Board of Education Island Trees vs. Pico

Case Summary

    In September of 1975, three members of the Board of Education for Island Trees Union Free School District #26 attended a conference sponsored by a conservative parent group concerned with the politics and legislation in education for the State of New York. The three board members, who included the president and vice-president of the board, acquired a list of books that were considered inappropriate by the Parents of New York United group.

    The board did some research and found that nine of the books on the list were located in the high school library and one in the junior high and one book was a part of a class curriculum. The books in question were: The Best Short Stories by Negro Writers, edited by Langston Hughes; Soul on Ice, by Eldridge Cleaver; The Fixer, by Bernard Malamud; Black Boy, by Richard Wright; Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut; The Naked Ape, by Desmond Morris; Laughing Boy, by Oliver LaFarge; A Hero Ain’t Nothing but a Sandwich, by Alice Childress; Down These Mean Streets, by Piri Thomas; A Reader for Writers, edited by Jerome Walter Archer; and Go Ask Alice, author unknown. Board members were quoted as referring to the books as “anti-American”, “objectionable”, “improper fair for school students”, and “offensive to Americans in general.”

    The School Board met with Superintendent and unofficially directed that the books be removed from the corresponding libraries and brought before the board so that they could read them. The Superintendent objected to the board that the school district already had a policy for the selection and review of library materials and that he recommended that this policy, which he believed was “a good policy”, be respected and that he forms a committee to review and make recommendations to him. The superintendent believed that all of which could be done quietly without a news fiasco that often follows such matters.  The school board repeated that they wanted “all copies of the library books in question be removed” and brought to them for review. 

    At this point, the actions became public knowledge and the board released a statement to the press saying the books were, “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy,” the board further stated that it was “our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in schools from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers.”

    The board then selected their own committee to review the book made up of four staff members and four parents all from Island Trees district.

The committee as instructed to read the books and make a recommendation making sure to consider “educational suitability, “good tast,” “relevance,” and “appropriateness to age and grade level.”  In July of 1976, the committee made a summative report that two books be removed, five retained, a consensus could not be reached on two books, one book was acceptable with parental approval and the committee had no position on one book as not all eight members had a chance to read it.

    The board then almost completely disregarded the findings of the committee and decided that nine of the eleven books should be removed completely from all the schools, one could be used with parent approval and only one book was to be returned to the libraries with no constraints. Furthermore, they gave absolutely no indication for why that had disregarded the committees suggestions.

    In response to the board’s decision four high school students and one junior high student petitioned the district court of New York because the board had denied them their First Amendment rights and removed the books because certain parts of the book “offended their social, political, and moral tastes, and not because the books, taken as a whole, were lacking in educational value and asked that the court rule their actions unconstitutional. The district court agreed with petitioners about the reasons for the removal of the literature, but did not find that the First Amendment rights had been unduly infringed upon, because it is the boards discretion to formulate school policy, and they believed it was not their place to interfere in the “daily operations of school systems” unless “basic constitutional values” were in question and that was not the case here.

    A US Court of Appeals panel of three judges overturned that decision and sent the issue to trial. In their judgment it stated the “an unusual intervention in the school libraries’ operations by persons not routinely concerned with such matters” was an issue and that they needed to establish a judicious basis for “interfering with First Amendment rights.” The case arguments began on March 2, 1982.

    On June 25, 1982, the US Court of Appeals stated that their findings dealt only with items/ideas being removed from the library collection and not the selection of materials or school curriculum and that if the materials were removed for any reason other than that they were not educationally relevant, then it would be infringement of the students First Amendment rights. In the boards own affidavits and public statements moral, political and personal beliefs were the reasons they found them to be unacceptable. The court also reported that had the board followed an established policy for removal of the materials it would have not been an infringement of right, but in fact the opposite was the case and the board ignored the guidance of “literary experts”, staff from Island Trees schools, the Superintendent and their own committee without reason for doing so. In light of the evidence the court ruled to send the case to the New York Supreme Court to await trial.

    In light of the up coming trial the parents of Island Trees solicited the board of education to drop the legal proceedings and return all the materials to the library. In January of 1983 the board convened and voted on the issue of returning the materials to the library and voted 4-3 to return the books.

Impact/Implication

There are three major implications arose from the Pico case. The first is the legal precedent set by the court when they ruled that no one can remove a book from a school library based solely on personal feelings, moral or political. The second major impact from Island Trees Vs. Pico is that it set a precedent for American students to exercise their First Amendment rights of access to ideas and information in school libraries. Lastly, it is important for school boards and districts to develop clear policies about material selection and removal and apply them consistently.

Application

School and district policies about the review of materials under objection need to be outlined and followed when a complaint is lodged. Once material has been selected for library use it is protected by the removal process and the First Amendment. Regardless of the uproar certain books have caused over the years, and will continue to cause, as a school librarian, teacher or parent, you cannot removed or have removed material you believe is inappropriate based on those personal feelings. Being knowledgeable about the legal precedents in place and the district policies about library material selection is imperative so that you avoid any legal entanglements or infringement of constitutional rights. As a library media specialist it is also important to realize that having the material in the library is not enough, when students seek information that others might perceive as objectionable they must feel free from our scrutiny and fear of judgment about their right to seek and read items of their own choosing.

Sources

Adams, H.R. (2007). The age of the patron: privacy for middle and high school students. School Library Media Activities Monthly. 23:8, 38. Retrieved from: http://library.pittstate.edu:2826/docview/237137338

Cornell Law Review. (1982). Board of education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 v. Pico by Pico (no. 80-2043) . Retrieved from  http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0853_ZS.html

Gold, J.C. (1994). Board of education v. Pico (1982): book banning. New York: Twenty-First Century Books.

Kraus, L.L. (1984). Censorship: what island trees v. pico means to schools. The Clearinghouse. 57:8, 343-345.  Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30186282

The National Children’s Book and Literacy Alliance. (1997). Supreme court case: board of education, island trees school district v. pico. Retrieved from http://www.thencbla.org/BPOSpages/supremectcase.html

Tedford, T.L. (2009). Board of education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 v. Pico. Retrieved from http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pico.html

Terry, J.D. (1986). Censorship: post Pico. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED272994.pdf