N C A C

Kids Right to Read Project

A project of the National Coalition Against Censorship

CO-SPONSORED BY

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression Association of American Publishers Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Board of Trustees Meridian School District 1303 E Central Drive Meridian, ID 83642 April 7, 2014

Dear Trustees, We are writing in regards to the recent Board decision to remove Sherman Alexies The Absolutely True Diary of a PartTime Indian from the 10th grade supplemental reading list in Meridian public schools in response to parental complaints about the content of the book. As organizations concerned with the freedom to read and the application of First Amendment law and principles in public institutions, we strongly urge you to reconsider this decision and reinstate the book. The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is a largely autobiographical account of the authors upbringing in Spokane, WA. The book is widely taught in high schools across the country because of its appeal to reluctant readers. The novel addresses vital issues such as the struggles of young adulthood, the search for personal identity, bullying and poverty. It is ultimately an uplifting story of triumph by a boy with few advantages. No legitimate pedagogical rationale has been advanced for removing the book, nor could one plausibly be. The literary value of the novel is widely recognized by educators and critics: it won the National Book Award for Young Peoples Literature in 2007, the 2008 Book Sense Book of the Year Childrens Literature Honor Book, the 2008 Pacific Northwest Book Award, and the 2008 American Indian Library Association Youth Literature Award, among many others. The value of the book has been affirmed by your own reconsideration committee, composed of educators and citizens who reviewed the book and agreed with professional reviewers that the book has educational value students and voted to keep it on the supplemental reading list. Removing a book because some object to, or disapprove of, its content violates basic constitutional principles. Government officials, including public school administrators, may not prohibit ideas simply because some people find them offensive or controversial. The Supreme Court has cautioned that school officials may not remove books from 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. Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982)(plurality opinion.) [A]bove all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Police Dept of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92, 95 (1972). The First Amendment guarantees certain individual rights that may not be infringed by state officials, including public school educators, even with the mandate or approval of the majority. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court held The very purpose of a 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

19 Fulton Street, Suite 407, New York, NY 10038

212-807-6222

www.ncac.org/Kids-Right-to-Read

TWITTER

@KidsRight2Read

FACEBOOK

/ncacorg

principles to be applied by the courts. Ones right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a 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 Board of Elections v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). School officials have much wider discretion to include material that has pedagogical value than to exclude it. See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District (9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the First Amendment right of students to read books selected for their legitimate educational value). In contrast, the removal of a book because of objections to its content exposes the school to potential legal liability. See, e.g., Parker v. Hurley (1st Cir. 2008) (rejecting effort to remove books that offend parents and students religious beliefs), Pratt v. Independent School Dist. No. 831 (8th Cir. 1982) (First Amendment violated when films removed because of hostility to content and message), and Case v. Unified School Dist. No. 233 (D. Kan. 1995) (First Amendment violated by removing a book from school library based on hostility to its ideas.) The practical effect of acceding to a request to censor materials will be to invite other book challenges and to leave school officials vulnerable to multiple, possibly conflicting demands. To avoid such difficulties, and to provide students with the breadth of information and skills necessary to succeed in a diverse society, educators are well-advised to defend the rights of students to access the broadest range of knowledge. Board support for the judgment of the districts professional educators and board-sanctioned review committee is also essential to protect the integrity of the educational program and insulate it from political pressure. The task of selecting readings for the curriculum properly belongs to professional educators. Parents may be equipped to make choices for their own children but, no matter how well-intentioned, they simply are not qualified to make curricular decisions, which by definition affect what other peoples children may read. Without questioning the sincerity of those who object to the book, their views are not shared by all and they have no right to impose those views on others. Decisions about school materials should serve all students in the school. This can best be accomplished if decisions about what to include in libraries and classrooms are based on sound educational grounds, not because some parents or board members do or do not agree with the message or content of a particular book. We urge you to recognize the serious constitutional implications of removing a book with clear educational merit, like The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, simply because some people do not like or approve of what it says. Sincerely,

Joan Bertin Executive Director National Coalition Against Censorship

Chris Finan President American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression

Charles Brownstein Executive Director Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Judy Platt Director, Free Expression Advocacy Association of American Publishers

Megan Tingley Senior Vice President and Publisher Little, Brown Books for Young Readers