June 3, 2014

Edward Pruden, Ed.D, Superintendent

Members, School Board
Brunswick County Schools
35 Referendum Drive
Bolivia, NC 28422
epruden@bcswan.net
Dear Dr. Pruden and Members of the Board:
We wrote you several months ago with regard to the challenge to The Color Purple by Alice Walker, and were gratified
to learn that you voted to retain the book. We have become aware that you are now facing a new book challenge, this
time to Sherman Alexies award-winning novel, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. As we understand
it, a member the community objects to the novel because it contains material that offends her religious beliefs.
Once again, we urge the board to retain the book, and respect the judgment of the districts professional educators
who have selected the book for its literary and pedagogical value, as well as its interest and relevance to students.
To reiterate some of the points made in our earlier letter, removing a book because some object to, or disapprove of,
it violates basic constitutional principles. The First Amendment protects the citizen against the State itself and all
of its creatures Boards of Education not excepted. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason
for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its
source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes ... West Virginia
Board of Education v. Barnette (1943). While school officials have considerable discretion over curricular materials,
schools may only remove materials for educationally sound reasons, not because some object to their content.
No educational rationale has been advanced for removing the book. The novel has received universal acclaim by
literary critics and educators alike. It received the National Book Award for Young Peoples Literature in 2007, and
was named one of the best books of the year by School Library Journal. Booklist, a publication of the American Library
Association, wrote that younger teens looking for the strength to lift themselves out of rough situations would do
well to start here. A review in the New York Times called it a gem of a bookheartbreaking, funny, and beautifully
written. Kirkus Reviews said it deftly mingles raw feelings with funny, sardonic insight," and Kliatt, a book review
for teachers and librarian, wrote that it is "breathtakingly honest, funny, profane, sad.will stay with readers."
The fact that some members of the community find the book objectionable does not provide a basis for removing it.
It is inevitable that government will adopt and pursue programs and policies [which] are contrary to the profound
beliefs and sincere convictions of some of its citizens. Board of Regents of University of Wisconsin System v.
Southworth (2000).
BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
However,
[t]he very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political
controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials .Ones right to life, liberty, and
property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights
may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette (1943).
Removal of such a work of literature because it offends the religious views of some would thus raise serious
constitutional concerns. Educators are rarely held to violate the First Amendment when they include material that
has pedagogical value, whereas removal of material for ideological reasons is vulnerable to legal challenge. 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.)
Each person is entitled to his or her own opinion about the book. However, no person is entitled to impose his or
her views on others, or to expect school decisions to be based on their views or sensitivities. Sound educational
decisions cannot always accommodate the personal, moral, or religious views or values of everyone the community.
Your students need and deserve a high quality education that will prepare them to address the ideas and experiences
explored in books like The Color Purple and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.
Those who object to the educational program deserve a respectful hearing, as you plainly provide. However,
adherence to a policy to base decisions solely on educational considerations is, in our opinion, the surest way to
reduce the number of challenges and to dispose of any challenges in a considered way that is both educationally and
legally sound.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance in resolving this matter.
Sincerely,
Chris Finan
President
American Booksellers Foundation For
Free Expression
Judy Platt
Director, Free Expression Advocacy
Association of American Publishers
Millie Davis
Senior Developer,
Affiliate Groups and Public Outreach
National Council of Teachers of English
Joan Bertin
Executive Director
National Coalition Against Censorship
Charles Brownstein
Executive Director
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund
Megan Tingley
Executive Vice President and Publisher
Little, Brown Books for Young Readers