The First Amendment in Schools: Resource Guide: Introduction: Avoiding Censorship in Schools

Efforts to remove books and other materials from the classroom, curriculum, and school library represent one of the most significant forms of censorship in the United States today. Classics of Western literature, like Lysistrata and The Miller’s Tale, to Harry Potter, celebrations of Earth Day, studies of world religion, discussions of feminism, and more, have all been challenged. Sometimes these efforts are initiated by a parent or other member of the community; sometimes organizations campaign to change educational norms and practices to reflect their particular views and perspectives. They may circulate a list of "objectionable" books, stimulating challenges in communities around the country.

Local school boards generally have the authority to prescribe the curriculum, within state-approved guidelines. Two Supreme Court cases, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) and Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986) grant administrators considerable discretion in deciding what is educationally suitable. For example, lower courts upheld action against one teacher for permitting violations of school policy against profanity in teaching creative writing (Lacks v. Ferguson Reorganized School District (8th Cir. 1998) and against another for staging a dramatic production with controversial content (Boring v. Buncombe County Board of Education (4th Cir. 1998). However, courts defer to administrators and educators equally when their decisions promote, rather than suppress, speech, as when schools administrators elect to include controversial materials in the curriculum. (Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School, 9th Cir. 1998).

The outcome of contested censorship cases often depends on the factual context, how competing interests are balanced, and in some cases motive. As a result, decisions vary widely, and the same action can be upheld in one district and struck down in the next. This can be confusing, to put it mildly. However, a few rules of thumb are available.

Policies and practices designed to respect free expression and encourage discourse and discussion are rarely, if ever, disturbed by courts. They may be challenged by students or parents who are offended by certain books or other materials with racial or ethnic content (e.g., Monteiro v. Tempe Union School District, 9th Cir. 1999), or with content that offends religious beliefs. (E.g., Altman v. Bedford Central School District, 2d Cir. 2001). However, it is rare that a court will order educators to remove materials that have legitimate educational purposes, even if they cause offense to some. (Many schools will offer students alternative assignments in such cases.)

The decision to remove material is more vulnerable, and often places motivation for the removal at issue since actions motivated by hostility to particular ideas or speakers is not permitted. (E.g., Campbell v. St. Tammany’s Parrish School Board, 5th Cir. 1995). As the Supreme Court has observed: "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 109 S. CT. 2533 (1989).

The deference frequently shown school administrators with regard to the curriculum is not always accorded when a dispute arises over material in the school library. Under a 1982 Supreme Court ruling, school administrators may regulate library content based on "educational suitability," but may not do so to suppress ideas or instill political orthodoxy. (Board of Education v. Pico) Noting the importance of "the regime of voluntary inquiry" that characterizes the library setting, as distinct from the "compulsory environment of the classroom," the Court has affirmed students’ right of access to a broad range of information "to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding." Observing this distinction, lower courts tend to inquire more searchingly into decisions to remove library materials, and to order materials restored when there is proof of an impermissible motive. (Case v. Unified School District, D. Kans. 1995; Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 5th Cir. 1995).

Useful information is available from the American Library Association, including the Library Bill of Rights, Tips for Library Directors, and Tips for Young Adult Librarians:

• Make sure the library has an up-to-date selection policy, reviewed regularly by your library board, which includes a request for reconsideration form.
• Have the request for reconsideration form available at your major service desk
• Work with your trustees (school board representatives) to ensure that they know and understand the library’s policies.
• Model the behavior you want staff to practice. When confronted by a parent or other individual who wants an item removed or reclassified, listen carefully to what is being said (and what is not). Respect that person’s right to have an opinion, and empathize. Keep the lines of communication open to the greatest possible extent.
• Work with your frontline staff (reference librarians, circulation, support staff, etc.) to make sure they understand the library’s policies.
• Build a good working relationship with your local media before controversy arises. Provide them with positive, upbeat stories about what the library is doing.
• Put key contacts on the library’s mailing list. The time to build these relationships is before you need them.

Once a school district accedes to a demand to censor, it can become increasingly difficult to resist such pressures. Once one perspective is accommodated, those with a different view come to expect similar treatment. Listening to community concerns, and taking them into account in structuring the educational environment, is not the same as removing material because someone does not agree with its contents. School officials always have the legal authority to refuse to censor something. They may need to do more to help members of their community understand why it is the right choice for children’s education.