of 21 years of teaching high school English in a small Ohio town, wrote:

T

Discontent with printed material does not always come directly from the book itself; but rather . . . reflects some other dissatisfaction with the school—or the teacher or the system in general. . . . Somehow the school, the teachers themselves, must reestablish confidence in their service to the community. They must make their good efforts understood.3 137

138

Chapter 8

Berkley wrote from experience. A few years earlier, some parents at her school began circulating rumors about a “dirty book” assigned to their children: Robert Newton Peck’s A Day No Pigs Would Die. In response, the English department—under Berkley’s leadership—set up a special evening course for parents. The course, to which teachers donated their own time, was entitled “Books Our Children Read.” Like many who challenge library and instructional materials, the Ohio parents who were circulating the rumors had not read Peck’s book. But now, for their weekly classes, parents were reading this book and others like it, and discussing the books with their children’s teachers. The teachers, many of whom were young and as yet without children of their own, learned a few things from the parents about how the children might respond. And the parents learned to love the books and to trust and respect the teachers. When informed about the censorship threat, too many educators respond defensively, fearful of those who would confront them. In doing so, however, they may merely be mirroring the fears of the censors themselves. According to Dorothy M. Broderick, many would-be censors are people “who find themselves living in a hostile world, surrounded by enemies ‘out to get them.’ They are people whose world is filled with ‘oughts’ and ‘shoulds’ and any indication that other people are freer in their decision-making processes arouses in them severe feelings of anxiety and resentment.”4 If this is true, then it is imperative that public schools reach out to these people before controversy arises. The issue of school censorship is not an issue only for teachers, librarians, and school administrators. It is not only a concern for parents. Public education is crucial to the future of our society. And freedom in the public schools is central to the quality of what and how students learn. Indeed, the proper functioning of our free society demands that the public schools bring together youth of all classes and origins and provide them with instruction that will allow them to participate fully in democratic life. In the words of philosopher Sidney Hook, such instruction “encourages, commensurate with the intellectual powers of students, questioning as integral to learning.”5 To accomplish this purpose requires more freedom, not less, in the classroom and the school library—and also on the Internet.

APPENDIX

A

Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS

he school library media program plays a unique role in promoting intellectual freedom. It serves as a point of voluntary access to information and ideas and as a learning laboratory for students as they acquire critical thinking and problem solving skills needed in a pluralistic society. Although the educational level and program of the school necessarily shapes the resources and services of a school library media program, the principles of the Library Bill of Rights apply equally to all libraries, including school library media programs. School library media professionals assume a leadership role in promoting the principles of intellectual freedom within the school by providing resources and services that create and sustain an atmosphere of free inquiry. School library media professionals work closely with teachers to integrate instructional activities in classroom units designed to equip students to locate, evaluate, and use a broad range of ideas effectively. Through resources, programming, and educational processes, students and teachers experience the free and robust debate characteristic of a democratic society. School library media professionals cooperate with other individuals in building collections of resources appropriate to the developmental and maturity levels of students. These collections provide resources which support the curriculum and are consistent with the philosophy, goals, and objectives of the school district. Resources in school library media collections represent diverse points of view on current as well as historical issues.

T

139

140

Appendix A

While English is, by history and tradition, the customary language of the United States, the languages in use in any given community may vary. Schools serving communities in which other languages are used make efforts to accommodate the needs of students for whom English is a second language. To support these efforts, and to ensure equal access to resources and services, the school library media program provides resources which reflect the linguistic pluralism of the community. Members of the school community involved in the collection development process employ educational criteria to select resources unfettered by their personal, political, social, or religious views. Students and educators served by the school library media program have access to resources and services free of constraints resulting from personal, partisan, or doctrinal disapproval. School library media professionals resist efforts by individuals or groups to define what is appropriate for all students or teachers to read, view, hear, or access via electronic means. Major barriers between students and resources include but are not limited to: imposing age or grade level restrictions on the use of resources, limiting the use of interlibrary loan and access to electronic information, charging fees for information in specific formats, requiring permission from parents or teachers, establishing restricted shelves or closed collections, and labeling. Policies, procedures, and rules related to the use of resources and services support free and open access to information. The school board adopts policies that guarantee students access to a broad range of ideas. These include policies on collection development and procedures for the review of resources about which concerns have been raised. Such policies, developed by persons in the school community, provide for a timely and fair hearing and assure that procedures are applied equitably to all expressions of concern. School library media professionals implement district policies and procedures in the school. Adopted July 2, 1986; amended January 10, 1990; July 12, 2000, by the ALA Council.

APPENDIX

B

Free Access to Libraries for Minors An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS

ibrary policies and procedures which effectively deny minors equal access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The American Library Association opposes all attempts to restrict access to library services, materials, and facilities based on the age of library users. Article V of the Library Bill of Rights states, “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” The “right to use a library” includes free access to, and unrestricted use of, all the services, materials, and facilities the library has to offer. Every restriction on access to, and use of, library resources, based solely on the chronological age, educational level, or legal emancipation of users violates Article V. Libraries are charged with the mission of developing resources to meet the diverse information needs and interests of the communities they serve. Services, materials, and facilities which fulfill the needs and interests of library users at different stages in their personal development are a necessary part of library resources. The needs and interests of each library user, and resources appropriate to meet those needs and interests, must be determined on an individual basis. Librarians cannot predict what resources will best fulfill the needs and interests of any individual user based on a single criterion such as chronological age, level of education, or legal emancipation. The selection and development of library resources should not be diluted because of minors having the same access to library resources as adult users. Institutional self-censorship diminishes the

L

141

142

Appendix B

credibility of the library in the community, and restricts access for all library users. Librarians and governing bodies should not resort to age restrictions on access to library resources in an effort to avoid actual or anticipated objections from parents or anyone else. The mission, goals, and objectives of libraries do not authorize librarians or governing bodies to assume, abrogate, or overrule the rights and responsibilities of parents or legal guardians. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents—and only parents—have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children— and only their children—to library resources. Parents or legal guardians who do not want their children to have access to certain library services, materials or facilities, should so advise their children. Librarians and governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies have a public and professional obligation to provide equal access to all library resources for all library users. Librarians have a professional commitment to ensure that all members of the community they serve have free and equal access to the entire range of library resources regardless of content, approach, format, or amount of detail. This principle of library service applies equally to all users, minors as well as adults. Librarians and governing bodies must uphold this principle in order to provide adequate and effective service to minors. Adopted June 30, 1972; amended July 1, 1981; July 3, 1991, by the ALA Council.

APPENDIX

C

Diversity in Collection Development An Interpretation of the LIBRARY BILL OF RIGHTS

hroughout history, the focus of censorship has fluctuated from generation to generation. Books and other materials have not been selected or have been removed from library collections for many reasons, among which are prejudicial language and ideas, political content, economic theory, social philosophies, religious beliefs, sexual forms of expression, and other topics of a potentially controversial nature. Some examples of censorship may include removing or not selecting materials because they are considered by some as racist or sexist; not purchasing conservative religious materials; not selecting materials about or by minorities because it is thought these groups or interests are not represented in a community; or not providing information on or materials from non-mainstream political entities. Librarians may seek to increase user awareness of materials on various social concerns by many means, including, but not limited to, issuing bibliographies and presenting exhibits and programs. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be inclusive, not exclusive, in collection development and in the provision of interlibrary loan. Access to all materials legally obtainable should be assured to the user, and policies should not unjustly exclude materials even if they are offensive to the librarian or the user. Collection development should reflect the philosophy inherent in Article II of the Library Bill of Rights: “Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.” A balanced collection

T

143

144

Appendix C

reflects a diversity of materials, not an equality of numbers. Collection development and the selection of materials should be done according to professional standards and established selection and review procedures. There are many complex facets to any issue, and variations of context in which issues may be expressed, discussed, or interpreted. Librarians have a professional responsibility to be fair, just, and equitable and to give all library users equal protection in guarding against violation of the library patron’s right to read, view, or listen to materials and resources protected by the First Amendment, no matter what the viewpoint of the author, creator, or selector. Librarians have an obligation to protect library collections from removal of materials based on personal bias or prejudice, and to select and support the access to materials on all subjects that meet, as closely as possible, the needs and interests of all persons in the community which the library serves. This includes materials that reflect political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues. Intellectual freedom, the essence of equitable library services, provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause, or movement may be explored. Toleration is meaningless without tolerance for what some may consider detestable. Librarians cannot justly permit their own preferences to limit their degree of tolerance in collection development, because freedom is indivisible. Adopted July 14, 1982; amended January 10, 1990, by the ALA Council.

APPENDIX

D

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing Office for Intellectual Freedom American Library Association

Why Do I Need a Policy? Every school system should have a comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional materials. It should relate to and include all materials; for example, textbooks, library books, periodicals, films, videocassettes, records, audiocassettes, and CDs. The reason should be obvious: haphazard patterns of acquisition will result in waste because some—perhaps many—materials will overlap in content, or will be unrelated to changing patterns of instruction. A comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional materials will also enable school professionals to rationally explain the school program to the community. And, most important in a crisis, when there are complaints about social studies texts, human development materials in the media center, or fiction in the English class, the use of the “objectionable” item can be explained more easily. A good policy on the selection of instructional materials will be relevant to your particular system and include basic sections on objectives, responsibility, criteria, procedures for selection, reconsideration of materials, and policies on controversial materials.

Basic Components of a Selection Policy Objectives Your policy should state succinctly what your system is trying to accomplish in its educational program, and, in somewhat more detail, the objectives of selection. 145

146

Appendix D

Your overarching goal may be very broad. For example: For the school district: • Instructional materials are selected by the school district to implement, enrich, and support the educational program for the student. Materials must serve both the breadth of the curriculum and the needs and interests of individual students. The district is obligated to provide for a wide range of abilities and to respect the diversity of many differing points of view. To this end, principles must be placed above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in the selection of materials of the highest quality and appropriateness. For the library media center: The main objective of our selection procedure is to provide students with a wide range of educational materials on all levels of difficulty and in a variety of formats, with diversity of appeal, allowing for the presentation of many different points of view. • The objective of the media center is to make available to faculty and students a collection of materials that will enrich and support the curriculum and meet the needs of the students and faculty served. •

More specific goals should be established by professionals for each learning level. The objectives for selection should reflect the specific goals of the instructional program. For textbooks, the goals may vary from subject to subject. For example, in the sciences, one principal goal might be accuracy (e.g., the latest scientific knowledge), and in history, balance in the presentation of conflicting points of view. For materials in the library media center, the goals may include meeting individual learning needs, abilities, and learning styles; providing background materials to supplement classroom instruction; providing a broad range of materials on controversial issues to help students develop critical analytical skills; etc.

Responsibility for Selection Your policy should name by professional position those persons responsible for selecting textbooks and other instructional materials. In most states, the locally elected or appointed school board, by law, has broad powers and responsibilities in the selection of instructional materials. This authority should be delegated by policy to appropriate professionals for day-to-day exercise.

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing

147

While selection of materials involves many people, including administrators, supervisors, teachers, library media specialists, students, and even community residents, the responsibility for coordinating and recommending the selection and purchase of library media materials should rest with the certificated library media personnel. Responsibility for coordinating the selection and purchase of textbooks and other classroom materials may rest with appropriate department chairpersons or with textbook or media evaluation committees. Write into your policy under Responsibility for Selection (or similar title) exactly who is responsible for selection of materials; for example, department heads, curriculum specialists, directors of curriculum and instruction, librarians, or media specialists. Sample statement of responsibility for the school district: •

The elected Board of Education shall delegate to the Superintendent of Schools the authority and responsibility for selection of all print and non-print materials. Responsibilities for actual selection shall rest with appropriate professionally trained personnel who shall discharge this obligation consistent with the Board’s adopted selection criteria and procedures. Selection procedures shall involve representatives of the professional staff directly affected by the selections, and persons qualified by preparation to aid in wise selection.

Criteria For the subject matter covered, your policy will include criteria, and the application of criteria, relevant to your objectives: excellence (artistic, literary, etc.), appropriateness to level of user, superiority in treatment of controversial issues, and ability to stimulate further intellectual and social development. Consider authenticity, appropriateness, interest, content, and circumstances of use. You probably will want to include technical criteria in your policy; for example, clarity of sound in audio materials and cinematography in videocassettes. Specific criteria should be spelled out to guide all professionals involved in selection in deciding on specific items: •

Staff members involved in selection of resource materials shall use the following criteria as a guide: 1. Educational significance 2. Contribution the subject matter makes to the curriculum and to the interests of the students

148

Appendix D

3. Favorable reviews found in standard selection sources 4. Favorable recommendations based on preview and examination of materials by professional personnel 5. Reputation and significance of the author, producer, and publisher 6. Validity, currency, and appropriateness of material 7. Contribution the material makes to breadth of representative viewpoints on controversial issues 8. High degree of potential user appeal 9. High artistic quality and/or literary style 10. Quality and variety of format 11. Value commensurate with cost and/or need 12. Timeliness or permanence 13. Integrity •

The following recommended lists shall be consulted in the selection of materials, but selection is not limited to their listings: 1. Bibliographies (latest editions available, including supplements) American Historical Fiction Basic Book Collection for Elementary Grades The Best in Children’s Books Children and Books Children’s Catalog Elementary School Library Collection European Historical Fiction and Biography Guide to Sources in Educational Media Junior High School Catalog Reference Books for School Libraries Subject Guide to Children’s Books in Print Subject Index to Books for Intermediate Grades Subject Index to Books for Primary Grades Westinghouse Learning Directory and as part of the vertical file index, other special bibliographies, many of which have been prepared by educational organizations for particular subject matter areas 2. Current reviewing media: AASA Science Books and Films American Film & Video Association Evaluations

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing

149

Booklist Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books Horn Book Kirkus Reviews School Library Journal •

The following criteria will be used as they apply: 1. Learning resources shall support and be consistent with the general educational goals of the state and district and the aims and objectives of individual schools and specific courses. 2. Learning resources shall meet high standards of quality in factual content and presentation. 3. Learning resources shall be appropriate for the subject area and for the age, emotional development, ability level, learning styles, and social development of the students for whom the materials are selected. 4. Physical format and appearance of learning resources shall be suitable for their intended use. 5. Learning resources shall be designed to help students gain an awareness of our pluralistic society. 6. Learning resources shall be designed to motivate students and staff to examine their own duties, responsibilities, rights, and privileges as participating citizens in our society, and to make informed judgments in their daily lives. 7. Learning resources shall be selected for their strengths rather than rejected for their weaknesses. 8. The selection of learning resources on controversial issues will be directed toward maintaining a diverse collection representing various views. 9. Learning resources shall clarify historical and contemporary forces by presenting and analyzing intergroup tension and conflict objectively, placing emphasis on recognizing and understanding social and economic problems.

•

The following kinds of material should be selected for the media center: 1. Materials integral to the instructional program 2. Materials appropriate for the reading level and understanding of students in the school

150

Appendix D

3. Materials reflecting the interests and needs of the students and faculty served by the media center 4. Materials warranting inclusion in the collection because of their literary and/or artistic value and merit 5. Materials presenting information with the greatest degree of accuracy and clarity possible 6. Materials representing a fair and unbiased presentation of information. In controversial areas, the media specialist, in cooperation with the faculty, should select materials representing as many shades of opinion as possible, in order that varying viewpoints are available to students.

