ACLU challenges the board's decision to ban certain controversial books
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit in federal district court against the Miami-Dade School Board (MDSB) challenging the board's decision to ban certain controversial books from school libraries. The Miami-Dade Student Government Association has joined the ACLU's suit. The legal dispute centers on the board's decision to remove the book
Vamos a Cuba and the English-language version,
A Visit to Cuba. The plaintiffs in the suit argue that the book was banned solely because the board found it politically unsavory. "We as students are thirsty for knowledge, but the School Board's decision hinders that thirst,'" says Ronald Bilbao, former president of student government and recent graduate of South Miami Senior High. "We don't ban books in America, period." Virginia Rosen, president of the ACLU's Greater Miami chapter, describes the board's action as "a case of a school board gone wild." She adds, "This is what happens in communist countries; this is what happens in communist Cuba." MDSB Chairman Agustín Barrera has declined to comment on the suit, as has school district spokesman Joseph Garcia. However, state legislator David Rivera, who represents Miami, says, "No ACLU lawsuit can convert an inaccurate nonfiction book into an accurate one." Two school district review committees, citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, recommended that the books remain on the library shelves of the districts' schools. After failing to broker compromise, Miami-Dade Superintendent Rudy Crew joined the committees' recommendations. Nonetheless, the board voted six to three to impose a ban not only on the books about Cuba but all 24 books in the series.
Prior to the board's vote, MDSB's attorney warned board members that a broad move to ban books from district libraries would violate the board's rules and numerous legal precedents. In an eight page memo, school board attorney JulieAnn Rico cautioned the nine board members to "identify with specificity the legal grounds for any board decision." Ms. Rico's memo discussed MDSB's rule for removing library books that begins with a parent complaint, which is reviewed by two committees and the superintendent before being sent to the board for action. She pointed out that the board cannot remove or otherwise restrict a book without first complying with its written policy. She wrote, "At this stage in the process, it is of vital importance that the procedures established by board rule be followed strictly. Suspending the applicable board rule would not be an available option for the board." However, none of the other books in the series were challenged by a parent and the book on Cuba was challenged at only one school. In addition, a number of board members admit they reviewed few if any of the other titles in the series. Only MDSB Vice Chairwoman Perla Tabares Hantman has been willing to discuss Ms. Rico's memo. "Obviously, I would have preferred the vote was only on
Vamos a Cuba," she says. However, she points out that she found similar omissions and inaccuracies with some of the other books in the series. "As a board member, I would not be doing my duty or my job if I knowingly permit a book about any subject with incorrect information [into the school library]," Ms. Hantman concludes.
An attorney who has represented libraries in similar cases believes the existence of Ms. Rico's memo has made the task of defending the board's action more difficult. According to William Zieske, who has studied libraries' rights under state and federal laws, "[T]he boards of these institutions are political bodies and elected officials, making them susceptible to political decisions which, unfortunately, can cost the public entity -- and its taxpaying public -- a lot of litigation fees." He estimates that Miami-Dade will spend $50,000 to $100,000 in legal fees for the first phase of the case. However, if the case goes to trial, Mr. Zieske believes the costs could exceed $300,000. The ACLU insists that MDSB's primary motive for banning the books was political and ethnic sensitivities. On the other hand, board member Frank Bolanos contends the books were legitimately removed because they never met the district's standards, and therefore should never have been purchased in the first place. However, his argument was dismissed by Ms. Rico, who cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico, which bars schools from removing books because their content is disagreeable. Based on
Pico, she wrote, "'A school board does not have absolute discretion to remove books from a school library even though the books were originally placed there by the school authorities, or without objection from them.'"
U.S. District Court Judge Alan Gold issued an order directing the school district to maintain the "status quo" in regard to the books until the court holds a preliminary hearing in mid-July. However, the district court did not specify whether the books need to remain on shelves and accessible to students. Judge Gold stated: "One way or another, these books are going to remain here until I rule on this case."
Miami HeraldBy Matthew I. Pinzur
[Link to full story]Miami HeraldBy Matthew I. Pinzur
[Link to full story]Miami HeraldBy Matthew I. Pinzur
[Link to full story][
Editor's Note: To clarify the most recent Miami Herald
report, Judge Gold denied the ACLU's motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the grounds that a "drastic remedy" was not warranted based on the facts and circumstances presented by the ACLU. As a result, the judge converted the motion to one for a preliminary injunction and set a mid-July date for a hearing on the motion. The judge later that same day issued an amended order denying the TRO and directed MDSB to advise the court in writing whether it would voluntarily agree to maintain custody of the challenged books until a decision on the merits. The next day MDSB submitted a written response to the court agreeing to "maintain custody and control of all books in question in this case … until such time as the Court enters a final ruling on the matter."]