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 Comic Book Legal Defense Fund Association of American Publishers

School Board Members Cape Henlopen Public School District 1270 Kings Highway Lewes, DE 19958

April 9, 2014

Dear Board Members, We are writing to express our concern about the controversy that has arisen over Aldous Huxleys Brave New World in Advanced Placement (AP) English classes in the Cape Henlopen School District, and in particular the suggestion that parents should be forewarned about content in the book which some consider inappropriate. We are gratified that there is no current proposal to remove the book from the curriculum, since doing so would raise serious constitutional questions. However, we suggest that warnings that invite objections to a book like Brave New World, which has indisputable educational value, would also raise constitutional issues and wreak havoc on the educational program in the district. Brave New World is one of the 20th centurys classic works of dystopian speculative fiction. In this novel, Aldous Huxley imagines a future society in which individual freedom has been sacrificed in the name of scientific advancement and social stability. Huxleys novel poses enduringly salient questions about societys values, science and individualism, and challenges students to think critically about the society portrayed in Brave New World as well as our own. The book is a classic text taught in high school classrooms across the country, it is recommended by the International Baccalaureate and is on Advanced Placement (AP) lists, and it has appeared on the AP exam three times in the last ten years. Focusing on content that someone might consider inappropriate or objectionable inevitably takes material out of context and distorts the meaning of the book. While there is shock value in isolating passages from a book, this does not reveal anything about the fundamental message or theme in a work or provide insight into its literary and educational qualities, which must be the focus of school officials responding to such challenges. Dozens of highly regarded books routinely taught in high school contain language and situations similar to those in Brave New World, including works that appear frequently on the AP exam, such as Ulysses, Catcher in the Rye, Catch-22, 1984, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, Slaughterhouse-Five, As I Lay Dying, not to mention the works of Dostoyevsky, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck. As these examples suggest, any attempt to eliminate everything that is objectionable... will leave public schools in shreds. Nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting of the public school system can result.... McCollum v. Board of Educ. 332 U.S. 203 (1948) (Jackson, J. concurring). It is clear that the removing the book would raise serious constitutional issues. The First Amendment precludes public officials from suppressing 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).

19 Fulton Street, Suite 407, New York, NY 10038 :: 212-807-6222

::

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

TWITTER

@KidsRight2Read ::

FACEBOOK

/ncacorg

Warnings from school officials about certain content or ideas in books likewise convey official disapproval and raise the same constitutional issues as removing books because someone dislike[s] the ideas contained in them. Its equivalent to putting a scarlet letter on the cover. Flagging works for objectionable content influences how readers read and understand the book; it will also inevitably discourage its use in the classroom, depriving all students of a valuable educational experience. If Brave New World receives a warning, what book will be next, and who will decide which books need warnings? While parents are free to request an alternative assignment for their children, they have no right to impose their views on others. The courts have consistently held that a parent has no right to tell a public school what his or her child will and will not be taught, Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003), or to direct how a public school teaches their child. Blau v. Fort Thomas Public School District, et al, 401 F.3d 381, 395 (6th Cir. 2005). See also Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87, 102 (1st Cir., 2008). Any other rule would put schools in the untenable position of having to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the schools choice of subject matter. Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 534 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1159 (1996). See also Swanson v. Guthrie Indep. School Dist., 135 F.3d 694, 699 (10th Cir. 1998); Littlefield v. Forney Indep. School, 268 F.3d 275, 291 (5th Cir. 2001). It is incumbent on school officials to recognize the rights of students whose parents do not object to books like Brave New World. 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), 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.) Those who object to this book are entitled to their view, but they may not impose it on others, even to the extent of demanding that the school adopt warnings about content they find objectionable. Any other decision threatens the principle that is essential to individual freedom, democracy, and a good education: the right to read, inquire, question, and think for ourselves. If we can be of assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. 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