Literary Censorship: Ideological Warfare in School Bookshelves

By: John Perales Jr.

Edited by: Danielle Spitz and Maayan Abouzaglo

With the advent of Tinker v. Des Moines in 1969, the First Amendment right to self-expression became a hallmark of American student life. The Supreme Court’s decision that students do not lay down their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates was critical in establishing the constitutional rights of minors. This precedent was only further expounded in a later case taken up by the Seventh District Court of Appeals, American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick (2001), that dictated that children have freedom of speech. Despite these precedents, however, the censorship of literature within public school districts is a continuing problem within the United States, and one that violates the previously established right of minors to self-expression.

While mental images of literary censorship often bring to mind book burnings and George Orwell’s 1984, literary materials across the United States are still censored. The American Library Association’s Office for Intellectual Freedom (ALA) lists 544 challenged books in 2019. The organization states that this number is a fraction of the total challenges that occur in a single year, 82-97% of which go unreported.  These cases seemingly violate the Tinker decision and the 1965 Supreme Court case of Lamont v. Postmaster General which stated that “the right to receive publications is such a fundamental right.” 

To understand this discrepancy, one must first look to the 1982 Supreme Court Case, Island Trees School District v. Pico. In this case, the school board of the Island Trees School District was committed to removing certain books from school libraries that the board saw as “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy.” Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the judges reached a plurality opinion, ruling that while school boards cannot ban books for simply disagreeing with their contents, boards can ban books if they conclude their content is unsuitable for children.

While the Supreme Court seems to have put a barrier in front of public school boards, the qualifying statements within the ruling make this barrier much weaker than it appears. In fact, it is hard to see how this Supreme Court ruling has done much to prevent the violation of students’ rights. Instead of rejecting books based on a school board’s own ideologies, school boards now only need to state that these books are inappropriate for children. 

The Court in Island Trees School District v. Pico failed to defend students’ rights. Instead of protecting the First Amendment rights of students, The Supreme Court has created a roundabout way for school boards to censor material and infringe upon students’ rights to self expression. The simple statement that a book is unsuitable for children puts a school board completely in the legal right. In some ways, giving schools such an easy and subjective way to censor literature makes this Supreme Court case regressive. This is demonstrated by the fact that six of the ten most challenged books of 2019 were challenged on the basis of “family values,” “morals,” and protecting “children.”  Likewise, ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom’s list of the ten most challenged books for 2019, eight of the ten books were challenged due to LGBTQ content. 

The precedent that students maintain their First Amendment rights on school grounds has been in place since the advent of the aforementioned Tinker v. Des Moines case. However, this precedent is not without its restrictions. In both Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of public school districts to regulate the expression of students during school-sponsored activities. Aside from expression, the Supreme Court has also ruled in favor of altering what is to be taught in schools. These past rulings have generally been in favor of increasing the secularity of public school teachings, such as in Engel v. Vitale, which removed mandatory prayer from public schools. However, the precedent that the Supreme Court has the authority to control the curriculum of the public school system could be dangerous for the restriction of literature within schools. Given the current conservative makeup of the Supreme Court, it is not impossible that the ideological concerns expressed by parents could manifest itself into a more sweeping legal issue.

As long as school boards are legally allowed to interfere with the rights of students, students will never fully have their First Amendment rights. The practically unbridled censorship powers of school boards have infringed upon the freedoms of students to express themselves. Literary censorship should be more than just the subject of Banned Books Week. It should be seen as an issue that plagues students across the country and restricts their right to self-expression. As District Judge Joseph L. Tauro stated in Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, “The student who discovers the magic of the library is on the way to a life-long experience of self-education and enrichment… The most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies. There is no danger from such exposure. The danger is mind control.”

Bibliography:

“Banned Book FAQ.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, July 30, 2019. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/banned-books-qa. 

“Banning Books and the Law.” Findlaw. Findlaw Team, June 21, 2016. https://www.findlaw.com/education/student-rights/banning-books-and-the-law.html. 

“Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico by Pico.” Oyez. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/80-2043. 

Dynia, Philip A., and David L. Hudson. “Rights of Students,” September 2017. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/931/rights-of-students. 

“Engel v. Vitale.” Oyez. Accessed November 18, 2020. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. 

“FindLaw's United States Seventh Circuit Case and Opinions.” Findlaw. Accessed November 1, 2020. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1146977.html. 

“First Amendment and Censorship.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, July 13, 2019. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship. 

“Notable First Amendment Court Cases.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, February 27, 2018. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorship/courtcases. 

“Top 10 Most Challenged Books Lists.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, April 20, 2020. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks/top10.