Procedures Your procedures should describe all steps from initial screening to final selection. They also should include provisions for coordinating among departments and professionals working at different learning levels, etc.; for handling recommendations from other faculty and students; and for reviewing existing materials (for possible replacement, etc.). Include at least a partial list of selection aids (e.g., reviewing sources). You may also want to list sources that should not be used. This will be a large part of your selection policy. It is important to list the type of materials you collect, why you need them, and how you obtain them. Include here your policies on reevaluation (weeding), replacing and repairing materials, etc. Sample procedure statements: 1. In selecting learning resources, professional personnel will evaluate available resources and curriculum needs and will consult reputable, professionally prepared aids to selection, and other appropriate sources. The actual resource will be examined whenever possible. 2. Recommendations for purchase involve administrators, teachers, students, district personnel, and community persons, as appropriate. 3. Gift materials shall be judged by the selection criteria and shall be accepted or rejected by those criteria. 4. Selection is an ongoing process that should include how to remove materials no longer appropriate and how to replace lost and worn materials still of educational value.

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing

151

5. Requests, suggestions, and reactions for the purchase of instructional materials shall be gathered from staff to the greatest extent possible and students when appropriate. 6. Reviews of proposed acquisitions will be sought in the literature of reputable professional organizations and other reviewing sources recognized for their objectivity and wide experience. 7. Materials will be examined by professional staff to the extent necessary or practicable to apply criteria. Preview copies are available for on-site examination by the public upon written request to the district director of instruction. 8. Textbooks will be selected after examination by a representative committee of teachers, principals, curriculum specialists, directors of instruction, and others who have professional expertise in objective evaluation of materials. 9. Materials for the district film and video center will be selected by preview committees, curriculum specialists, and through use of professional review sources. 10. Building media center materials selection will be coordinated by the building media specialist, or the principal, where there is no professional staff, and involve teachers and curriculum specialists. 11. Area advisory councils may be used to review materials recommended by professional selection committees. 12. Materials for media centers are selected by the professional media staff with due regard to suggestions from the faculty, parents, and students. Final selection is made by the media specialists of the school in which the center is housed. Professionally recognized reviewing periodicals, standard catalogs, and other selection aids are used by the media specialists and the faculty to guide them in their selection.

Special Areas Some miscellaneous items to consider in your policy are gifts, sponsored materials, expensive materials, ephemeral materials, jobbers and salespersons, locked case, special requests, etc.; free and inexpensive materials; professional materials; and procedure for handling lost materials. Do you charge fines, maintain special collections not available to all patrons (e.g., a collection of materials for teachers only), handle special requests? These “special concerns” can be detailed in this section of your policy. Make sure to include your procedures for integrating gifts and sponsored materials. Usually, it

152

Appendix D

is stated that criteria for inclusion of gifts and sponsored materials are the same as for purchased materials.

Policies on Controversial Materials Here, or in another place in your policy, you should include a statement on intellectual freedom and why it is important to maintain. You may wish to include the text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”—and of the Library Bill of Rights (a copy of which is included at the end of this workbook). Sample statement on intellectual freedom: •

The school board subscribes in principle to the statements of policy on library philosophy as expressed in the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, a copy of which is appended to and made a part of this policy.

Reconsideration Occasional objections to instructional materials will be made despite the quality of the selection process; therefore, the procedure for handling reconsideration of challenged materials in response to questions concerning their appropriateness should be stated. This procedure should establish the framework for registering a complaint that provides for a hearing with appropriate action while defending the principles of freedom of information, the students’ right to access of materials, and the professional responsibility and integrity of the school faculty. The principles of intellectual freedom are inherent in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and are expressed in the Library Bill of Rights, adopted by the Council of the American Library Association. If instructional materials are questioned, the principles of intellectual freedom should be defended rather than the materials. List here the specific steps that will be taken when you are asked to reconsider materials in your collection. These steps should include: •

asking the complainant to fill out a written complaint form. (See Sample Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources.)

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing

153

assigning a reconsideration committee to examine the materials in question • requesting that the committee report their findings to the school board •

The procedure for handling complaints should describe every step, from the initial response to the complaint through the highest appeal.

Procedure for Handling Complaints No duly selected materials whose appropriateness is challenged shall be removed from the school except upon the recommendation of a reconsideration committee, with the concurrence of the Superintendent or, upon the Superintendent’s recommendation, the concurrence of the Board of Education, or upon formal action of the Board of Education when a recommendation of a reconsideration committee is appealed to it. Procedures to be observed: 1. All complaints to staff members shall be reported to the building principal involved, whether received by telephone, letter, or in personal conversation. 2. The principal shall contact the complainant to discuss the complaint and attempt to resolve it informally by explaining the philosophy and goals of the school district and/or the library media center. 3. If the complaint is not resolved informally, the complainant shall be supplied with a packet of materials consisting of the district’s instructional goals and objectives, materials selection policy statement, and the procedure for handling objections. This packet will also include a standard printed form, which shall be completed and returned before consideration will be given to the complaint. 4. If the formal request for reconsideration has not been received by the principal within two weeks, it shall be considered closed. If the request is returned, the reasons for selection of the specific work shall be reestablished by the appropriate staff. 5. In accordance with statement of philosophy, no questioned materials shall be removed from the school pending a final decision. Pending the outcome of the request for reconsideration, however,

154

6.

7.

8.

9.

Appendix D

access to questioned materials can be denied to the child (or children) of the parents making the complaint, if they so desire. Upon receipt of a completed objection form, the principal in the building involved will convene a committee of five to consider the complaint. This committee shall consist of the curriculum director and these people from the school involved: the principal, the library media center director, a teacher, and a PTA representative. The committee shall meet to discuss the materials, following the guidelines set forth in Instructions to Reconsideration Committee, and shall prepare a report on the material containing its recommendations on disposition of the matter. The principal shall notify complainant of the decision and send a formal report and recommendation to the Superintendent. In answering the complainant, the principal shall explain the book selection system, give the guidelines used for selection, and cite authorities used in reaching decisions. If the committee decides to keep the work that caused the complaint, the complainant shall be given an explanation. If the complaint is valid, the principal will acknowledge it and make recommended changes. If the complainant is still not satisfied, he or she may ask the Superintendent to present an appeal to the Board of Education, which shall make a final determination of the issue. The Board of Education may seek assistance from outside organizations such as the American Library Association, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, etc., in making its determination.

Sample Letter to Complainant Dear ________: We appreciate your concern over the use of _________________ in our school district. The district has developed procedures for selecting materials, but realizes that not everyone will agree with every selection made. To help you understand the selection process, we are sending copies of the district’s: 1. Instructional goals and objectives 2. Materials Selection Policy statement 3. Procedure for Handling Objections

Workbook for Selection Policy Writing

155

If you are still concerned after you review this material, please complete the Request for Reconsideration of Material form and return it to me. You may be assured of prompt attention to your request. If I have not heard from you within two weeks, we will assume you no longer wish to file a formal complaint. Sincerely, Principal

Instructions to Reconsideration Committee Bear in mind the principles of the freedom to learn and to read and base your decision on these broad principles rather than on defense of individual materials. Freedom of inquiry is vital to education in a democracy. • Study thoroughly all materials referred to you and read available reviews. The general acceptance of the materials should be checked by consulting standard evaluation aids and local holdings in other schools. • Passages or parts should not be pulled out of context. The values and faults should be weighed against each other and the opinions based on the materials as a whole. • Your report, presenting both majority and minority opinions, will be presented by the principal to the complainant at the conclusion of your discussion of the questioned material. •

Sample Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources [This is where you identify who in your own structure has authorized use of this form—Director, Board of Trustees, Board of Education, etc.—and to whom to return the form.] Example: The school board of Mainstream County, U.S.A., has delegated the responsibility for selection and evaluation of library/ educational resources to the school library media specialist/curriculum committee, and has established reconsideration procedures to address concerns about those resources. Completion of this

156

Appendix D

form is the first step in those procedures. If you wish to request reconsideration of school or library resources, please return the completed form to the Coordinator of Library Media Resources, Mainstream School Dist., 1 Mainstream Plaza, Anytown, U.S.A. Name ______________________

Date ________________________

Address ____________________

City ________________________

State________________________

Zip _________________________

Phone ______________________ Do you represent self? ____ Organization? ____ Resource on which you are commenting: ___________________________________________________________ ____ Book ____ Textbook ____ Video ____ Display ____ Magazine ____ Library Program ____ Audio Recording ____ Newspaper ____ Electronic information/network (please specify): ___________________________________________________________ ____ Other _________________________________________________ Title _______________________________________________________ Author/Producer ____________________________________________ 1. What brought this resource to your attention? _________________________________________________________ 2. Have you examined the entire resource? _________________________________________________________ 3. What concerns you about the resource? (Use other side or additional pages if necessary.) _________________________________________________________ 4. Are there resource(s) you suggest to provide additional information and/or other viewpoints on this topic? _________________________________________________________ Revised by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, June 27, 1995.

APPENDIX

E

Sample Selection Policy School District No. 1

Part 1: Selection of Learning Resources I. Statement of Policy The policy of the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1 is to provide a wide range of learning resources at varying levels of difficulty, with diversity of appeal and the presentation of different points of view to meet the needs of students and teachers.

II. Objectives of Selection A. For the purposes of this statement of policy, the term “learning resources” will refer to any person(s) or any material (whether acquired or locally produced) with instructional content or function that is used for formal or informal teaching/learning purposes. Learning resources include textbooks, other books, supplementary reading and informational materials, charts, community resource people, agencies and organizations, dioramas, filmstrips, flash cards, games, globes, kits, machine-readable data files, maps, microfilms, models, motion pictures, periodicals, pictures, realia, slides, sound recordings, transparencies, and videocassettes. B. The primary objective of learning resources is to support, enrich, and help implement the educational program of the school through the interaction of professional personnel and other members of the school community. It is the duty of professional staff to provide students with a wide range of

157

158

Appendix E

materials at varying levels of difficulty, with diversity of appeal, and the presentation of different points of view. C. To this end, the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1 affirms that it is the responsibility of its professional staff: 1. To provide materials that will enrich and support the curriculum, taking into consideration the varied interests, abilities, learning styles, and maturity levels of the students served; 2. To provide materials that will stimulate growth in factual knowledge, literary appreciation, aesthetic values, and societal standards; 3. To provide materials on various sides of controversial issues so that young citizens may have an opportunity to develop under guidance the practice of critical analysis and to make informed judgments in their daily lives; 4. To provide materials representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups that contribute to our national heritage and the world community; 5. To place principle above personal opinion and reason above prejudice in the selection of materials of the highest quality in order to assure a comprehensive collection appropriate to the school community.

III. Responsibility for Selection of Learning Resources A. The Board of Trustees delegates the responsibility for the selection of learning resources to the professional staff employed by the school system, and declares that selections made shall be held to have been made by the Board of Trustees of School District No. 1. B. While selection of learning resources involves many people (administrators, teachers, students, community persons, resource center personnel), the responsibility for coordinating the selection of school learning resources and making the recommendation for purchase rests with the principal and professional personnel.

IV. Criteria for Selection of Learning Resources A. The following criteria will be used as they apply: 1. Learning resources shall support and be consistent with the general educational goals of the state and the district

Sample Selection Policy

159

and the aims and objectives of individual schools and specific courses. 2. Learning resources shall be chosen to enrich and support the curriculum and the personal needs of users. 3. Learning resources shall meet high standards of quality in: • artistic quality and/or literary style • authenticity • educational significance • factual content • physical format • presentation • readability • technical quality 4. Learning resources shall be appropriate for the subject area and for the age, emotional development, ability level, learning styles, and social development of the students for whom the materials are selected. 5. Learning resources shall be designed to provide a background of information that will motivate students and staff to examine their own attitudes and behavior; to comprehend their duties, responsibilities, rights, and privileges as participating citizens in our society; and to make informed judgments in their daily lives. 6. Learning resources shall provide information on opposing sides of controversial issues so that users may develop under guidance the practice of critical analysis. B. The selection of learning resources on controversial issues will be directed toward maintaining a balanced collection representing various views. Learning resources shall clarify historical and contemporary forces by presenting and analyzing intergroup tension and conflict objectively, placing emphasis on recognizing and understanding social and economic problems.

V. Procedures for Selection of Learning Resources A. In selecting learning resources, professional personnel will evaluate available resources and curriculum needs and will consult reputable, professionally prepared aids to selection and other appropriate sources. Among sources to be consulted are:

160

Appendix E

1. Bibliographies (latest edition available, including supplements): American Film & Video Association Evaluations American Historical Fiction Basic Book Collection for Elementary Grades Basic Book Collection for Junior High Schools The Best in Children’s Books Booklist Children and Books Children’s Catalog Elementary School Library Collection European Historical Fiction and Biography Guide to Sources in Educational Media Junior High School Catalog Library Journal Reference Books for School Libraries Subject Guide to Children’s Books in Print Subject Index to Books for Intermediate Grades Subject Index to Books for Primary Grades Westinghouse Learning Directory and as a part of the vertical file index, other special bibliographies, many of which have been prepared by educational organizations for particular subject matter areas 2. Current reviewing media: AASA Science Books and Films American Film & Video Association Evaluations Booklist Bulletin of the Center for Children’s Books Horn Book Kirkus Reviews Library Journal School Library Journal Other sources will be consulted as appropriate. Whenever possible, the actual resource will be examined. B. Recommendations for purchase involve administrators, teachers, students, district personnel, and community persons, as appropriate. C. Gift materials shall be judged by the criteria outlined and shall be accepted or rejected by those criteria. D. Selection is an ongoing process that should include the removal of materials no longer appropriate and the replacement of lost and worn materials still of educational value.

Sample Selection Policy

161

Part 2: Procedures for Dealing with Challenged Materials I. Statement of Policy Any resident or employee of the school district may formally challenge learning resources used in the district’s educational program on the basis of appropriateness. This procedure is for the purpose of considering the opinions of those persons in the schools and the community who are not directly involved in the selection process.

II. Request for Informal Reconsideration A. The school receiving a complaint regarding a learning resource shall try to resolve the issue informally. 1. The principal or other appropriate staff shall explain to the questioner the school’s selection procedure, criteria, and qualifications of those persons selecting the resource. 2. The principal or other appropriate staff shall explain the particular place the questioned resource occupies in the education program, its intended educational usefulness, and additional information regarding its use, or refer the party to someone who can identify and explain the use of the resource. 3. If the questioner wishes to file a formal challenge, a copy of the district Selection of Learning Resources policy and a Request for Reconsideration of Learning Resources form shall be handed or mailed to the party concerned by the principal.

III. Request for Formal Reconsideration A. Preliminary procedures 1. Each school will keep on hand and make available Request for Reconsideration of Learning Resources forms. All formal objections to learning resources must be made on these forms. 2. The Request for Reconsideration of Learning Resources form shall be signed by the questioner and filed with the principal or someone so designated by the principal. 3. The area assistant superintendent and the assistant superintendent of curriculum services shall be informed of the formal complaint received.

