By Electronic Mail

January 9, 2015
President Norm Abrams
Appoquinimink School District Board of Education
118 South 6th Street
P.O. Box 4010
Odessa, DE 19730
Dear President Abrams and Members of the Board of Education,
We write with regard to the proposal to implement a new book assignment and checkout policy in the
Appoquinimink School District, as presented initially at the December board meeting. As organizations
concerned with the freedom to read, the integrity of the public education system, and the application of First
Amendment law and principles in public institutions, we have serious concerns about this proposal. We urge
the Board, pursuant to its obligation to provide oversight of the school district, determine policy, and adopt
rules and regulations (Policy 1101) to reject the proposal. It represents a significant change in educational
philosophy and district policy that would, if adopted, undermine the quality of education in the district,
contravene core First Amendment principles, and conflict with the districts commitment to academic
freedom reflected in Policy 4105.
Of primary concern is the proposed adoption of a rating system, under which certain books would be
flagged for special attention and parental consent requirements. The very premise of the proposal, that
mature/explicit materials are automatically cause for concern, is flawed, as is the underlying assumption
that literature containing certain kinds of content (designated by the labels V = excessive violence, L =
offensive language, AC = Adult content, and S = sexual content) is intrinsically suspect and should be subject
to special rules. The policy reflects specific views and values that are not shared by all, are unrelated to
educational considerations, and therefore cannot be supported on pedagogical grounds.1 Instructional
materials are selected for a number of reasons, including but not limited to their suitability to a given course
of study, their literary or educational merit, and their ability to connect instruction to human experience in a
broader sense; however, the teaching of educationally valuable material should not be discouraged merely
because of the presence of isolated words or scenes that some may consider objectionable.
The ratings are themselves problematic on their face: what exactly is mature, explicit, or adult content?
How much violence is excessive? Who decides? Because the terms are inherently vague and subjective, the
ratings could be applied to a vast amount of literature routinely read by high school students around the
country. For example, The Absolutely True Diary ofa Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie is a critically
1 This approach to rating content mimics rating systems like the one adopted by the Motion Picture Association of
America. Such ratings are adopted voluntarily by private entertainment companies to promote business objectives,
and have no relevance to the teaching of literature in the public schools. While individuals are free to consult ratings to
select movies that conform to their personal preferences, public educators are obliged to select materials based solely
on their pedagogical value.

acclaimed young adult novel, the recipient of a National Book Award, about a young Native Americans
experiences growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation and later as a student in an all-white high school.
A coming-of-age story about the search for identity and the struggle to overcome obstacles like poverty and
discrimination, it also contains scenes with profanity, sexual references, violence, and death. Would it get V,
L, AC, and S ratings? Would a book like Eleanor and Park by Rainbow Rowell be rated for adult or sexual
content because of its realistic and touching depiction of teenage romance, including scenes in which the
main characters kiss?
There is no valid educational reason for having such a rating policy, much less one confined to books
designated by publishers (for marketing purposes) as young adult literature. Classic literature contains the
same, and often more graphic, content. For example, Agamemnon portrays the murder of children whose
body parts are cut up and served to their father, Titus Andronicus includes more than a dozen killings, rape,
dismemberment, cannibalism, and other atrocities, and Romeo and Juliet includes teenage sex, violence,
death and suicide. The same is true of contemporary adult fiction which is frequently read by high school
students, such as Beloved by Toni Morrison, William Faulkners The Sound and the Fury, and The Kite Runner
by Khaled Hosseini.
Indeed, virtually all complex works of literature contain content that could be described as mature or adult,
but that fact tells you almost nothing about their literary attributes, why someone would want to read them,
or what the reader would learn from doing so: books are a great deal more than the sum of their parts, a fact
that is obscured by ratings that are reductionist by definition and thus over-simplify, obscure, and distort
meaning. Rating a book is the equivalent of slapping a scarlet letter A on its cover. It stigmatizes the book
and reduces it to a few isolated elements taken out of context. It would encourage parents to underestimate
the literary and educational value of many books, and it would deter teachers from teaching or
recommending them.
These concerns have caused leading educational organizations to oppose the use of ratings and warning
labels for books. The National Council of Teachers of English in its Position Statement Regarding Rating or
Red-Flagging Books states:
Lists that segregate books into artificially-created categoriesgive a biased perspective, casting a negative
light on listed books regardless of their literary worth, stoking unnecessary alarm over their content.
Such categorization defers to a minority who object to a bookoften for random, personal, or
ideological reasonsrather than the thousands who have read, taught, enjoyed, and benefitted from the
book. More importantly, "red-flagging" privileges the concerns of would-be censors over the professional
judgment of teachers and librarians[and] narrows the curriculum to only books that are deemed
"safe".
.Letter ratings and "red-flagging" is a blatant form of censorship; the practice reduces complex literary
works to a few isolated elementsthose that some individuals may find objectionablerather than
viewing the work as a whole.
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/rating-books. Instead of rating books, NCTE encourages schools
to engage parents in a more direct and meaningful way by finding ways to explain how and why certain
books are used as well as the pedagogical purposes these materials serve.
Similarly, the American Library Association rejects ratings and labels, calling them prejudicial [and]
designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment [about] the content, language, or themes. The
prejudicial label is used to warn, discourage, or prohibit users or certain groups of users from accessing the
resource. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/labelingrating. The ALA
further notes that The adoption, enforcement, or endorsement of any of these [private] rating systems by a
library violates the American Library Associations Library Bill ofRights and may be unconstitutional.

