Comment by Maranda E. Fritz
On December 1, 1980, an article in the Chicago Sun-Times disclosed that since the presidential election on November 4, the number of reports of censorship attempts had snowballed to an average of three to five a day. According to Judith Krug, director of the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom, the election acted as a catalyst in this process. "It is as if . . . they see Ronald Reagan's victory as a mandate to 'superimpose their beliefs on the entire nation.'" The Sun-Times article continues: "Attempts to ban books are nothing new. What is new is the increase in the numbers and the mood of the country that, according to some, is giving these attempts a better chance at succeeding." Further, these activities are not limited to groups generally viewed as conservative. "Jewish groups have objected to 'The Merchant of Venice.' Blacks have protested 'Little Black Sambo' and 'Mary Poppins' on the basis of their stereotypical portrayal of blacks. Women are fighting to ban both pornography and materials that show women exclusively in traditional roles."
Nor are these activities limited to any one part of the country, but instead appear to be occurring across the nation. In Warsaw, Indiana, in December of 1977, the Senior Citizens Club burned forty copies of an allegedly offensive textbook in a parking lot. In Florida, in January of 1981, the "Save Our Children" organization was attempting to purge libraries of all books by reputed homosexuals such as Emily Dickinson, Walt Whitman, and Tennessee Williams. And in Texas, a couple with no background in the field of education is presently censoring what will appear in textbooks across the nation. The textbook adoption committee in Texas requires publishers to make the changes or deletions suggested by the couple before the state will purchase the book; once the changes are made, they appear in each book, even if the book is not limited to distribution in Texas. Recently, the attacks have broadened beyond objections to individual pieces of material. As a result of an interview with Professor Lee Burress of the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point, the Sun-Times observed that
Lately . . . complaints are being initiated by community residents without children in the school system . . . . They are, [Burress] says, against all drug and sex education courses and against the teaching of 'secular humanism.' They argue for the inclusion of prayers in the classroom, the teaching of creation and oppose leaving any conclusions up to the students.
In light of these developments, it is appropriate to consider the legal issues raised by censorship attempts, for where the school board adopts a pro-censorship stance, the only check on their activities is the courts. This comment, therefore, will first consider the fundamental issues involved in any attempt to remove ideas from the school: the purpose of the school itself, and the interests of those involved in the educational process. There will then follow a discussion of the state of the law in the major areas of dispute: sex education and controversial reading material. Also discussed throughout the article is a proposal for an alternative method of resolving book removal disputes.
About the Author
Maranda E. Fritz.
Citation
56 Tul. L. Rev. 960 (1982)