162

Appendix E

4. The request for reconsideration shall be referred to a reconsideration committee at the school level for reevaluation of the resource. 5. Requests for reconsideration of materials in district collections shall be referred to the school resource center consultative committee for reevaluation of the resource. This committee may involve additional personnel as appropriate. B. The reconsideration committee 1. Upon receipt of a request for formal reconsideration of a learning resource, the principal shall: a. Appoint a reconsideration committee including the following membership as appropriate: One member of the district staff chosen by the area assistant superintendent; One member of the school teaching staff chosen by the school staff; One member of the resource center professional staff chosen by the resource center professional staff; One member of the school consultative committee chosen by the school consultative committee; Two students chosen by the student body. b. Name a convener of the reconsideration committee. c. Arrange for a reconsideration committee meeting within 10 working days after the complaint is received. 2. The reconsideration committee may choose to consult district support staff and/or community persons with related professional knowledge. 3. The reconsideration committee shall review the challenged resource and judge whether it conforms to the principles of selection outlined in the district’s Selection of Learning Resources policy. C. Resolution 1. The reconsideration committee shall: a. Examine the challenged resource; b. Determine professional acceptance by reading critical reviews of the resource; c. Weigh values and faults and form opinions based on the material as a whole rather than on passages or sections taken out of context; d. Discuss the challenged resource in the context of the educational program;

Sample Selection Policy

163

e. Discuss the challenged item with the individual questioner when appropriate; f. Prepare a written report. 2. The written report shall be discussed with the individual questioner if requested. 3. The written report shall be retained by the school principal, with copies forwarded to the assistant superintendent of curriculum services and the area assistant superintendent. A minority report also may be filed. 4. Written reports, once filed, are confidential and available for examination by trustees and appropriate officials only. 5. The decision of the reconsideration committee is binding for the individual school. 6. Notwithstanding any procedure outlined in this policy, the questioner shall have the right to appeal any decision of the reconsideration committee to the Board of Trustees as the final review panel. D. Guiding principles 1. Any resident or employee of the school district may raise objection to learning resources used in a school’s educational program, despite the fact that the individuals selecting such resources were duly qualified to make the selection, followed the proper procedure, and observed the criteria for selecting learning resources. 2. The principal should review the selection and objection rules with the teaching staff at least annually. The staff should be reminded that the right to object to learning resources is one granted by policies enacted by the Board of Trustees. 3. No parent has the right to determine reading, viewing, or listening matter for students other than his or her own children. 4. School District No. 1 supports the Library Bill of Rights, adopted by the American Library Association. (A copy of the Library Bill of Rights is attached to this policy.) When learning resources are challenged, the principles of the freedom to read/listen/view must be defended as well. 5. Access to challenged material shall not be restricted during the reconsideration process. 6. The major criterion for the final decision is the appropriateness of the material for its intended educational use.

164

Appendix E

7. A decision to sustain a challenge shall not necessarily be interpreted as a judgment of irresponsibility by the professionals involved in the original selection and/or use of the material.

Additional Sources of Information (From the web site of the Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/oif.html) Censorship and Challenges http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/censors.html Coping with Challenges: Kids and Libraries http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/kidsandlibraries.html Coping with Challenges: Strategies and Tips for Dealing with Challenges to Library Materials http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/coping_inf.html Freedom to Read Statement http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freeread.html Library Bill of Rights http://www.ala.org/work/freedom/lbr.html Reporting a Challenge http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/reporting.html

Library Bill of Rights The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for information and ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services. I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials

Sample Selection Policy

165

should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use. Adopted June 18, 1948; amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980, inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 23, 1996, by the ALA Council.

APPENDIX

F

Guidelines for Student Publications

Following are model guidelines for student publications prepared by the Student Press Law Center. First published in 1985, the guidelines were revised to reflect the impact of the United States Supreme Court’s Hazelwood decision in 1990.

Preamble: The following guidelines are based on state and federal court decisions that have determined the First Amendment rights of students, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988). These guidelines do not provide a legal basis for school officials or employees to exercise prior restraint or prior review of student publications. The Student Press Law Center cautions that court rulings indicate that policies which provide for prior review and restraint and meet constitutional requirements of precision, narrow scope, and protection of speech are almost impossible to develop for forum publications. In addition, schools that adopt a prior review and/or prior restraint policy assume legal liability for the content of the publications, whether they are school-sponsored or nonschool-sponsored. Court decisions indicate that a school likely will be protected from liability if by written policy it rejects prior review and prior restraint. I. Statement of Policy It is undeniable that students are protected in their exercise of freedom of expression by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Accordingly, school officials are responsible for ensuring freedom of expression for all students. 166

Guidelines for Student Publications

167

It is the policy of the ______________________ Board of Education that (newspaper), (yearbook) and (literary magazine), the official, school-sponsored publications of __________________ High School have been established as forums for student expression and as voices in the uninhibited, robust, free, and open discussion of issues. Each publication should provide a full opportunity for students to inquire, question, and exchange ideas. Content should reflect all areas of student interest, including topics about which there may be dissent or controversy. It is the policy of the ________________________ Board of Education that student journalists shall have the right to determine the content of official student publications. Accordingly, the following guidelines relate only to establishing grounds for disciplinary actions subsequent to publication. II. Official School Publications A. Responsibilities of Student Journalists Students who work on official student publications determine the content of those publications and are responsible for that content. These students should: 1. Determine the content of the student publication; 2. Strive to produce a publication based upon professional standards of accuracy, objectivity, and fair play; 3. Review material to improve sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation; 4. Check and verify all facts and verify the accuracy of all quotations; and 5. In the case of editorials or letters to the editor concerning controversial issues, determine the need for rebuttal comments and opinions and provide space therefore if appropriate. B. Prohibited Material 1. Students cannot publish or distribute material that is “obscene as to minors.” “Minor” means any person under the age of 18. “Obscene as to minors” is defined as material that meets all three of the following requirements: a. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the publication, taken as a whole, appeals to a minor’s prurient interest in sex; and b. The publication depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct such as ultimate sexual acts (normal

168

Appendix F

or perverted), masturbation, and lewd exhibition of the genitals; and c. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Indecent or vulgar language is not obscene. [Note: Many statutes exist defining what is “obscene as to minors.” If such a statute is in force in your state, it should be substituted in place of Section II (B)(1).]

2. Students cannot publish or distribute libelous material. Libelous statements are provably false and unprivileged statements that do demonstrated injury to an individual’s or business’s reputation in the community. If the allegedly libeled party is a “public figure” or “public official” as defined below, then school officials must show that the false statement was published “with actual malice,” i.e., that the student journalists knew that the statement was false or that they published it with reckless disregard for the truth—without trying to verify the truthfulness of the statement. a. A public official is a person who holds an elected or appointed public office. b. A public figure either seeks the public’s attention or is well known because of personal achievements. c. School employees are public officials or public figures in articles concerning their school-related activities. d. When an allegedly libelous statement concerns a private individual, school officials must show that the false statement was published willfully or negligently, i.e., the student journalist who wrote or published the statement has failed to exercise reasonably prudent care. e. Under the “fair comment rule,” a student is free to express an opinion on a matter of public interest. Specifically, a student may criticize school policy or the performance of teachers, administrators, school officials, and other school employees. 3. Students cannot publish or distribute material that will cause “a material and substantial disruption of school activities.” a. “Disruption” is defined as student rioting; unlawful seizures of property; destruction of property; or substantial student participation in a school boycott, sit-in, walkout, or other related form of activity. Material such as racial, religious, or ethnic slurs, however distasteful, are not in and of themselves disruptive under these guidelines.

Guidelines for Student Publications

b.

c.

d. e.

169

Threats of violence are not materially disruptive without some act in furtherance of that threat or a reasonable belief and expectation that the author of the threat has the capability and intent of carrying through on that threat in a fashion not permitting acts other than suppression of speech to mitigate the threat in a timely manner. Material that stimulates heated discussion or debate does not constitute the type of disruption prohibited. For a student publication to be considered disruptive, specific facts must exist upon which one could reasonably forecast that a likelihood of immediate, substantial material disruption to normal school activity would occur if the material were further distributed or has occurred as a result of the material’s distribution. Mere undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough; school administrators must be able affirmatively to show substantial facts that reasonably support a forecast of likely disruption. In determining whether a student publication is disruptive, consideration must be given to the context of this disruption as well as the content of the material. In this regard, consideration would be given to past experience in the school with similar material, past experience in the school dealing with and supervising the students in the school, current events influencing student attitudes and behavior, and whether there have been any instances of actual or threatened disruption prior to or contemporaneous with the dissemination of the student publication in question. School officials must protect advocates of unpopular viewpoints. “School activity” means educational student activity sponsored by the school and includes, by way of example and not by way of limitation, classroom work, library activities, physical education classes, official assemblies and other similar gatherings, school athletic contests, band concerts, school plays, and scheduled in-school lunch periods.

C. Legal Advice 1. If, in the opinion of the student editor, student editorial staff, or faculty adviser, material proposed for publication may be “obscene,” “libelous,” or would cause an “immediate, mate-

170

Appendix F

rial, and substantial disruption of school activities,” the legal opinion of a practicing attorney should be sought. The services of the attorney for the local newspaper or the free legal services of the Student Press Law Center (202-466-5242) are recommended. 2. Legal fees charged in connection with the consultation will be paid by the Board of Education. 3. The final decision of whether the material is to be published will be left to the student editor or student editorial staff. III. Nonschool-Sponsored Publications School officials may not ban the distribution of nonschool-sponsored publications on school grounds. However, students who violate any rule listed under II(B) may be disciplined after distribution. 1. School officials may regulate the time, place, and manner of distribution. a. Nonschool-sponsored publications will have the same rights of distribution as official school publications. b. “Distribution” means dissemination of a publication to students at a time and place of normal school activity, or immediately prior or subsequent thereto, by means of handing out free copies, selling or offering copies for sale, or accepting donations for copies of the publication in areas of the school which are generally frequented by students. 2. School officials cannot: a. Prohibit the distribution of anonymous literature or require that literature bear the name of the sponsoring organization or author; b. Ban the distribution of literature because it contains advertising; c. Ban the sale of literature; or d. Create regulations that discriminate against nonschoolsponsored publications or interfere with the effective distribution of sponsored or non-sponsored publications. IV. Protected Speech School officials cannot: 1. Ban speech solely because it is controversial, takes extreme, “fringe,” or minority opinions, or is distasteful, unpopular, or unpleasant;

Guidelines for Student Publications

171

2. Ban the publication or distribution of material relating to sexual issues including, but not limited to, virginity, birth control, and sexually transmitted diseases (including AIDS); 3. Censor or punish the occasional use of indecent, vulgar, or so-called “four-letter” words in student publications; 4. Prohibit criticism of the policies, practices, or performance of teachers, school officials, the school itself, or of any public officials; 5. Cut off funds to official student publications because of disagreement over editorial policy; 6. Ban speech that merely advocates illegal conduct without proving that such speech is directed toward and will actually cause imminent unlawful action; 7. Ban the publication or distribution of material written by non-students; 8. Prohibit the school newspaper from accepting advertising; or 9. Prohibit the endorsement of candidates for student office or for public office at any level. V. Commercial Speech Advertising is a constitutionally protected expression. School publications may accept advertising. Acceptance or rejection of advertising is within the purview of the publication staff, who may accept any ads except for those for products or services that are illegal for all students. Political ads may be accepted. The publication should not accept ads only on one side of an issue of election. VI. Adviser Job Security The adviser is not a censor. No teacher who advises a student publication will be fired, transferred, or removed from the advisership by reason of his or her refusal to exercise editorial control over the student publication or to otherwise suppress the protected free expression of student journalists. VII. Prior Restraint No student publication, whether nonschool-sponsored or official, will be reviewed by school administrators prior to distribution or withheld from distribution. The school assumes no liability for the

172

Appendix F

content of any student publication, and urges all student journalists to recognize that with editorial control comes responsibility, including the responsibility to follow professional journalism standards. VIII. Circulation These guidelines will be included in the handbook on student rights and responsibilities and circulated to all students.

APPENDIX

G

Dealing with Concerns about Library Resources

s with any public service, libraries receive complaints and expressions of concern. One of the librarian’s responsibilities is to handle these complaints in a respectful and fair manner. The complaints that librarians often worry about most are those dealing with library resources or free access policies. The key to successfully handling these complaints is to be sure the library staff and the governing authorities are all knowledgeable about the complaint procedures and their implementation. As normal operating procedure each library should:

A

1. Maintain a materials selection policy. It should be in written form and approved by the appropriate governing authority. It should apply to all library materials equally. 2. Maintain a library service policy. This should cover registration policies, programming, and services in the library that involve access issues. 3. Maintain a clearly defined method for handling complaints. The complaint must be filed in writing and the complainant must be properly identified before action is taken. A decision should be deferred until fully considered by appropriate administrative authority. (A sample form, Sample Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources, is provided in appendix D.) The process should be followed, whether the complaint originates internally or externally. 4. Maintain in-service training. Conduct periodic in-service training to acquaint staff, administration, and the governing authority with the materials selection policy and library service policy and procedures for handling complaints. 173

174

Appendix G

5. Maintain lines of communication with civic, religious, educational, and political bodies of the community. Library board and staff participation in local civic organizations and presentations to these organizations should emphasize the library’s selection process and intellectual freedom principles. 6. Maintain a vigorous public information program on behalf of intellectual freedom. Newspapers, radio, and television should be informed of policies governing resource selection and use, and of any special activities pertaining to intellectual freedom. 7. Maintain familiarity with any local municipal and state legislation pertaining to intellectual freedom and First Amendment rights. Following these practices will not preclude receiving complaints from pressure groups or individuals but should provide a base from which to operate when these concerns are expressed. When a complaint is made, follow one or more of the steps listed below: a. Listen calmly and courteously to the complaint. Remember the person has a right to express a concern. Use of good communication skills helps many people understand the need for diversity in library collections and the use of library resources. In the event the person is not satisfied, advise the complainant of the library policy and procedures for handling library resource statements of concern. If a person does fill out a form about their concern, make sure a prompt written reply related to the concern is sent. b. It is essential to notify the administration and/or the governing authority (library board, etc.) of the complaint and assure them that the library’s procedures are being followed. Present full, written information giving the nature of the complaint and identifying the source. c. When appropriate, seek the support of the local media. Freedom to read and freedom of the press go hand in hand. d. When appropriate, inform local civic organizations of the facts and enlist their support. Meet negative pressure with positive pressure. e. Assert the principles of the Library Bill of Rights as a professional responsibility. Laws governing obscenity, subversive material, and other questionable matter are subject to interpretation by courts. Library materials found to meet the standards set in the materials selection policy should not be removed from public access until after an adversary hearing resulting in a final judicial determination.

Dealing with Concerns about Library Resources

175

f. Contact the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom and your state intellectual freedom committee to inform them of the complaint and to enlist their support and the assistance of other agencies. The principles and procedures discussed above apply to all kinds of resource-related complaints or attempts to censor and are supported by groups such as the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Council of Teachers of English, as well as the American Library Association. While the practices provide positive means for preparing for and meeting pressure group complaints, they serve the more general purpose of supporting the Library Bill of Rights, particularly Article III, which states that “Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of the responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.” SOURCE: Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association. Revised by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee, 1983.

