August 18, 2011 Dr.

Vern Minor, Superintendent Members of the Republic School District Board of Education 518 N. Hampton Republic, MO 65738 Vern.Minor@republicschools.org

Dear Superintendent Minor and Members of the Board: We are troubled by your recent decision to ban Slaughterhouse Five, by Kurt Vonnegut, and Twenty Boy Summer, by Sarah Ockler, from the Republic public schools. In our view, the Boards decision to remove these books is educationally unsound and constitutionally suspect. We strongly urge you to reconsider your decision. Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut holds a place of honor in contemporary American literature. This semi-autobiographical account of the bombing of Dresden in World War II, drawn in part from Vonneguts experiences as a young soldier and prisoner of war, is widely recognized as a work of significant literary and artistic merit. It has been called a thundering moral statement. In 1998, the Modern Library placed it as #18 on its list of the 100 top novels. Although less well known, Twenty Boy Summer is recommended for teenage readers by Booklist and Kirkus Reviews, for its lyrical writing and authentically depicted feelings. VOYA calls it an intelligent, heartfelt novel and School Library Journal describes it as a thoughtful, multilayered story about friendship, loss, and moving on. A complaint by Wesley Scroggins initiated the review process that ultimately resulted in the removal of the two books. His objections were to vulgar language, violence, and sexual content, particularly sex outside of marriage and homosexuality. The complaint asserts that [r]equiring children to be exposed to this content at school is immoral. It is an abomination to God to expose children to this material . It is difficult to understand how a school board and school administration that claims to be Christian and profess Jesus Christ can expose children to such immoral and vulgar content. This complaint provided the basis for all the decisions that followed. There were no other challenges to these books, and no books other than those identified by Mr. Scroggins were reviewed. Clearly, these books would not have been subjected to review if the complaint had not been filed, and Scroggins religious objections thus tainted the entire review process. Even if that were not the case, the decision to remove the two books cannot be justified. Only one board member of the four who voted actually read the

2 books, and the other three therefore had no basis to judge the books literary and educational value. Instead, the board seems to have uncritically accepted the Superintendents view that they are not appropriate, because of certain content and because the books send the wrong message. This kind of viewpoint and content-based discrimination violates the most basic principle of the First Amendment: government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002). The rule makes no exception for public schools: [l]ocal school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico (1982). Indeed, school officials have a special responsibility to uphold these constitutional norms. 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). It is irrelevant that the boards decision was based on standards modeled on the rating systems created for movies, music, TV, and video games. Those ratings are themselves content-based, and thus constitutionally suspect, because they classify material based on content, particularly sex and violence. Neither ratings nor the newly adopted standards address the literary and educational merits of a work, which is the key issue. Moreover, ratings for movies and TV were developed by private entities as informational tools for consumers. It is a wholly different matter when government officials rate and exclude material because of certain content. See Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) (holding Californias ratings and restrictions on violent video games unconstitutional). If students were precluded from reading literature considered inappropriate because of sexual or violent content, they would be deprived of exposure to vast amounts of important material, including Shakespeare, major religious texts including the Bible, the works of Tolstoy, Flaubert, Joyce, Faulkner, D.H. Lawrence, Nabokov, Morrison, and countless others. As these examples suggest, any attempt "to eliminate everything that is objectionable...will leave public schools in shreds. Nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting of the public school system can result...." McCollum v. Board of Educ. (1948) (Jackson, J. concurring). We urge you to provide students with an education that exposes them to challenging materials and diverse ideas and beliefs, that prepares them to make their own judgments, and that teaches them to respect the opinions of others. This is at the core of our system: The Constitution exists precisely so that opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature, can be formed, tested, and expressed. What the Constitution says is that these judgments are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority. US v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000).

3 We hope you will reconsider the decision to remove Slaughterhouse Five and Twenty Boy Summer, as well as the approach to decisions about selection and retention of books and other materials. Focusing on the literary and pedagogical value of library and curricular materials is the best way to serve your students, resolve disputes over values and preferences, and protect the district from legal liability. Please return the books to the classrooms and library shelves where they belong. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of assistance.

Joan Bertin Executive Director National Coalition Against Censorship 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 (212) 807-6222 ext. 101 bertin@ncac.org

Chris Finan President, American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression 19 Fulton Street, Suite 407 New York, NY 10038 (212) 587-4025 ext. 4 chris@abffe.org

Judith Platt Director, Free Expression Advocacy Association of American Publishers 455 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 220-4551 jplatt@publishers.org

Larry Siems Director, Freedom to Write & International Programs PEN American Center 588 Broadway New York, NY 10012 (212) 334-1660 ext. 105 LSiems@Pen.org

Lin Oliver, Executive Director Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators 8271 Beverly Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90048 (323) 782-1010 linoliver@scbwi.org

Millie Davis, Division Director Communications and Affiliate Services National Council of Teachers of English 1111 West Kenyan Road, Urbana, IL 61801 (800) 369-6283 ext. 3634 mdavis@ncte.org

Doug Bonney Chief Counsel & Legal Director ACLU of Kansas & Western Missouri 3601 Main St Kansas City, MO 64111 (816) 994-3311 dbonney@aclukswmo.org

Alex Koroknay-Palicz, Executive Director National Youth Rights Association 1101 15th St., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 835-1739 AKPalicz@youthrights.org

Reverend Barry Lynn, Executive Director Americans United for Separation of Church and State 1301 K Street NW, Suite 850, East Tower, Washington, DC 20005 (202) 466-3234 lynn@au.org

cc:

Ken Knierim, President Leo Clanton Lance Bekemeier Denny Lawson Melissa DuVall Ed Cantrell Rusty Swift