“An egregious assault on the protection of intellectual freedom”
I have lived in this community for over twenty years. I have raised two children who attended this school district. I grew up in a small town 25 minutes from here just over the county line. We had a tiny school library and a tiny public library. But I was fortunate to have the benefit of an aunt who began her professional career as a children’s section librarian and who worked her way up to eventually be the director of the entire public library system of a large metropolitan city. That aunt passed away this year. But she left a legacy that nurtured my love of books and reading as a child, which led to a love of school and learning, which fostered and fueled the growth of my intellectual freedom, which led me to pursue a law degree, which has led to a twenty-four plus year career applying and upholding the law. I was just nine years old when the US Supreme Court handed down the decision in Board of Education Island Trees Union Free School District vs. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (1982), yet it remains valid law and relevant today. In that case the Supreme Court recognized the importance of 1st Amendment protections against unchecked book removals from schools. In siding with the rights of students, Justice Brennan stated, “[l]ocal school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books.”
EVERY child in this school district should have the same access to nurture a love of books, reading, education, growth and intellectual freedom. But that cannot be accomplished in this school district if this board persists in gutting longstanding policies that would essentially strip the necessary process in place to protect those rights. The board’s proposed revision is an egregious assault on the protection of intellectual freedom.
Members of this Board have advocated for transparency and parental rights. This policy is the antithesis of that position. It undermines, jeopardizes and strips constitutionally protected rights and freedoms. The proposed revisions are also internally inconsistent with other existing board policies and established guidelines, including those recommended by NEOLA. Further, the proposed revisions do not afford all interested persons the due process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard, object to, or appeal a requested library material change or removal.
Instituting a process that lacks transparency and which would allow and possibly lead to the removal of books by parents who disapprove of the ideas contained in the book is tantamount to thought control of the entire student population and in violation of the First Amendment.
Courts have repeatedly held that the First Amendment protects the rights of students to receive information.
The policies and process for reviewing book removals in our schools must safeguard the rights of all to have access to the ideas and information contained in books despite being objectionable to some. We must ensure that intellectual freedom is preserved and that governing bodies do not usurp that freedom through policies such as what is being proposed by this board. I urge the committee and the board to reconsider the revisions to policy 9130.01.
-Kristin