APPENDIX

H

Selected List of Concerned National Organizations

American Library Association Office for Intellectual Freedom 50 East Huron Street Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (800) 545-2433, ext. 4223 Fax: 312/440-9374 www.ala.org/ American Association of School Administrators 1801 N. Monroe Street Arlington, VA 22209 Phone: 703/528-0700 Fax: 703/841-1543 www.aasa.org/ American Association of School Libraries 50 East Huron Street Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (800) 545-2433, ext. 4386 www.ala.org/aasl/

176

American Civil Liberties Union 132 W. 43rd Street New York, NY 10036 Phone: 212/944-9800 Fax: 212/869-9068 www.aclu.org/ American Federation of Teachers 555 New Jersey Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 Phone: 202/879-4400 www.aft.org/ Americans for Religious Liberty P.O. Box 6656 Silver Spring, MD 20916 Phone: 301/598-2447 www.infidels.org/~ltaylor/ arl.html Americans United for Separation of Church and State 900 Silver Spring Ave. Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: 301/588-2282 Fax: 301/495-9173 www.au.org/

Selected List of Concerned National Organizations

The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development 1250 N. Pitt Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703/549-9110 www.ascd.org/

National Center for Science Education P.O. Box 9477 Berkeley, CA 94709-9953 Phone: 510/526-1674 www.natcenscied.org/

Council of Chief State School Officers 1 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001-1431 Phone: 202/408-8072 www.ccsso.org/

National Coalition Against Censorship 275 7th Ave. New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212/807-6222 www.ncac.org/

Freedom to Read Foundation 50 E. Huron Street Chicago, IL 60611 Phone: (800) 545-2433, ext. 4226 www.ftrf.org/ International Reading Association 800 Barksdale Road P.O. Box 8139 Newark, DE 19714-8139 Phone: 302/731-1600 www.reading.org/ National Association of Biology Teachers 12030 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 110 Reston, VA 20191 Phone: 703/264-9696 www.nabt.org/

177

National Council for the Social Studies 3501 Newark Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 Phone: 202/966-7840 www.socialstudies.org/ National Council of Teachers of English 1111 Kenyon Road Urbana, IL 61801 Phone: 217/328-3870 www.ncte.org/ National Education Association Human and Civil Rights Division 1201 16th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202/822-7700 www.nea.org/ National School Boards Association 1680 Duke Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone: 703/838-6722 www.nsba.org/

178

Appendix H

People for the American Way 2000 M Street N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202/467-4999 www.pfaw.org/

Religion and Public Education Resource Center Dr. Bruce Grelle RPERC Department of Religious Studies, California State University Chico, CA 95929-0740 Phone: 530/898-4739 www.csuchico.edu/rs/ rperc.html

APPENDIX

I

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

The Tinker case arose when a group of students decided to publicize their objection to the Vietnam War and their support for a truce by wearing black armbands in school during the 1967 holiday season. When the principals of the Des Moines schools became aware of the students’ intentions, they announced that any student wearing an armband would be asked to remove it and if the request were refused, the student would be suspended until he or she returned without the armband. A number of students, among them John and Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt (15, 13, and 16, respectively), went ahead with their plans and wore the armbands to school. There was no disturbance or disruption of normal school activities but, nevertheless, the students were told to remove their armbands in accordance with the principals’ edict. When they refused, they were ordered to leave school. They returned to school two weeks later, sans armbands; but in the meantime, they had filed suit in federal court. The Tinkers and Eckhardt lost their case at both the district court level and in the United States Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed these decisions. The majority opinion pointed out in February 1969 that neither students nor teachers “shed their Constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The Court held that the First Amendment protects the rights of public school children to express 179

180

Appendix I

their political and social views during school hours. The decision held further that school officials may not place arbitrary curbs on student speech in the public schools. It is particularly interesting to note that while many individuals had taken for granted that schoolchildren did have First Amendment rights of free speech, the Supreme Court had never directly said so prior to this case. Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25 (New York City), 457 F.2d 289 (2d Cir. 1972), 409 U.S. 998 (1972)

This 1972 case was the first to consider whether a school board could remove books from a school library. At issue was a school board action revoking library access by junior high school students to Down These Mean Streets, by Piri Thomas, an autobiographical account of a Puerto Rican growing up in Spanish Harlem. The book’s language and graphic sexual scenes offended some people in the community, who requested its removal. The opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reflected the traditional deference to school board discretion by upholding its action revoking free access to Thomas’s novel. Bypassing the constitutional aspects of the case, the court reduced the issue to one of shelving a book: “To suggest that the shelving or unshelving of books presents a constitutional issue, particularly when there is no showing of a curtailment of freedom of speech or thought, is a proposition we cannot accept.” Judge Mulligan, writing for the court, declared that someone has to bear responsibility for book selection, and since school boards are statutorily empowered to operate the schools and prescribe the curriculum, the board is the appropriate body. Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976)

This suit was prompted by the Strongsville City Board of Education’s rejection of faculty recommendations to approve the purchase of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22 and Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater for use in the high school curriculum. The school board also ordered two books, Catch-22 and Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle, removed from the library. No official reason was given for the removal; the only apparent explanation was contained in the minutes of a

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

181

board meeting at which the books were described as “completely sick” and “garbage.” In 1976, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled against the school board, upholding the students’ First Amendment right to receive information and the librarians’ right to disseminate it. Judge Edward, writing for the court, rejected the absolute right of a school board to remove from the library any book it might regard with disfavor: A library is a storehouse of knowledge. When created for a public school, it is an important privilege created by the state for the benefit of students in the schools. That privilege is not subject to being withdrawn by succeeding school boards whose members might desire to “winnow” the library for books the contents of which occasioned their displeasure or disapproval.

The court further emphasized that the responsibility of the board to provide access to material could not be minimized by the availability of the books in sources outside the school.

Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, 454 F. Supp. 703 (D. Mass. 1978)

In 1976, the banning of a poetry anthology, Male and Female Under 18, by the Chelsea (Massachusetts) School Committee was challenged in federal court. The plaintiffs were Chelsea school librarian Sonja Coleman and a group organized to support her, the Right to Read Defense Committee of Chelsea. The action against Male and Female Under 18 reflected the school committee’s strong dislike of one poem in the anthology, “The City to a Young Girl,” by Jody Caravaglia. The school committee argued that under Massachusetts law the school committee has clear authority to approve or disapprove works used in the schools. In addition, the committee argued that it had legally decided not to include sex education in the curriculum and that “The City to a Young Girl” represented an effort to introduce the subject improperly. The Right to Read Defense Committee contended that Male and Female Under 18 is fully protected by the First Amendment, that students possess a right to have access to materials fully protected by the First Amendment, and that the school committee’s objections to the poem as “vulgar and offensive” could not constitutionally justify its suppression.

182

Appendix I

In July 1978, U.S. District Judge Joseph L. Tauro enjoined the school committee “from removing, or causing to be removed, in whole or in part,” the anthology, which was to be made available to students “ in accordance with standard library procedures.” Relying particularly on the Minarcini precedent, Judge Tauro held that the committee’s attempt to ban “The City to a Young Girl” could not pass First Amendment standards established by Supreme Court and lower court rulings. Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School Board, 475 F. Supp. 615 (D. Vt. 1979), 638 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1980)

In this Vermont case, litigated in 1979, U.S. District Court Judge Albert W. Coffin dismissed a complaint filed by librarian Elizabeth Phillips, several students, and others to protest the board’s removal of The Wanderer and Dog Day Afternoon from the library; the imposition of a freeze on new library acquisitions; and the board’s policy of screening all major acquisitions. The court held that school boards have final authority in such matters and that the restrictions did not violate the constitutional rights of students or librarians: Although the court does not entirely agree with the policies and actions of the defendants, we do not find that those policies and actions directly or sharply infringe upon the basic constitutional rights of the students of Vergennes Union High School. . . . the detailed procedures set forth for removing works from the collection obviously condition the general statements of the rights of those persons affected by the policy. Furthermore, the right of professional personnel under that policy “to freely select” materials for the collection are explicitly limited by the phrase “in accordance with Board policy.”

In October 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, affirmed the dismissal. Loewen v. Turnipseed, 488 F. Supp. 1138 (N.D. Miss. 1980)

A ninth-grade history textbook, Mississippi: Conflict and Change, by James W. Loewen and Charles Sallis, became a subject of controversy in 1974 when the Mississippi Textbook Purchasing Board refused to approve it for use in Mississippi public schools. The text-

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

183

book committee, which can approve up to five history texts, selected only a revised version of the book used in ninth-grade classrooms in Mississippi for nearly two decades. Loewen charged that the approved book “stigmatizes black people” and fails to mention or gives only passing reference to renowned Mississippi blacks. The five white members of the textbook committee rejected Mississippi: Conflict and Change on the grounds that it was too concerned with racial matters and too controversial; the two black members of the committee judged it suitable. A suit was brought before U.S. District Judge Orma R. Smith, who ruled that the criteria used for selecting textbooks by the Mississippi committee were not justifiable grounds for rejecting Mississippi: Conflict and Change. Judge Smith held that because the controversial racial material in the book was a factor leading to its rejection, the plaintiff authors had been denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of speech and of the press.

Zykan v. Warsaw (Indiana) Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees, 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. 1980)

At issue was a curriculum review conducted by the school board in 1977, which resulted in the discontinuance of certain courses, the removal of some books from the curriculum, the dismissal of several teachers, and the discontinuance of publication of the high school newspaper. A high school student brought suit seeking to reverse school officials’ decision to “limit or prohibit the use of certain textbooks, to remove a certain book from the school library, and to delete certain courses from the curriculum.” The District Court dismissed Zykan’s suit, which charged that school officials had violated constitutional guarantees of academic freedom and the “right to know.” The case was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which ruled that the school board has the right to establish a curriculum on the basis of its own discretion, but that it is forbidden to impose a “pall of orthodoxy” on the classroom. The right of students to file legal complaints about the school curriculum was recognized; however, the court held that the claims of students “must cross a relatively high threshold before entering upon the field of a constitutional claim suitable for federal court litigation.”

184

Appendix I

Seyfried v. Walton, 668 F.2d 214 (3d Cir. 1981)

After rehearsals had begun for a student production of the musical Pippin, which had been edited to remove certain sexually explicit scenes, the superintendent canceled the play because of its remaining sexual content. Several students and parents sued, alleging the violation of the students’ free expression rights. The Court of Appeals upheld the play’s cancellation, finding that the school’s sponsorship of a play would be viewed as an endorsement of the ideas it contained and that the school cannot be forced to promote a viewpoint at variance with its educational mission. Student expression was not violated, the court concluded, since the script, unedited, was available in the school library, and no one was punished or reprimanded for any expression of ideas. Pratt v. Independent School District No. 831, 670 F.2d 771 (8th Cir. 1982)

After parents and other citizens complained about the violence portrayed and the story’s impact on students’ religious and family values, a Minnesota school board removed a film version of “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson and a related film trailer from the curriculum after five years’ use. The film was about a small town in which one person was selected to be stoned to death each year. The trailer discussed the story and its themes. Three students sued to have the film reinstated in the curriculum. The Court of Appeals upheld the students’ challenge, finding that the film was eliminated because of its “ideological content” in contravention of the First Amendment. It did not save the school board that the short story remained available in the school library in printed form and as a photographic recording. The court acknowledged the school board’s broad discretion over curriculum, but stated that “[w]hat is at stake is the right to receive information and to be exposed to controversial ideas—a fundamental First Amendment right. If these films can be banned by those opposed to their ideological theme, then a precedent is set for the removal of any such work.” Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)

In September 1975, three school board members sought removal of a number of books they had been informed were objectionable by

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

185

a politically conservative organization. The following February, the board gave an “unofficial direction” that the books be removed from the school libraries, so that board members might read them. When the board’s action attracted press attention, members responded with a press release describing the books as “anti-American, antiChristian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.” The nine books that were the subject of the lawsuit were: Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut; The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris; Down These Mean Streets, by Piri Thomas; Best Short Stories of Negro Writers, edited by Langston Hughes; Go Ask Alice, written anonymously; Laughing Boy, by Oliver LaFarge; Black Boy, by Richard Wright; A Hero Ain’t Nothin’ But a Sandwich, by Alice Childress; and Soul on Ice, by Eldridge Cleaver. The board appointed a review committee that recommended that five of the books be returned to the library shelves, two be placed on restricted shelves, and two be removed entirely from the library. No recommendation was made as to the final book. The full board then voted to remove all but one book, without explaining its action. In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld the students’ challenge to this action. A clear majority of the Court held that school boards do not have unrestricted authority to select library books and that the First Amendment is implicated when books are removed arbitrarily. “If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners’ decision,” Justice William Brennan wrote in a plurality opinion, “then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned [by this Court before].” The majority of the Court condemned politically motivated book removals, but strongly suggested that decisions based on educational suitability would be upheld, particularly where a regular system of review with standardized guidelines was in place.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985)

The Supreme Court upheld a First Amendment challenge to an Alabama law that required the school day to begin with a moment of silence for “meditation or voluntary prayer.” The Court determined that the legislature clearly intended to return religion to the schools in

186

Appendix I

violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court found the unambiguous legislative record indicated that “the statute had no secular purpose.” By conveying the message that the moment of silence ought to be used for prayer, the schools were unconstitutionally sponsoring a religious exercise, thereby violating “the established principle that the Government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.”

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. ____ (1986)

A high school student was suspended for two days after making sexually suggestive remarks in a student-government nominating speech at a voluntary school assembly. The student’s challenge of his suspension failed before the Supreme Court. It does not follow, the Court held, that “simply because the use of an offensive form of expression may not be prohibited to adults making what the speaker considers a political point, that the same latitude must be permitted to children in a public school.” The Court went on to declare, “[t]he undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”

San Diego Committee against Registration and the Draft (CARD) v. Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District, 790 F.2d 1471 (9th Cir. 1986)

A nonprofit group, known by the acronym CARD, attempted to purchase advertising space for “information and counseling to male students regarding alternatives to military service” in five high school newspapers. A policy directive from the school district’s superintendent instructed principals to reject the advertisement on the ground it would “contribute to the solicitation of illegal acts by the district’s students.” CARD brought a First Amendment challenge. The Court of Appeals found that the school district’s policies had created a limited public forum in the student newspapers. With respect to speech by nonstudents, the board’s policy was to permit advertisements offering goods, services, or vocational opportunities to students. The school contended that its policy allowed only non-

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

187

political commercial speech. However, since the school permitted the newspapers to publish military recruitment advertising, which the court concluded was political or governmental and not economic, the CARD advertisement was “within the limited public forum the Board has created.” To allow military recruitment advertising while denying advertising opposed to military service was to engage in impermissible viewpoint-based discrimination. In addition, the court determined that the advertisement’s text failed to suggest the advocacy of illegal activity, and the Board’s speculation about that result did not provide a reasonable basis for excluding the advertisement.

Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, 819 F.2d 657 (6th Cir. 1987)

A tenured high school teacher was discharged in July 1984 after she permitted students under her charge, ages 14 to 17, to view an R-rated movie, Pink Floyd—The Wall, while she completed grade cards. In permitting the showing of the movie with which she was unfamiliar, the teacher was responding to a request from the students. She asked a student familiar with the film to edit out unsuitable portions by use of a file folder that covered only part of the screen. School officials charged that the movie promoted values that were immoral, antieducation, antifamily, antijudiciary, and antipolice, as well as was objectionable for its sexual content, vulgar language, and violence. The Court of Appeals held “that conduct is protected by the First Amendment only when it is expressive or communicative in nature.” Since the teacher had not seen the movie, the court reasoned that she could not have had the intent to convey a particular message and was not within her First Amendment rights. The teacher’s discharge was thus upheld.