Targeting literary works based on their ideas or content also violates a fundamental First Amendment
principle, that government officials, including public school officials, may not prohibit the expression of an
idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414
(1989). Thus, local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike
the ideas contained in those books Board ofEducation, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico,
457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982) (plurality opinion). Ratings that flag books because of their content and ideas raise the
same constitutional concerns as removing books because someone dislike[s] the ideas contained in those
books.
District policy 4105 embraces these critical First Amendment principles in its recognition that academic
freedom is essential to the goals and objectives of the educational system. Those who object to certain kinds
of books are entitled to their views, but they may not impose those views on others, even to the extent of
demanding that the school adopt warnings about content they find objectionable.
Labeling library books is a particularly egregious violation of principles of academic freedom that undermines
the very purpose of libraries, which is to allow students to select reading materials based on their own
interests, maturity level, and values, unburdened by official warnings or value judgments. Needless to say,
parental permission tied to a flawed rating system is similarly flawed. Parents who object to specific materials
have recourse under Policy 4110, which provides a mechanism for them to express their concerns and request
an alternative assignment for their child. District policies thus already accommodate the differing views,
values, and preferences of members of the community, in a way that does not impose one view on all or
undermine academic freedom or the integrity of the educational program.
High school students need to interact with sophisticated, complex literature, which fosters the sorts of critical
learning, intellectual development, and 21st Century skills that are essential for students to realize the aims of
the districts educational mission, as stated on its strategic plan, to provide a world-class education where
each of our students gains the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes needed to contribute and
flourish in a global society. Your students would be at a distinct disadvantage in college and beyond if they
were not introduced in high school to books containing mature content.
We strongly urge you to reject the idea of rating educational materials according to the prejudicial and valueladen criteria reflected in the present proposal. We encourage you instead to rely on the professional
judgment of educators, in your district and around the country, and select those materials that will best equip
your students for the future.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,

Joan Bertin, Executive Director

National Coalition Against Censorship

Judy Platt, Director

Free Expression Advocacy
Association of American Publishers

Chris Finan, President

American Booksellers For Free Expression

Charles Brownstein, Executive Director

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Millie Davis, Senior Developer

Affiliate Groups and Public Outreach
National Council of Teachers of English

Susanna Reich, Chair

Children's and Young Adult Book Committee
PEN American Center

Lin Oliver, Executive Director

Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators

Cc: President Norm Abrams, norm.abrams@appo.k12.de.us

Superintendent Mathew Burrows, matthew.burrows@appo.k12.de.us
Charlisa Edelin, charlisa.edelin@appo.k12.de.us
Richard Forsten, richard.forsten@appo.k12.de.us
Julie Johnson, julie.johnson@appo.k12.de.us
Kelly Wright, kelly.wright@appo.k12.de.us