By Electronic Mail
September 29, 2014President Richard A. PetermeyerBall-Chatham Board of EducationDistrict Office201 W. MulberryChatham, Illinois 62626Dear President Petermeyer and Members of the Board of Education,We write with regard to the challenge to Marjane Satrapi’s
Persepolis
in the 12
th
grade English IVcurriculum, which is on the agenda for the Board meeting later today. As organizations concernedwith intellectual freedom and the application of First Amendment principles in public institutions,we strongly urge you to support the findings of your professional staff who selected the book andthe review committee who determined that the book meets District goals and objectives, and toreinstate it.
Persepolis
, Marjane Satrapi’s unique and affecting memoir of her childhood in Iran during theIslamic Revolution, is a work of great acclaim.
SchoolLibraryJournal
called the book “a graphicnovel of immense power and importance for Westerners of all ages.” It paints a realistic, vividportrait of life in a chaotic time, “a timely and timeless story,” according to
PublishersWeekly
. Weunderstand that the challenge relates to both the book’s content and graphic imagery. Neitherground provides adequate justification for removing a book that has clear educational value and iswidely taught in high schools around the country, and its removal would be both educationallyunsound and constitutionally suspect.To remove this graphic novel because of objections to its content is impermissible under the FirstAmendment. As the Supreme Court said in
BoardofEducation,IslandTreesUnionFreeSchool DistrictNo.26v.Pico
(1982), the Constitution does not permit “officially prescribed orthodoxy”which limits what people may read, think, speak, or say. The fact that we are confronted with imagesalong with words does not make a difference, as the complaint suggests, since images, like words,constitute symbolic expression and are protected by the First Amendment.Every community is home to a diversity of opinions on moral and religious questions. For everyparent who objects to an assigned book, there will be others who favor it. In practice, the attempt toalter school curricula in response to individual objections means privileging the moral or religious
beliefs of some families over others. It is precisely this form of viewpoint discrimination bygovernment officials that our constitutional system is designed to prevent.Thus, government officials, including public school administrators, may not prohibit “theexpression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Texasv. Johnson
(1989); see also
BoardofEducation,IslandTreesUnionFreeSchoolDistrictNo.26v.Pico
(1982) (“local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislikethe ideas contained in those books …”)Indeed, removing the novel may well violate the First Amendment rights of those parents and theirchildren who do not find the book objectionable and would choose to read it if offered theopportunity. See
Monteirov.TempeUnionHighSchoolDistrict
(9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the FirstAmendment right of students to read books selected for their “legitimate educational value” even if offensive to some parents and students),
Prattv.IndependentSchoolDist.No.831
(8th Cir. 1982) and
Casev.UnifiedSchoolDist.No.233
(D. Kan. 1995) (First Amendment violated by removing materialsbecause of hostility to content and message.) As these cases indicate, the decision to removematerials in response to an objection about content or ideas is vulnerable to constitutionalchallenge.While parents have certain rights to direct the education of their own children, they do not have theright to expect the school to adopt a curriculum that reflects or accommodates their personal viewsand preferences. Parents have no “constitutional right to ‘direct how a public school teaches theirchild.’”
Parkerv.Hurley,514F.3d87,102
(1st Cir. 2008) Rather, public schools have an obligation to"administer school curricula responsive to the overall educational needs of the community and itschildren."
Leebaertv.Harrington,332F.3d134,141
(2d Cir. 2003). Any other rule would put schools inthe untenable position of having "to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuinemoral disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter."
Brownv.Hot,SexyandSafer Productions,Inc.,68F.3d525,534
(1st Cir. 1995),
cert.denied,516U.S.1159
(1996). See also
Swansonv. GuthrieIndep.SchoolDist.,135F.3d694,699
(10th Cir. 1998);
Littlefieldv.ForneyIndep.School,268 F.3d275,291
(5th Cir. 2001).There are few instructional materials that do not include something that is offensive to someone.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…."
McCollumv.BoardofEduc.
(1948) (Jackson, J. concurring). The practical effect of acceding to arequest to remove materials is to invite other requests, leaving schools vulnerable to multiple,possibly conflicting, demands. If parents object to a particular work, they are free to request analternative assignment. Meanwhile, other parents and students should have the freedom to choosefrom an inclusive and expansive reading selection. Decisions about instructional materials should be based on sound educational grounds, not becausesome people do or do not agree with the message or content of a particular book. This approach isconsistent with constitutional and educational principles and will serve the interests of both thedistrict and its students. We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to these goals by reinstating
Persepolis
. The fact that the book was removed without compliance with district procedures makes itparticularly critical that the Board reinstate it without further delay.