Bystrom v. Fridley High School Independent School District No. 14, 822 F.2d 747 (8th Cir. 1987)

Students brought suit challenging a school policy giving officials review and a right to prevent distribution on school premises of their “underground newspaper.” The Court of Appeals held that prior restraints in the high school context are not per se unconstitutional and that government may regulate the distribution of written materials

188

Appendix I

that fall within guidelines outlining what is “obscene to minors,” libelous, pervasively indecent or vulgar, invasive of privacy, or an advertisement of products or services not permitted to minors by law. In addition, schools may regulate such distributions to prevent a “substantial disruption of the proper and orderly operation and discipline of a school.” The court upheld the school policy in this case except as it related to invasion of privacy or endangering the health or safety of another, since it would not result in tort liability to “the school or anyone else.” Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987)

Parents and other citizens in Mobile, Alabama, brought a lawsuit against the school board, alleging that the school system was teaching the tenets of an antireligious religion called “secular humanism.” The plaintiffs, all Christian Evangelicals, claimed that the teaching of this religion violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which forbids government from promoting any or all religions. To remedy the alleged violation, the complainants asked that 44 different elementary- through high school-level textbooks be removed from the curriculum of the school district. After the plaintiffs won an initial victory against some of the textbooks in the federal district court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed. The court, avoiding the issue of whether “secular humanism” is a religion, held that as long as the school was motivated by a secular purpose, it didn’t matter whether the curriculum and texts shared ideas held by one or more religious groups. The court found that the texts in question promoted important secular values, including tolerance, self-respect, and logical decision making. Thus, the use of the textbooks in dispute did not unconstitutionally advance a nontheistic religion, nor inhibit theistic religions. Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987)

Parents and students representing seven families with children in grades one through eight brought this action challenging the mandatory use of certain reading textbooks on the grounds that the texts

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

189

promoted values offensive to their religious beliefs and constituted a violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of religious liberty. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ claim, stating that “in the absence of a showing that this participation [in class reading] entailed affirmation or denial of a religious belief, or performance or non-performance of a religious exercise or practice,” use of the texts did “not place an unconstitutional burden on the students’ free exercise or religion.” In so holding, the court found that the Constitution does not require school curricula to be revised substantially in order to accommodate religious views. Edwards v. Aguillard, 55 U.S.L.W. 4861 (1987)

Louisiana had enacted a law, known as the Creationism Act, that prohibited the teaching of evolution unless accompanied by the balanced treatment of “creation science.” The statute was challenged, and the Supreme Court found that it violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Because the statute mandated the creation of curriculum guides on creationism and prohibited discrimination against believers of creationism, and did not do the same for evolution, the Court determined that “the legislature therefore sought to alter the science curriculum to reflect endorsement of a religious view that is antagonistic to the theory of evolution.” Schools cannot endorse a particular religious viewpoint and “seek to employ the symbolic and financial support of government” to do so, according to the decision. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 86–836, 484 U.S. 260 (1988)

After a school principal removed two pages containing articles, among others, on teenage pregnancy and the impact of divorce on students from a newspaper produced as part of a high school journalism class, the student staff filed suit claiming a violation of their First Amendment rights. The principal defended his action on the grounds that he was protecting the privacy of the pregnant students described, protecting younger students from inappropriate references to sexual activity and birth control, and protecting the school from a potential libel action.

190

Appendix I

The Supreme Court held that the principal acted reasonably and did not violate the students’ First Amendment rights. A school need not tolerate student speech, the Court declared, “that is inconsistent with its ‘basic educational mission,’ even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” In addition, the Court found the newspaper was part of the regular journalism curriculum and subject to extensive control by a faculty member. The school, thus, did not create a public forum for the expression of ideas, but instead maintained the newspaper “as a supervised learning experience for journalism students.” The Court concluded that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” The Court strongly suggested that supervised student activities that “may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum,” including school-sponsored publications and theatrical productions, were subject to the authority of educators. The Court cautioned, however, that this authority does not justify an educator’s attempt “to silence a student’s personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises.”

Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, 862 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1989)

After parental complaints, the Columbia County school board removed to locked storage a literature textbook containing excerpts from the classic Greek comedy Lysistrata, by Aristophanes, and The Miller’s Tale, by the medieval English poet Geoffrey Chaucer. The board agreed with parents that the passages were characterized by “explicit sexuality and excessively vulgar language.” Although the judges felt compelled to “seriously question how young persons just below the age of majority can be harmed by these masterpieces of Western literature,” the court upheld the school board’s action. The court focused on the fact that these were materials used within the curriculum and thus bore the imprimatur of school approval. It then found that the reason for the removal— sexuality and vulgar language—was a legitimate pedagogical concern. The court also found the board action reasonable because the textbook, as well as other versions of the disputed selections, remained available in the school library.

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

191

Romano v. Harrington, 725 F. Supp. 687 (E.D. N.Y. 1989)

The U.S. District Court found in favor of a faculty adviser to a high school newspaper who claimed a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments when fired following the newspaper’s publication of a student’s article opposing the federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr. The court held that educators may exercise greater editorial control over what students write for class than what they voluntarily submit to extracurricular publications. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992)

A Jewish family challenged an officially sponsored nondenominational prayer included in the program of a public school graduation. Led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court by a 5–4 margin barred the prayer. If citizens are “subjected to statesponsored religious exercises,” the government itself fails in its “duty to guard and respect that sphere of inviolable conscience and belief which is the mark of a free people. . . . No holding by this Court suggests that a school can persuade or compel a student to participate in a religious exercise,” the Court declared.

Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 113 S.Ct. 2141, 124 L.Ed.2d. 352 (1993)

The Supreme Court held that a school district that opened its classrooms after hours to a range of groups for social, civic, and recreational purposes, including films and lectures about a range of issues such as family values and child-rearing, could not deny access to a religious organization to discuss the same, permissible issues from a religious point of view. Whether or not the classrooms were public forums, the school district could not deny use based on the speaker’s point of view on an otherwise permissible topic.

Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District, 27 F.3d 1373 (9th Cir. 1994)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the Woodland, California, school district could use the Impressions

192

Appendix I

reading series and that use of the series did not violate the principles of separation of church and state. Parents had challenged the series on the grounds that it allegedly endorsed or taught the religion of witchcraft in the public schools. Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 908 F. Supp. 864 (D. Kan. 1995)

When the Olathe, Kansas, school board voted to remove the book Annie on My Mind, a novel depicting a lesbian relationship between two teenagers, from junior and senior high school libraries, the U.S. District Court found that it violated students’ rights under the First Amendment and the corresponding provisions of the Kansas Constitution. Although school board members testified that they removed the book because of “educational unsuitability,” as permitted under Pico, it became obvious from their testimony that the book was removed because of its point of view. The court also found that the board violated its own materials selection and reconsideration policies, which weighed heavily in the decision. American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice and Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997)

In a landmark 9–0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law making it a crime to send or display indecent material online in a manner available to minors. The decision in the consolidated cases completed a successful challenge to the so-called Communications Decency Act by the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, in which the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation played leading roles. The Court held that speech on the Internet is entitled to the highest level of First Amendment protection, similar to the protection the Court provides books and newspapers. Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District, 97-15511 (9th Cir. 1998)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on a suit filed by a woman who wished to remove The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and a short story by William Faulkner from the required read-

Summaries of Selected Legal Cases

193

ing list at her daughter’s high school because they were racist. The decision was of particular importance because it involved not a challenge to a school board’s abridgment of First Amendment rights, as in Pico, but instead a third party’s effort to limit the materials that school officials wish students to read. The court allowed a parent to sue the school district for allegedly failing to respond to complaints that white students were harassing blacks. In addition, the parent charged that use of the readings contributed to the alleged harassment. But the judges said the school could not be required to remove books as a way to reduce such harassment. Curriculum judgments “are ordinarily best left to school boards and educational officials,” the court said, adding that “we reject the notion that putting books on trial in our courts is the proper way to determine the appropriateness of their use in the classroom.”

APPENDIX

J

A Selected, Annotated Bibliography on the First Amendment and Intellectual Freedom

These titles, published during more than a decade of considerable attention to freedom of expression and censorship, reflect the major issues of the debate—freedom of the press; school and library censorship; and regulation of pornography. Titles range from popular to scholarly, theoretical to practical, and include important audiovisual items produced during the period.

Adams, Thelma, ed. Censorship and First Amendment Rights: A Primer. Tarrytown, N.Y.: American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, 1992. Case studies and resources for handling censorship, working with lawyers and lobbyists, etc., with an introduction by Anthony Lewis. Beahm, George, ed. War of Words: The Censorship Debate. New York: Andrews and McMeel, 1993. Includes more than 100 essays, articles, and interviews by the most important and impassioned players in the free speech debate. Major sections on school and children’s access issues. Berninghausen, David K. Flight from Reason: Essays on Intellectual Freedom in the Academy, the Press and the Library. Chicago: American Library Association, 1975. Essays about intellectual freedom with a focus on pressures to censor from the right and the left. Also includes the role of the American Library Association in defense of intellectual freedom. 194

A Selected, Annotated Bibliography

195

Bosmajian, Haig. Censorship, Libraries and the Law. New York: NealSchuman, 1983. Reprints of court cases related to school library censorship. Boston, Robert. Why the Religious Right Is Wrong about Separation of Church and State. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus, 1993. A readable, conversational defense of the separation of church and state. Concise and informative, but confrontational and partisan. Brown, Jean E., ed. Preserving Intellectual Freedom: Fighting Censorship in Our Schools. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1994. A valuable collection of essays. Topics covered include intellectual freedom and English education, intellectual freedom and the curriculum, censorship and African-American literature, and self-censorship and the elementary schoolteacher. Bryson, Joseph E., and Elizabeth W. Detty. Legal Aspects of Censorship of Public School Library and Instructional Materials. Charlottesville, Va.: Michie, 1982. Designed to alert educators to critical censorship areas and to help them develop policies and procedures to avoid judicial action and adverse public relations resulting from censorship. Burress, Lee. Battle of the Books: Literary Censorship in the Public Schools, 1950–1985. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1989. Case studies, issues, and surveys on public school censorship. Busha, Charles H. An Intellectual Freedom Primer. Littleton, Colo.: Libraries Unlimited, 1977. Intellectual freedom in the 20th century, ranging from the performing arts and cinema to data systems and censorship research. Censorship or Selection: Choosing Books for Public Schools. [Video recording] Chicago: American Library Association, Washington, D.C.: Association of American Publishers with Media and Society Seminars, 1982. Explores censorship in three areas: the classroom, the library, and textbooks—specifically, creationism/evolution. Who should determine content and who can remove materials? Davis, James E., ed. Dealing with Censorship. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1979. Articles by well-known intellectual freedom advocates Jenkinson, Donelson, Shugert, and others discussing issues related to censorship in schools.

196

Appendix J

DelFaltore, Joan. What Johnny Shouldn’t Read: Textbook Censorship in America. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1992. An enlightening treatise on how pressure groups affect textbook publishing, influencing schools throughout the country. The stories behind recent lawsuits show how local controversies become national issues because of sophisticated pressure group tactics. Demac, Donna. Liberty Denied: The Current Rise of Censorship in America. 2nd ed. Rutgers, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990. A look at the rising tide of censorship in American society. Downs, Robert B., and Ralph E. McCoy. First Freedom Today: Critical Issues Relating to Censorship and to Intellectual Freedom. Chicago: American Library Association, 1984. Collection of writings on First Amendment issues during the last 25 years. Foerstel, Herbert. Banned in the Media: A Reference Guide to Censorship in the Press, Motion Pictures, Broadcasting, and the Internet. New York: Greenwood, 1998. ———. Banned in the U.S.A.: A Reference Guide to Censorship in School and Public Libraries. New York: Greenwood, 1994. ———. Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia. New York: Greenwood, 1997. Three useful reference tools covering a broad range of censorship and intellectual freedom issues of interest to educators. Brief definitions of terms and longer interpretive essays provide broad coverage of issues and events, with reference to history but with the major focus on more recent developments. Banned in the U.S.A. includes Foerstel’s ranking of the most banned or challenged titles. Freedom in America: The Two-Century Record. [Filmstrip] Chicago: Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 1977. Visual overview of First Amendment freedoms in America. Geller, Evelyn. Forbidden Books in American Public Libraries, 1876– 1939: A Study in Cultural Change. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1984. A social history and analysis of the approach of the profession of librarianship to censorship and freedom to read. Hentoff, Nat. The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America. New York: Delacorte, 1980. Historical review of the First Amendment.

A Selected, Annotated Bibliography

197

Jenkinson, Edward B. Censors in the Classroom: The Mind Benders. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979. Discussion of current censorship activity in the schools by a scholar in the field. ———. The Schoolbook Protest Movement: 40 Questions and Answers. Bloomington, Ind.: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1986. Questions and answers on the significant issues of the schoolbook censorship movement, most challenged materials, policies, and procedures. Jones, Frances J. Defusing Censorship: The Librarians’ Guide to Handling Censorship Conflicts. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1983. Overview of recent court cases and discussion of legal issues related to censorship, with procedures and advice for librarians. Lewis, Felice Flanery. Literature, Obscenity and Law. Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1976. Historical overview of judicial actions related to literary classics. Lofton, John. Press as Guardian of the First Amendment. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1980. Two hundred years of press reaction to the First Amendment. Malakoff, Eve H., and Mark S. Wisniewski, eds. First Amendment and the Schools. Washington, D.C.: National School Boards Association, Council of School Attorneys, 1983. First Amendment issues related to library books, textbooks, religion, and student publications from the point of view of school board attorneys. Includes George Lipp commenting on the Island Trees case. Marsh, Dave. 50 Ways to Fight Censorship. New York: Thunder’s Newsletter, 1991. A pull-no-punches guide to fighting censorship wherever it may appear. Moshman, David, ed. Children’s Intellectual Rights (New Directions for Child Development, no. 33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986. Six essays addressing the issue of whether and to what extent First Amendment guarantees apply to children and adolescents. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom. Chicago: Intellectual Freedom Committee, American Library Association. Bimonthly journal providing essential news and features about intellectual freedom and censorship activity.

198

Appendix J

Noble, William. Bookbanning in America: Who Bans Books?—And Why? Middlebury, Vt.: Paul S. Eriksson, 1990. Anecdotes, interviews, trial transcripts, and case histories show how and why book-banning happens, beginning in 1650, through the more recent Salman Rushdie affair. Oboler, Eli M., ed. Censorship and Education. New York: H. W. Wilson, 1981. Typical “reference shelf” reprints of significant articles about classroom and library censorship. ———. Defending Intellectual Freedom. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1980. Collection of Oboler’s writings on censorship and intellectual freedom. Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association. Censorship Litigation and the Schools: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held January 1981. Chicago: American Library Association, 1983. Edited transcript of a colloquium sponsored by the American Civil Liberties Union, Association of American Publishers, American Library Association, and Freedom to Read Foundation. ———. Intellectual Freedom Manual. 5th ed. Chicago and London: American Library Association, 1996. Basic reference outlining official American Library Association policy relating to intellectual freedom, including the Library Bill of Rights and interpretations. Essential information for all in the library community. O’Neil, Robert M. Classrooms in the Crossfire: The Rights of Students, Parents, Teachers, Administrators, Librarians and the Community. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1981. “A major premise of the book is that more and better information . . . about conditions and hazards will better maintain the freedom which is a cornerstone of our educational system.” (p. x, Preface) Parker, Barbara, and Stefanie Weiss. Protecting the Freedom to Learn: A Citizen’s Guide. Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way, 1983. A practical guide for those who want to eliminate censorship from the public schools. Peck, Robert S. Libraries, the First Amendment and Cyberspace: What You Need to Know. Chicago and London: American Library Association, 2000.

