By Electronic Mail

November 10, 2014

Superintendent Dawson Orr
Members of the Board of Trustees
Highland Park Independent School District
7015 Westchester Drive
Dallas, TX 75205-1061
Dear Dr. Orr and Members of the Board of Trustees:
We write again with regard to the on-going controversy over books taught in Highland Park High School. As
indicated previously, in our view, the district would undermine important constitutional principles and the
education of its students if it acceded to the demand that educational materials be judged according to some
notion of decency or "community standards," terms that are inherently vague and subjective.
In addition, as events of the recent past clearly demonstrate, the attempt to accommodate the demands of
one set of parents will merely anger or alienate others. Parents disagree, often vigorously, on matters of
educational policy, which is why it is imperative that decisions be based solely on sound educational grounds,
not on a desire to appease objectors or achieve consensus which is an elusive goal at best. Only by adhering
to this principle and observing professional educational standards can the school do fairness to all parents
and students and protect itself. Any other course invites on-going conflict and chaos.
As stated previously, parents have the right to control their childrens education by sending them to private
secular or religious schools or home-schooling them. However, they do not have the right to control the
curriculum in the public schools, which have the obligation to structure an educational program that
observes professional standards and meets the needs of all students. [1]
Your own policies recognize this principle. While parents have a right to raise an objection to an
instructional resource used in a schools educational program, Guiding Principles, EFA (LOCAL), that is as
far as their rights extend. There is no requirement that the Board negotiate or even respond to complaints.
However, the Board must stop, look, and listen and must consider the petition, address, or remonstrance.
Public Complaints, GF (LEGAL). In addition, the policy makes it clear that [a] parents ability to exercise
control over reading, listening, or viewing matter extends only to his or her own children. The plain import
of these policies is that parents are entitled to object and request accommodations for their own children, but
they have no right to demand changes in the curriculum that would affect the education of other students.
[1] See, e.g., Littlefield v. Forney Indep. School Dist. , 268 F.3d 275, 291 (5th Cir., 2001) ("It has long been recognized that
parental rights are not absolute in the public school context and can be subject to reasonable regulation.") and
Cornerstone Christian Schools v. University Interscholastic League, 563 F. 3d 127, 136 (5th Cir. 2009) ("The parents' right
protects their prerogative to make choices regarding the type of education e.g., public, private, or home-schooling
that their child receives but not particular components of that education, such as participation in interscholastic
education or enrollment in particular courses.")

Along these lines, any input by parents into the review process for challenged materials must also occur with
an understanding that decisions will be based solely on sound educational considerations as defined by
professional educators, not on personal viewpoints, even if couched as opinions about what constitutes a
good education.
The district has received scores, if not hundreds, of comments from parents expressing their views about
what kind of material should and should not be in the curriculum, which they have every right to express.
However, they do not have a right to control that decision. Prolonging a contentious debate among members
of the community with conflicting views and values will serve no legitimate purpose and will only harm
students. The only response that is practical as well as legally and educationally sound is to adopt policies and
procedures that make it clear that curricular decisions will be based solely on educational grounds, not on the
opinions or preferences of any individual or group.
This is not only a principled approach that favors neither faction, it is also the approach most likely in the
long run to defuse the controversy between the warring camps and allow the district to get back to the
pressing business of providing the best possible education to students. We urge you to act promptly and
decisively to protect the professional integrity and reputation of the educational program.
If we can be of further assistance, 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

Judy Platt, Director

Free Expression Advocacy
Association of American Publishers

Charles Brownstein, Executive Director

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Millie Davis, Senior Developer

Affiliate Groups and Public Outreach
National Council of Teachers of English

Lin Oliver, Executive Director

Society of Children's Book Writers & Illustrators

CC: Dr. Dawson Orr, orrd@hpisd.org

Walter Kelly, kellyw@hpisd.org
Anita Poteat, poteata@hpisd.org
Tim Turner, turnert@hpisd.org
Pat Gonzales, gonzalp@hpisd.org
Sherry Amyx, amyxs@hpisd.org
schoolboard@hpisd.org

Susanna Reich, Chair

Children's and Young Adult Book Committee
PEN American Center