Could you be more specific, please?
After months of attempts to clarify what specific legal ruling the Blue Valley Board of Education used to justify their February 2004, 7-0 vote to retain This Boy's Life in the freshman curriculum, the Blue Valley school system has continued to provide only a vague reference to a situation in a neighboring school system. This vague reference, however, was used as a primary justification in each Board member's vote to retain This Boy's Life in the freshman curriculum.
This sloppy logic -- using a vague legal reference that to date has not been clarified or scrutinized by anyone other than the Board's legal counsel, John Vratil -- undermines the credibility and usefulness of Blue Valley's curriculum challenge policy 4610 in the first place. The fact that the Board has continued to ignore the multiple, simple requests for the specific legal ruling that was used to "tie their hands" in their vote to retain This Boy's Life as an "approved" novel for our freshman students undermines the Board's sincerity and credibility in their role and responsibility to review, audit, and maintain quality curriculum.
September 2004 Update
In September, we learned that the legal ruling that the Blue Valley BOE used to justify their position was a ruling that affected the Olathe school district. Over ten years ago, the Olathe school district removed a controversial book (Annie on my Mind) from their public school library. Olathe was eventually required to return the book to their library shelves. The court ruling relied heavily on the fact that the Olathe school system did not follow their own policies for the selection and removal of learning resources.
Unfortunately, the Blue Valley BOE used this ruling as the reason why they could not remove This Boy's Life as a required reading textbook even though there were two distinct and important differences in the cases: 1) the Olathe case revolved around a book in a library and the Blue Valley case centered on a book used as a required reading assignment, and 2) the Olathe case revolved around the actions of school officials not acting within official school policies whereas in Blue Valley, the Board WAS following the process of challenge policy 4610 that clearly stated they had the ability to remove a textbook.
The bottom line, however, is that the Blue Valley BOE used this ruling as a primary justification for their vote, in effect nullifying the promises of policy 4610 for those parents who may, in the future, challenge required reading assignments.
The Supreme Court themselves has debated this issue in Board of Education v. Pico, and provided the ruling that local Boards of Education DO have the authority to remove materials in school libraries and classrooms that are “pervasively vulgar” or “educational unsuitable.”
In Board of Education v. Pico, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the legitimate authority that school boards have in removing materials from the educational settings of school libraries and classrooms that are “pervasively vulgar” or “educational unsuitable.” The Court maintains that the school board actions should reflect “community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral, or political.” Also, in Butler v. Michigan, "The First Amendment protects not only the dissemination but also the receipt of information and ideas" and "Public debate must not only be unfettered; it must be informed."