A Selected, Annotated Bibliography

199

The most thorough treatment of the First Amendment and the Internet. Includes discussion of both public library and school library issues. Although written by a legal scholar, covers legal issues in language accessible to lay readers. Robbins, Louise S. Censorship and the American Library: The

American Library Association’s Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939–1969. New York: Greenwood, 1996. Traces the history of the American Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Committee through its first 30 years. Robotham, John, and Gerald Shields. Freedom of Access to Library Materials. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1982. Intellectual freedom issues in the 1980s, including pressure groups, access to nonprint materials, and isms. Schexnaydre, Linda, Nancy Burns, and Emporia State University School of Library and Information Management. Censorship: A Guide for Successful Workshop Planning. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx, 1984. Planning and conducting intellectual freedom workshops. Includes timelines, programs, and materials. Simmons, John S., ed. Censorship: A Threat to Reading, Learning, Thinking. New York: International Reading Association, 1994. An anthology in which more than 20 authors provide theoretical and practical information on school censorship issues. Sections discuss the dimensions of the problem, censorship in the classroom, and practical plans for action. Speaker: A Film about Freedom. [Motion picture] Chicago: Office for Intellectual Freedom, American Library Association, 1977. Conflict arises when a controversial speaker is invited to a local high school. Illustrates reactions and pressures that occur when a censorship incident happens. Stevens, John D. Shaping the First Amendment: The Development of Free Expression. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982. Overview of shapers of the First Amendment—American history, wars, ideologies, editors, “protectors,” and new technology. Symons, Ann K., and Charles Harmon. Protecting the Right to Read: A How-to-Do-It Manual for School and Public Libraries. New York: Neal-Schuman, 1995.

200

Appendix J

A practical manual that also provides important background. Covers library policies, school library considerations, the librarian’s role in a censorship challenge, and intellectual freedom on the Internet. Includes American Library Association policies and other important documents as appendixes. Thomas, Cal. Book Burning. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1983. A speech at the American Library Association’s 1982 annual conference expanded into a book. Moral Majority leader Thomas suggests that the modern censors are librarians who attempt to keep points of view different from their own out of libraries. Woods, L. B. A Decade of Censorship in America: The Threat to Classrooms and Libraries, 1966–1975. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow, 1979. A study of 900 cases of censorship reported in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom.

NOTES

Chapter 1 1. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 2. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1987, p. 52. 3. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). 4. Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1976). 5. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 102 U.S. 2799 (1982). 6. Mark G. Yudof, “The State as Editor or Censor: Book Selection and the Public Schools,” in American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Censorship Litigation and the Schools: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held January 1981 (Chicago, 1983), pp. 50–51. 7. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1987, p. 52. 8. Yudof, “State as Editor,” p. 50. 9. Connecticut State Board of Education, “Free to Learn: A Policy on Academic Freedom and Public Education,” adopted September 9, 1981; Minnesota State Board of Education, “A Policy on the Freedom to Teach, to Learn, and to Express Ideas in the Public Schools,” adopted March 12, 1985. 10. Robert M. O’Neil, “Current Social and Political Trends and Their Implications for Future Legislation,” in ALA, Censorship Litigation and the Schools, p. 14. 11. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 12. American Association of University Professors, Commission on Academic Freedom and Pre-College Education, Liberty and Learning in the Schools: Higher Education’s Concerns (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors, 1986), p. 5. 13. O’Neil, “Current Social and Political Trends,” p. 13. 14. AAUP, Liberty and Learning in the Schools, p. 9. 15. Alexander Meiklejohn, “Teachers and Controversial Questions,” reprinted in Cynthia Stokes Brown, ed., Alexander Meiklejohn: Teacher of Freedom (Berkeley, Calif.: Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, 1981), p. 214. 16. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1999, p. 27. 17. U. S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, Censorship Activities in Public and Public School Libraries, 1975–1985 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science, March 1986).

201

202

Notes

18. People for the American Way, Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 1990–91 (Washington, D.C., 1991). Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, November 1991, p. 189; November 1992, p. 179. 19. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, November 1995, January 1998. 20. Association of American Publishers, American Library Association, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Limiting What Students Shall Read: Books and Other Learning Materials in Our Public Schools: How They Are Selected and How They Are Removed (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Publishers, 1981). For a summary of the report’s findings by its principal author, see Michelle Marder Kamhi, “Censorship vs. Selection—Choosing the Books Our Children Shall Read,” Educational Leadership, December 1981, pp. 211–15. 21. Lee Burress, Books under Attack in the American School System, 1963–1985 (Urbana, Ill., 1985); Summary Report of a Survey of Censorship Pressures on the American High School (Urbana, Ill., 1983). 22. Dianne McAfee Hopkins, Factors Influencing the Outcome of Challenges to Materials in Secondary School Libraries: Report of a National Study (Madison: School of Library and Information Studies, University of Wisconsin, 1991). See also Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1992, p. 1. 23. Sissy Kegley and Gene Guerrero, Censorship in the South: A Report of Four States, 1980–1985 (Atlanta, Ga.: American Civil Liberties Union, 1986). See also Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1986, pp. 29, 56. 24. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1990, p. 42; September 1990, pp. 157–58. 25. A. M. Scott, “Censorship in Virginia Public High School Libraries, 1979–82,” M.S.L.S. dissertation, University of Virginia, 1982. 26. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1998, p. 4; January 1999, p. 18. 27. Ibid., November 1987, p. 219. 28. Ibid., November 1995, p. 179. 29. Fran McDonald, A Report of a Survey on Censorship in Public Elementary and High School Libraries and Public Libraries in Minnesota (Minneapolis: Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, 1983); Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1992, p. 32. 30. A. McClure, Censorship in Ohio: It Is Happening Here (Delawar, Ohio, 1982). 31. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, July 1992, p. 103; January 1996, p. 3; January 1997, p. 3. 32. Ibid., November 1989, p. 215; July 1990, p. 124. 33. Ibid., January 1996, p. 1. 34. Ibid., March 1991, p. 36. 35. Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 1990–91, p. 5. 36. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, July 1987, pp. 126–27. 37. John F. Wakefield, “Portrait of a Censor,” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1989, p. 33.

Notes

203

38. This section is adopted from American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), pp. 235–36. 39. Christopher Collier, “Censored: An Author’s Perspective,” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1998, p. 63. This article is based on remarks delivered by Collier in April 1997 to a workshop sponsored by the American Association of School Librarians. 40. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, September 1990, p. 158; July 1991, p. 104. 41. Limiting What Students Shall Read, p. 23. 42. Rocky Mountain News, July 5, 1987, p. 6. 43. Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 1990–91, p. 13. 44. Diane McAfee Hopkins, “Why School Book Challenges Succeed or Fail,” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1992, p. 1. 45. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1986, p. 56.

Chapter 2 1. American Library Association, “Library Bill of Rights,” in Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), p. 3. 2. June Berkley, Department of English, Ohio University, quoted in Censorship or Selection: Choosing Books for Public Schools: Discussion Guide for a Videotape (Washington, D.C.: Association of American Publishers, and Chicago: American Library Association, 1982), p. 5. 3. Judy Blume, children’s and young adult author, quoted ibid. 4. American Library Association, “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” in Intellectual Freedom Manual, p. 86. 5. “Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” in Intellectual Freedom Manual, p. 17. 6. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1985, p. 33. 7. “Free Access to Libraries for Minors,” Intellectual Freedom Manual, p. 16. 8. “Diversity in Collection Development: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” in Intellectual Freedom Manual, pp. 49–50. 9. Judge Ralph Winter, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, quoted in Censorship or Selection, p. 5. 10. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1991, p. 9; September 1991, p. 154; November 1991, p. 195. 11. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, July 1992, p. 117. For more on the controversy over Impressions, see chapter 3 in this volume, and Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1991, pp. 14, 15, 17, 29; March 1991, pp. 46–48; May 1991, pp. 76, 91; July 1991, pp. 107, 109, 131–33; September 1991, pp. 178–79; November 1991, p. 197; January 1992, pp. 7, 9; March 1992, pp. 32, 45; September 1992, p. 163.

204

Notes

12. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1992, p. 64. 13. Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, 862 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1989). 14. Perry A. Zirkel, “Showing R-rated Videos in School,” Principal, May 1999. 15. Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Harris, 672 So.2d (1996). 16. Charleston Post and Courier, January 17, 1993. For another incident involving DUSO as well as Pumsy, this time in Clay County, Florida, see Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, November 1992, p. 186. 17. Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972). 18. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1987, p. 1; November 1987, p. 217. 19. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). For a brief account of the Tinker case and its initial application to high school journalism, see Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America (New York: Delacorte, 1980), pp. 1–22. 20. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562 (1988). For more on Hazelwood, see chapter 6 in this volume; Intellectual Freedom Manual, pp. 186–92; and Student Press Law Center, Law of the Student Press (Washington, D.C.: Student Press Law Center, 1985, 1992), addendum, pp. 81–93. 21. Captive Voices: The Report of the Commission of Inquiry into High School Journalism (New York: Schocken, 1974), p. 136. 22. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1999, p. 33; November 1998, p. 179. 23. Ibid., March 2000, p. 50. 24. Ibid., September 1998, p. 144. 25. Ibid., May 1999, p. 77; May 2000, p. 85; November 1999, p. 164. 26. Ibid., September 1997, p. 113. For a much more thorough discussion of the legal and political issues surrounding Internet censorship, in libraries and elsewhere, see Robert S. Peck, Libraries, the First Amendment and Cyberspace: What You Need to Know (Chicago and London: American Library Association, 2000). 27. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1999, p. 13. 28. Ibid., May 2000, p. 91. 29. Ibid., January 1999, p. 10. 30. “Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” in Barbara M. Jones, Libraries, Access, and Intellectual Freedom (Chicago and London: American Library Association, 1999), pp. 181, 183. 31. “Questions and Answers: Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,” in Jones, Libraries, Access, and Intellectual Freedom, p. 191. 32. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1999, pp. 61, 81. 33. Ibid., March 1999, p. 38.

Notes

205

34. Ibid., September 1998, p. 154; November 1998, p. 179; November 1999, p. 158.

Chapter 3 1. National Association of Secondary School Principals, The Bulletin, September 1961. 2. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, July 1991, p. 103; July 1992, p. 105. 3. Ibid., January 1993, p. 10. 4. Ibid., March 1986, p. 40. 5. Hampshire Gazette, September 25, 1987, October 29, 1987; Boston Globe, November 8, 1987. 6. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, November 1992, p. 187; July 1992, pp. 107, 124; January 1990, pp. 32–33. 7. Ibid., May 2000, p. 74. 8. Ibid., March 1986, p. 42. 9. Ibid., May 1992, p. 81. 10. Ibid., May 1987, p. 85. 11. Ibid., p. 103. 12. Ibid., January 1993, p. 13; March 1987, p. 67. 13. Ibid., May 1987, p. 90; March 1992, p. 64; September 1992, p. 163. 14. Ibid., March 1992, p. 41; May 1987, p. 90. 15. Ibid., May 1992, p. 96. 16. Ibid., March 1987, p. 49. 17. Kenneth Bradford, “Report to the Virginia Board of Education on Changes in Works Contained in Secondary Literature Textbooks,” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1985, pp. 67, 93–95. 18. American Association of University Professors, Commission on Academic Freedom and Pre-College Education, Liberty and Learning in the Schools: Higher Education’s Concerns (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors, 1986), p. 11. 19. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1998, p. 90. 20. Norma Klein, “Some Thoughts on Censorship: An Author Symposium,” Top of the News, winter 1983, p. 140. 21. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1987, p. 66. 22. Ibid., p. 67. 23. Ibid., May 1998, p. 70. 24. Ibid., January 1992, pp. 5–6. 25. Ibid., March 1996, p. 54. 26. Ibid., November 1998, p. 191. 27. Ibid., May 1999, p. 68. 28. Ibid., November 1992, p. 182. 29. Ibid., March 1995, p. 36; September 1995, p. 163. 30. Ibid., September 1995, pp. 121, 161–69. 31. Ibid., March 1987, p. 52.

206

32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.

41. 42. 43. 44.

45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.

57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

Notes Ibid., September 1992, p. 141. Ibid., July 1992, p. 112; May 1992, pp. 82–83. Ibid., March 1987, p. 53; November 1997, p. 167; September 1998, p. 141. Ibid., March 1992, p. 40. Ibid., September 1991, pp. 173–74. Ibid., September 1992, p. 138; May 1992, p. 80. Ibid., March 2000, pp. 49, 47. American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), p. 34. William M. Bowen Jr., Globalism: America’s Demise (Shreveport, La., 1984), p. 15, as quoted in Edward Jenkinson, “New Age: Target of the Censor,” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, November 1988, p. 189. Texe Marrs, Secrets of the New Age (Westchester, Ill., 1988), p. 230, as quoted in Jenkinson, “New Age,” p. 220. Torcasco v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1987, pp. 75, 104–7. American Association of School Administrators, Religion in the Public Schools (Arlington, Va.: American Association of School Administrators, 1986), p. 40. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1993, p. 9. Ibid., May 1999, p. 70. Ibid., May 1999, p. 66. Ibid., July 1992, p. 108. Ibid., May 1992, p. 78. Incidents in which children’s Halloween books and “scary stories” anthologies have been challenged are numerous. Interested readers can find accounts of dozens of such instances from all parts of the country and all kinds of school districts in virtually every issue of the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom during the 1990s. Ibid., May 1992, pp. 80, 82. Ibid., January 1993, p. 12. Ibid., p. 18. Ibid., November 1992, p. 186; January 1993, p. 11. Ibid., January 1986, p. 21. Ibid., January 1996, p. 17. On Impressions, see People for the American Way, Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 1990–91 (Washington, D.C.: People for the American Way, 1991), pp. 8–9; and Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1991, pp. 46–48; July 1991, pp. 131–32; July 1992, p. 117. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, July 1992, p. 117. Ibid., March 2000, p. 50. Ibid., May 2000, p. 77. Ibid., March 2000, p. 46. Ibid., March 2000, p. 48; July 2000, p. 112. Ibid., November 1999, p. 161; May 2000, p. 74. Ibid., March 1997, p. 36. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). Edwards v. Aguillard, 55 U.S.L.W. 4861 (U.S. June 16, 1987) (No. 85-1513).

Notes

207

66. Patricia Lines, “Scientific Creationism in the Classroom: A Constitutional Dilemma,” Loyola Law Review 28, 1982, reprinted in NCRPE Bulletin, summer 1983, p. 36. 67. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1984), p. 7. 68. In March 1984, the Texas attorney general issued an advisory opinion that this rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and a month later the board voted to repeal it. 69. AAUP, Liberty and Learning in the Schools, p. 10. 70. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, September 1996, pp. 150, 168. 71. Ibid., November 1999, pp. 169–70. 72. Ibid., September 1996, p. 168. 73. Ibid., January 1985, p. 38. 74. For a thorough treatment of this campaign, see Angela Dodson, “Looking Up the N-Word,” Black Issues Book Review, May–June 2000. 75. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, September 1992, p. 140; January 1997, p. 9. 76. Ibid., March 1999, pp. 25, 54–55. 77. Ibid., May 1998, pp. 91–92. 78. Ibid., p. 72. 79. For background to the Monteiro case, see Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, May 1996, p. 98; July 1996, p. 120; September 1996, p. 98. On the court decision, see chapter 6 in this volume; and Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, January 1999, pp. 13–15. 80. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1991, p. 44. 81. Ibid., November 1995, pp. 179–80.

Chapter 4 1. Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, “What to Do about Censorship in the Public Schools,” undated brochure. 2. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 102 U.S. 2799 (1982). 3. The remainder of this chapter is principally adopted from material in American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, “Workbook for Selection Policy Writing” (mimeographed), and Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), pp. 207–14. For further discussion of selection policies, with reference more to public than school libraries, see Barbara M. Jones, Libraries, Access, and Intellectual Freedom (Chicago and London: American Library Association, 1999), especially pp. 92–168, 225–33. 4. Here and elsewhere in this book, discussion of student press rights is based principally on the booklet Law of the Student Press, published by the Student Press Law Center, Washington, D.C. 5. For further discussion of policy issues surrounding classroom video presentations, see Perry Zirkel and Ivan Gluckman, “Using (and Misusing)

208

Notes Movies,” Principal, November 1990; and Perry A. Zirkel, “Showing Rrated Videos in School,” Principal, May 1999.

Chapter 5 1. Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, “What to Do about Censorship in the Public Schools,” undated brochure. 2. Portions of this chapter are adopted from American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), pp. 215–22, 237–38, 254–56, 263–67.

Chapter 6 1. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). 2. Mark G. Yudof, “The State as Editor or Censor: Book Selection and the Public Schools,” in American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Censorship Litigation and the Schools: Proceedings of a Colloquium Held January 1981 (Chicago, 1983), p. 49. 3. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 56 U.S.L.W. 4082 (1988). 4. William D. North, “School Library Censorship and the Courts: Before Hazelwood,” in American Library Association, Office for Intellectual Freedom, Intellectual Freedom Manual, 4th ed. (Chicago and London, 1992), pp. 175–85. 5. Robert M. O’Neil, “Current Social and Political Trends and Their Implications for Future Litigation,” in Censorship Litigation and the Schools, pp. 4–15. 6. Ibid., p. 4. 7. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d. 435 (1982). 8. The remainder of this section is adopted from North, “School Library Censorship and the Courts,” pp. 177–80. 9. Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25, 457 F.2d 289 (2d Cir. 1972), 409 U.S. 998 (1972). 10. Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, 541 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1976). 11. Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, 454 F. Supp. 703 (D. Mass. 1978); Salvail v. Nashua Board of Education, 469 F. Supp. 1269 (1979). 12. Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees, 631 F.2d 1300 (7th Cir. 1980). 13. Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School Board, 475 F. Supp. 615 (D. Vt. 1979), 638 F.2d 438 (2d Cir. 1980); Pico v. Board of Education, Island Trees, 474 F. Supp. 387 (E.D.N.Y. 1979), 638 F.2d 404 (2d Cir. 1980). 14. North, “School Library Censorship and the Courts,” p. 179. 15. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1996, p. 55.

Notes

209

16. Ibid., January 1999, pp. 13–15. 17. Ibid., July 1992, p. 117; January 1993, p. 18. 18. American Association of School Administrators, Religion in the Public Schools (Arlington, Va., 1986). Available from AASA, 1801 N. Moore St., Arlington, VA 22209. 19. Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S.Ct. 2479, concurring opinion (1985). 20. Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 694 (1970). 21. Thayer S. Warshaw, Religion, Education, and the Supreme Court (Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon, 1979), unpublished revisions, p. 11 as cited in AASA, Religion in the Public Schools, p. 11. 22. Edwards v. Aguillard, 55 U.S.L.W. 4861 (U.S. June 16, 1987)(No. 85-1513). 23. Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). 24. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). 25. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, September 1992, pp. 151–55, 175. 26. Ibid., September 2000, p. 149. 27. Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968). 28. Ibid. 29. Edwards v. Aguillard. 30. Ibid. 31. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). 32. Student Press Law Center, Law of the Student Press (Washington, D.C., 1985, 1992), available from SPLC, Suite 300, 800 18th St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20006. The 1992 printing of this pamphlet includes an extensive addendum on student press rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1988 Hazelwood decision. The following account of student press law is also based in part on “Freedom of the Press for Students,” an unpublished April 1987 memorandum prepared by Mark Goodman, executive director of the SPLC. 33. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260, 108 S.Ct. 562, 98 L.Ed.2d 592 (1988). 34. Antonelli v. Hammond, 308 F. Supp. 1329 (D. Mass. 1970). See also Reineke v. Cobb County School District, 484 F. Supp. 1252 (N.D. Ga. 1980); Gambino v. Fairfax County School Board, 429 F. Supp. 731 (E.D. Va.), aff’d per curiam, 564 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1977); Bayer v. Kinzler, 383 F. Supp. 1164 (E.D.N.Y.), aff’d without opinion, 515 F.2d 504 (2d Cir. 1975); Koppell v. Levine, 347 F. Supp. 456 (E.D.N.Y. 1972); Zucker v. Panitz, 299 F. Supp. 102 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). 35. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988). 36. Ibid. 37. Ibid. 38. Ibid. (Brennan dissenting). 39. Baughman v. Freienmuth, 478 F.2d 1345 (1973); Nitzberg v. Parks, 525 F.2d 378 (4th Cir. 1975); Shanley v. Northeast Independent School District, 462 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1972); Eisner v. Stamford Board of Education, 440 F.2d 803 (2d Cir. 1971); Sword v. Fox, 446 F.2d 1091, 1097 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 994 (1971). However, for a more restrictive

210

40. 41. 42. 43.

44. 45.

46.

47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.

53. 54. 55.

Notes decision governing the distribution of nonschool-sponsored literature, see Bystrom v. Fridley High School, ____, 8th Cir., Slip Op. 86-5140 (1987). Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1988, p. 48. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969). Ibid. Jacobs v. Board of School Commissioners, 490 F.2d 601 (7th Cir. 1973), vacated as moot, 420 U.S. 128 (1975); Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District, 475 F.2d 1071 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1032 (1973) (“High Skool [sic] is Fucked” phrase not censorable); Kopell v. Levine, 347 F. Supp. 456 (E.D.N.Y. 1972). On Supreme Court definitions of “obscene as to minors,” see Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973); Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968). Scoville v. Board of Education, 286 F. Supp. 988 (N.D. Ill. 1968), rev’d, 425 F.2d 10 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 826 (1970). New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); Winter v. Northern Tier Publishing Co., 4 Med. L. Rptr. 1348 (N.Y.S.Ct. Westchester Co. 1978); Milkovich v. News-Herald, 11 Med. L. Rptr. 1598 (Ohio 1984). This section is based in part on Robert S. Peck, “School Library Censorship and the Courts: After Hazelwood,” in ALA, Intellectual Freedom Manual, pp. 186–92. Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, 862 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1989). Romano v. Harrington, 725 F. Supp. 687 (D.N.Y. 1989). Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, March 1995, p. 50. Ibid., November 1997, p. 173; May 1998, p. 77. Ibid., March 1998, p. 45. For a fuller discussion of the law governing expression on the Internet, see Robert S. Peck, Libraries, the First Amendment and Cyberspace: What You Need to Know (Chicago and London: American Library Association, 2000). The following discussion of this case is based on Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, September 1997, pp. 113, 135–39, 146–47. Ibid., January 1999, p. 13. Ibid., September 1997, p. 115.

Chapter 7 1. Michelle Marder Kamhi, “Censorship vs. Selection—Choosing the Books Our Children Shall Read,” Educational Leadership, December 1981, p. 211.

Chapter 8 1. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479 (1960). 2. Nat Hentoff, The First Freedom: The Tumultuous History of Free Speech in America (New York: Delacorte, 1980).

Notes

211

3. June Berkley, “Teach the Parents Well: An Anti-Censorship Experiment in Adult Education,” in Dealing with Censorship, ed. James E. Davis (Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English, 1979). 4. Dorothy M. Broderick, “Censorship: A Family Affair?” Top of the News, spring 1979, p. 231. 5. Sidney J. Hook, 1984 Jefferson Lecture in the Humanities (Washington, D.C.), as quoted in American Association of University Professors, Commission on Academic Freedom and Pre-College Education, Liberty and Learning in the Schools: Higher Education’s Concerns (Washington, D.C.: American Association of University Professors, 1986), p. 3a.

INDEX

1900 (Bertolucci), 32

A AAP. See Association of American Publishers AASA. See American Association of School Administrators AASL. See American Association of School Librarians abortion, 56 absence of information, 61 abstinence, 56, 57 academic freedom, 7–10 rights of students, 8, 25 rights of teachers, 5 in selection policy, 82, 88, 89, 133, 152 “Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” 40 “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program,” 26 text, 139–40 ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union ACLU v. Reno, 39, 130, 192 administrators notification of complaints, 104 Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Twain), 16, 74, 76–79, 117–18 advertising in student publications, 94 advisory councils, 151 AIDS education, 56 ALA. See American Library Association All American Boys (Mosca), 53 Allison, Dorothy, 129 alternative reading assignments, 31, 33–34. See also Excuses

from class; Parental permissions Alyson Publications, 54–55 American Association of School Administrators (AASA), 13–14, 20, 46, 62, 82, 119, 176 American Association of School Librarians (AASL), 176 American Association of University Professors, 9, 50, 71 American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 42, 176. See also ACLU v. Reno American Family Association, 67 American Federation of Teachers, 101, 176 American Library Association (ALA), 12–13, 21, 25. See also Library Bill of Rights; Office for Intellectual Freedom American Library Association v. U.S. Department of Justice. See ACLU v. Reno Americans All, 44 Americans for Religious Liberty, 176 Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 176 Amish families, 33 Anastasia Krupnik (Lowry), 49 animal rights, 45 Annie on My Mind (Garden), 53, 117 Antonelli v. Hammond, 124n34 appeals of review committee decisions, 90, 91, 134 Aristophanes, 21, 32, 128 art works by students, 37–38 As I Lay Dying (Faulkner), 48 ASCD. See Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

213

214

Index

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD), 12–13, 21, 177 Association of American Publishers (AAP), 12–13, 20, 21 astrology, 62 Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 11–12

Broderick, Dorothy M., 138 Brown v. Woodland Joint Unified School District, 191–92 Bystrom v. Fridley High School Independent School District No. 14, 187–88

C B Bang Bang You’re Dead, 58 Bastard out of Carolina (Allison), 130 Baughman v. Freienmuth, 126n39 beliefs, personal, 87, 110 Bellow, Saul, 16 Berkley, June, 24, 137 Bertolucci, Bernardo, 32 Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 127, 186 bibliographies as selection aid, 87, 148, 160 bibliography books, 194–200 web sites, 164 Bicknell v. Vergennes Union High School Board, 116, 182 Black, Hugo, 120 Blackmun, Harry, 125 blasphemy, 62 Bloods: An Oral History of the Vietnam War by Black Veterans (Terry), 46 Blubber (Blume), 27 Blume, Judy, 16, 24, 27, 51–52 Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico. See Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico Bradley, David, 78 Brancato, Robin, 49 Brennan, William J., 4, 81, 113, 120, 122–23, 125, 127 Bridge to Tarabithia, 48 Brinkema, Leonie M., 39, 132

card games, 65 case law, 109–32 development of, 10–11 selected cases, 179–93 Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 192 Catch 22 (Heller), 114 Catcher in the Rye (Salinger), 16, 48 censors, potential research on, 101–2 censorship definitions, 2–4 reasons for, 15–20 vs. selection, 6–7 Chadwick-Joshua, Jocelyn, 78 challenge process as communication, 7 challenges, 97–108 extent of the problem, 10–15 objects of, 15–16 challenges, successful, 107–8 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 21, 32, 128 checklist for censorship attempts, 133–36 Children of the Rainbow series, 54 Chocolate War (Cormier), 48 church and state, separation of in classroom materials, 31 and evolution, 70 and secular humanism, 60 and values, 1–2 citizen groups. See Community groups classroom materials. See also Curriculum materials selection policies, 30–34 videos as, 94

Index vs. library materials, 25, 110, 115, 129 clergy on review committee, 91 collateral classroom materials. See Supplementary classroom materials Collier, Christopher, 19–20, 50, 58, 75–76 Color Purple (Walker), 73 commercial speech, 171 communication during challenge, 99–100 Communications Decency Act. See ACLU v. Reno communism, 44 community groups input to selection policies, 81 recommendations in selection, 52 on reconsideration committee, 91, 134 support against censorship, 93, 99–100, 134 complainants letter to, 154–55 motives of, 17–20 complaint form. See “Request for review” form complaints, handling of, 97–108, 173 computer use policy, 95–96 confrontations by complainants, 105–7 Connecticut State Board of Education, 7 conservatives, political, 44 context, disregard for, 19. See also Historical perspective contraception, 56 control, loss of, 66 controversial materials misuse of, 29 in selection policy, 84, 86, 88–89, 152 in student publications, 94 in video policy, 32, 95 copyright law and alteration of materials, 37, 50

215

Cormier, Robert, 16, 48, 51 cost as selection criterion, 86, 151 Council of Chief State School Officers, 177 courtesy, 134 creationism and creation science, 70–72, 122 criteria for selection, 83, 86–87, 110, 111, 147–50, 158–59 curricular activity and student publications, 35 “curricular modification” decisions, 112 curriculum judgments and court decisions, 117 curriculum materials. See also Classroom materials court decisions, 128 selection criteria, 27 sexually explicit, 32 vs. collateral materials, 8–9 curriculum specialists, 147

D Daddy’s Roommate (Wilhoite), 16, 54 damage to children, 33 Day No Pigs Would Die (Peck), 138 Deenie (Blume), 27 democracy, 4, 88 department heads, 147 disciplinary problems Internet use, 42, 96 from student expression, 35–36, 93–94 disruptive behavior by complainants, 105–6 disruptive materials, 168–69 diversity as purpose of education, 19, 44 in school library selection policy, 30 as value in democracy, 88 “Diversity in Collection Development,” 28 text, 143–44

216

Index

donations, 53 Dragonwings, 64 drug prevention programs, 64 due process protections, 110 Dungeons and Dragons game, 64–65

E Earth Day, 65 Eastern religions, 33, 59, 63–64 education role of, 111 education, purpose of, 2, 4, 18–19, 33, 35–36 Educational Congress of California, 15 educational reform and censorship, 16–17 Educational Research Analysts, 60 educational suitability, 114 Edwards v. Aguillard, 70–71, 119, 120, 122, 189 elementary school teachers and academic freedom, 8 Eli’s Songs, 45 environmental movement, 45 Environmental Science, 45 ephemeral materials, 151 Epperson v. Arkansas, 3–4, 70, 114, 122 “equal time” requests, 70 Establishment Clause, 119–21 evaluation of challenge response, 100 Everson v. Board of Education, 120n23 evolution, teaching of court decisions, 3–4, 119, 122–23 and witchcraft, 62 excellence as selection criterion, 86, 147 excuses from class, 68, 90 extracurricular activities, 37–38

F faculty advisors, 94, 129, 171 Family Friendly Libraries, 68

family values and profane language, 47–48 and sex education programs, 33 Faulkner, William, 48, 77 Feenstra, Gary, 68 feminist objections, 44–45 films. See also Videos court decisions, 129 in curriculum, 32 in selection policy, 151 violence in, 58–59 filmstrips in curriculum, 32 filtering software Mainstream Loudoun, 39 in school libraries, 40–42, 95–96 First Amendment after Hazelwood, 128 and court decisions, 112 and Internet, 39, 131 and religion, 34, 61, 62, 121 in selection policy, 152 and student rights, 35, 38, 123 viewpoint discrimination, 53 flexibility in selection policy, 83 Fools Crow, 74 Forever (Blume), 51–52 Fortas, Abe, 122 Fourteenth Amendment as basis for objection, 117 Fowler v. Board of Education of Lincoln County, Kentucky, 187 “Free Access to Libraries for Minors,” 27, 28 text, 141–42 Free Exercise Clause, 119–21 Freedom to Read Foundation, 177

G Gabler, Mel and Norma, 60 Garden, Nancy, 53, 117 gay and lesbian literature, 52–55. See also Homosexuality gay and lesbian students, 38 gender stereotyping, 44 Ghosts (Ibsen), 48 gift books, 53, 88, 150, 151, 160 Giuliani, Rudolph, 38

Index Godfather (Puzo), 74 Golding, William, 16 Goosebumps series (Stine), 69 Grapes of Wrath (Steinbeck), 16, 48 Great Gatsby, 16 guest speakers, 32, 88 guidance in selection policy, 83 gun control, 45 Guns and Ammo, 45

H Halloween tales, 63 Hand, W. Brevard, 60–61 “Hansel and Gretel,” 63 hard cider, 19 Harry Potter series (Rowling), 16, 67–68 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 35, 111, 124, 189–90 hearings for challenged materials, 89, 90 Hearts and Minds, 46 Heather Has Two Mommies (Newman), 16, 54 Heller, Joseph, 114 Hemingway, Ernest, 16 Hentoff, Nat, 137 Herron, Carolivia, 74–75 historical perspective, 19, 73 History of the American Nation, 45 history texts, selection criteria for, 85, 146 Hitler, Adolf, 29 homosexuality, 16. See also Gay and lesbian literature Hopkins, Dianne McAfee, 13, 22 horror novels, 68–69 Houston, Paul, 42 Human Sexuality, 56 hypnosis, 64

217

in-service training, 101, 173 informal challenges, 20, 90, 97–98, 134, 153, 161 information packet for complainants, 153 input to policies, 81 instructional program, goals of, 84–85 intellectual freedom, 82, 133, 152 Intellectual Freedom Committee, 101. See also Office for Intellectual Freedom interest level as selection criterion, 86 International Reading Association, 177 Internet. See also Web sites, student court decisions, 38–42, 130–32 effect on controversy, 2 inappropriate use, 42, 96 Internet access policy, 95–96 Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 4, 81n2, 113–14, 128, 184–85

J Jacobs v. Board of School Commissioners, 127n43 jargon in selection policy, 83 Jump Ship to Freedom (Collier), 19

K Kennedy, Anthony, 121 Keysishian v. Board of Regents, 3–4n4 King, Stephen, 58, 68 Klein, Norma, 16, 51 Kopell v. Levine, 127n43

L I Ibsen, Henrik, 48 Impressions series, 31, 66–67, 119

labeling, 59. See also R-rated films Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 191

218

Index

language, changes in, 19, 50–51, 75–76 language, objectionable, 12, 32, 44, 46–47, 89, 127, 128 language, profane, 47–51 Lee, Harper, 74 Lee v. Weisman, 121, 191 legal action and challenges, 108 legal counsel during challenges, 100, 136 student publications, 169–70 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 120–21 letter-writing campaigns, 98 Levendosky, Charles, 51–52 libel court decisions, 127–28 student publications, 125 in student publications, 168 liberal activists as censors, 44 librarians, 147. See also Professional educators Library Bill of Rights, 25–28, 26, 164–65 in selection policy, 88–89, 133, 152 Library Bill of Rights interpretations “Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” 40 “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program,” 26, 139–40 “Diversity in Collection Development,” 28, 143–44 “Free Access to Libraries for Minors,” 27, 28, 141–42 “Questions and Answers: Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” 40 “Statement on Labeling,” 59 library materials challenges to, 173–75 selection, 85, 149 video collections, 95 vs. classroom materials, 12, 25, 110, 115, 129

listening, 104 Little House in the Big Woods (Wilder), 74 Little Red Riding Hood, 43 locked case materials, 151 Loewen v. Turnipseed, 182–83 Lorax (Seuss), 45 lost and worn materials, 160–61 “lost” books as response to challenge, 53 lost materials, 151 Lowry, Lois, 49 Lysistrata (Aristophanes), 21, 32, 128

M magazines, 52 Magic: The Gathering, 65 Mailer, Norman, 16 Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of Loudoun County Library, 39, 132 Making It with Mademoiselle, 43 Mapplethorpe, Robert, 38 Marshall, Thurgood, 125 Marxism, 44 masturbation, 57–58 Mazer, Harry, 47 McMasters, Paul, 36 media coverage of challenges and complainants, 3, 97–98 coordination of, 99–100 and self-censorship, 21 media relations, 102–3, 106–7 meditation, 64 Meet the Werewolf, 62 Meiklejohn, Alexander, 9 Mein Kampf (Hitler), 29 Merchant of Venice (Shakespeare), 74 Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 74 Michigan Model for Comprehensive School Health Education, 33 Milkovich v. News-Herald, 128n45 Miller’s Tale (Chaucer), 21, 32, 128

Index Minarcini v. Strongsville (Ohio) City School District, 114, 180–81 mindlessness in censors, 19 Minnesota State Board of Education policy on academic freedom, 7 minorities, portrayals of, 45 minority rights as motive for censorship, 18 minors limits on free expression, 4 selection policies for, 27 Missouri Coalition Against Censorship, 15 misuse of controversial materials, 29 Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District, 77, 117–18, 192–93 Mosca, Frank, 53 Motion Picture Association of America, 32, 87, 94, 95, 129. See also R-rated films movies. See Films; Videos Mozert v. Hawkins County Board of Education, 119, 188–89 Ms. magazine, 115 My Brother Sam Is Dead (Collier), 58 mythology, 62, 63

219

National Coalition Against Censorship, 177 National Council for the Social Studies, 177 National Council of Teachers of English, 13, 50, 177 National Education Association, Human and Civil Rights Division, 101, 177 National School Boards Association, 177 NCLIS. See U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science “negative examples,” 73 neutrality during challenge, 99 New Age philosophy, 33, 59–62, 64, 67 New York Times v. Sullivan, 128n45 Newman, Leslea, 16, 54 “nigger,” 50, 74–76 “nonacquisition decisions,” 111–12 “noncirculation decisions,” 111 nonschool-sponsored publications, 170 nonstudents, 94 North, William, 111, 116

O N NAACP. See National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Nabokov, Vladimir, 16 Nappy Hair (Herron), 74–75 National Academy of Sciences, 70 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), 74, 77 National Association of Biology Teachers, 72, 177 National Association of Secondary School Principals, 43 National Center for Science Education, 177

objectives, 83, 84–85, 145–46, 157–58 objectivity in library collection, 89 obscenity court decisions, 127 as disguise for other objections, 18 in student publications, 94, 167 and witchcraft, 62 occult practices, 58, 59, 62–66, 67 O’Connor, Sandra Day, 119 Of Mice and Men (Steinbeck), 31, 48, 74 Office for Intellectual Freedom, 101, 174, 176 O’Neil, Robert M., 8, 9, 111, 112

220

Index

O’Neill, Eugene, 16 open meeting laws, 105 overreaction to challenge, 98–99

P paganism, 67 panic, 98 parental notification, 47, 95 parental permissions, 27–28, 68, 129. See also Alternative reading assignments parents input to selection policies, 81 on reconsideration committee, 91 responsibility for upbringing, 5 Peck, Robert Newton, 138 People for the American Way, 14, 15–16, 178 Attacks on the Freedom to Learn, 11–12, 22 personal attacks, 98 personal beliefs, 110 pervasive vulgarity, 114. See also Language, objectionable Petrosky, Dave, 39–40 Pico. See Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico Pike, Christopher, 69 political correctness, 18, 45 political views as motive for censors, 18, 44–46 Pratt v. Independent School District No. 831, 184 prayer in schools, 121 preparations for crisis, 101–2, 133–34. See also Procedures: challenges; Public information program; Selection policy prepublication censorship, 125. See also Prior restraint Presidents Council, District 25 v. Community School Board No. 25, 114, 180 prior restraint, 171–72. See also Prepublication censorship privacy, protection of, 94, 125

procedures challenges, 134–36, 153–54, 161–64 failure to follow, 22, 46–47, 53, 117 and legal challenges, 110, 111 review committee, 91, 104–5, 162 selection, 84, 87–88, 150–51, 159–60 professional educators on reconsideration committee, 91 and selection policy, 81, 82–83, 151 as selectors, 7 professional materials, 151 protected speech, 170–71 public forum, student publications as, 124, 125 public information program about selection policy, 93 and challenges, 174 and confrontations, 106, 134, 135 public libraries and filtering software, 39–40 and preparation for crisis, 101 vs. school libraries, 28, 132 public relations. See Public information program publishers school officials as, 124 self-censorship, 50 as source for review committee, 105 “Pumsy in Pursuit of Excellence” program, 33, 64 Puzo, Mario, 74

Q Quest program, 33 “questionable adoption” decisions, 112 “Questions and Answers: Access to Electronic Information, Services and Networks,” 40

Index

R R-rated films, 58–59, 95, 129. See also Motion Picture Association of America court decision on, 32–33 and educational quality, 6 race stereotyping, 44 racism, 72–76 in Huckleberry Finn, 117–18 in selection policy, 89 radicalism, 62 Read, Jeff, 69 reading level, 20, 27, 86, 147 recommendations for purchase, 150, 160 reconsideration committee instructions to, 155 members of, 90–91, 134, 154 procedure, 91, 104–5, 162 procedures, 135 and removal of materials, 90 response, 105 uses of, 47 reconsideration committees uses of, 68 reconsideration in selection policy, 84 reconsideration of materials, 89–91, 152–53 Red Badge of Courage, 16 regional distribution of challenges, 14–15 reincarnation, 64 religion. See also First Amendment and court decisions, 118–22 in schools, 61 Religion and Public Education Resource Center, 178 religion as motive for censors, 18, 44 religious instruction, 121 Reno v. ACLU. See ACLU v. Reno replacement of materials, 88, 150 reports of challenges, 10 “request for review” form, 103–4, 133, 135 procedures, 161–62 sample, 155–56

221

responses to challenges. See Procedures: challenges responsibilities, delegation of, 83 responsibility for selection, 85, 146–47, 158 restriction prior to review, 13 retention of challenged materials, 90, 134, 153–54 review committee. See Reconsideration committee reviewing media as selection aid, 87, 88, 148–49, 160 revision of selection policy, 93 Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, 115, 181–82 Romano v. Harrington, 129, 191 Rowling, J. K., 16, 67–68

S Salinger, J. D., 48 Salvail v. Nashua Board of Education, 115 San Diego Committee against Registration and the Draft (CARD) v. Governing Board of the Grossmont Union High School District, 186–87 Satanism, 59, 67 Schindler’s List, 6, 129 school board communication during challenge, 99, 101, 134 responsibility for policy, 81–83, 85 school libraries and Library Bill of Rights, 25–28 selection policies, 28–30 vs. public libraries, 132 School Library Bill of Rights, 89 science texts, selection criteria for, 85, 146 Scoville v. Board of Education, 127n44 secular humanism, 59–62, 119

222

Index

selection and community recommendations, 52 vs. censorship, 6–7 selection aids, 87, 88, 148–49, 150 selection policy, 80–96 classroom materials, 30–34 components of, 83–84 outline, 92–93 preparation of, 133–34 reasons for, 80–81 reevaluation of, 108 sample, 157–65 school library, 28–30 self-censorship, 20–23 and parental notification, 47 by publishers, 50 and teaching of evolution, 72 self-esteem programs, 64 Seventeen, 52 sex education, 33, 55–58 Sex Respect, 57 sexism, 76 in selection policy, 89 sexuality, 51–52 sexually explicit works, 32 and family values, 18 Hearts and Minds, 46 Seyfried v. Walton, 184 Shakespeare, William, 16, 50, 74 Shoob, William, 67 Skelton v. Tucker, 137 SmartFilter software, 41 Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 119, 188 Snow Bound (Mazer), 47 Snow White, 43 sponsored materials, 151 state laws, 83, 174 “Statement on Labeling,” 59 Steinbeck, John, 16, 31, 48, 74 Stevana Case v. Unified School District No. 233, 116–17 Stevens, John Paul, 131 Stine, R. L., 69 student organizations, 38

Student Press Law Center, 94, 123–24 reports of challenges, 36 student publications, 34–37, 93–94 and academic freedom, 8 guidelines, 166–72 official, 124, 167–70 policy, 166–67 web sites, 42, 96 students and academic freedom, 8 effect of censorship on, 4 input to selection policies, 81 rights of, 5, 25, 89 substitute assignments. See Alternative reading assignments Sullivan v. Houston Independent School District, 127n43 supernatural themes in books, 63 supplementary classroom materials selection, 31, 85 vs. curriculum materials, 8–9

T Taoism, 64 teachers academic freedom, 8 rights of, 129 selection responsibility, 85 self-censorship, 21–22 Teen, 52 Terry, Wallace, 46 text, alteration of, 37, 50 textbooks in selection policy, 84–85, 146, 147, 151 theatrical productions, 37, 88, 125, 129–30 Then Again, Maybe I Won’t (Blume), 27 thesaurus as objectionable language, 46 threatening materials, 38 on web sites, 42 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District,

Index 8n11, 34, 114, 123, 126–27, 128, 179–80 To Kill a Mockingbird (Lee), 74 Torcasco v. Watkins, 60 transcendental meditation, 63 Twain, Mark, 16, 50, 74, 76–79, 117–18

U “underground” publications, 34, 126 Updike, John, 16 U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science (NCLIS), 10–11, 12 Utah Education Network, 41

V values and court decisions, 111, 116 democracy, 4 inculcation of, 5 as motive for censors, 18 video review committee, 95 videos in curriculum, 32 outside, 88, 95 selection policy, 94–95 viewpoint discrimination, 53 violence, 58–59 Virgil v. School Board of Columbia County, 31–32n13, 128–29, 190 Vonnegut, Kurt, 114

W Wakefield, John, 17 Walker, Alice, 16, 73 Wallace v. Jaffree, 119–20n19, 185–86 Walz v. Tax Commission, 120n20 War Comes to Willy Freeman (Collier), 75–76 web sites, student, 42, 96, 125. See also Internet

223

Wellness Stress Management, 63–64 West Side Story, 37 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 109 What’s Happening to My Body?, 56–57 White, Byron, 124 Wicca, 63 Wicker, Tom, 36 Wilder, Laura Ingalls, 74 Wildmon, Donald, 67 Wilhoite, Michael, 16, 54 Winter v. Northern Tier Publishing Co., 128n45 Wisconsin v. Yoder, 33n17 Witchbaby, 63 witchcraft, 62–66, 67 Witches, Pumpkins and Grinning Ghosts, 63 Witches, Witches, Witches, 63 With Every Drop of Blood (Collier), 58 Wizards, Warriors and You series, 58 women, portrayal of, 66, 76 words, “dirty.” See Language, objectionable written complaints, 90, 152 written policies, 110, 133 “wrongful bans” in filtering software, 41

Y yearbooks. See Student publications YM magazine, 52 yoga, 63 Yudof, Mark, 4–5, 6, 109

Z Zykan v. Warsaw Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees, 115, 183

Henry Reichman has been associate editor and principal writer of the American Library Association’s bimonthly Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom since 1982, having served previously as assistant editor in 1980–81, when he was also assistant director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. The Newsletter is the country’s most comprehensive source of information on efforts to defend and extend the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Reichman is a 1969 graduate of Columbia University and earned a Ph.D. in history from the University of California, Berkeley, in 1977. He has taught at the University of California, Northwestern University, Memphis State University, and at California State University, Hayward, where he is professor of history and chair of the history department. A specialist in Russian history, he is the author of a historical monograph and numerous scholarly articles and reviews.