Yanking Books From School Libraries: What the Supreme Court Has Said, and Why It’s Murky
The recent chatter about book bans in schools raises some serious questions. Ever seen a list of “objectionable” books? Sometimes it feels shocking. Recently, a politically conservative parents group made headlines when they declared a list of books that should never make it into school libraries. Their warning was loud and clear: “DO NOT LET THIS MATERIAL FALL INTO THE HANDS OF OUR YOUNGSTERS.” This list included award-winning literature, unique minority voices discussing the American experience, and even books about sexuality, along with a healthy dose of vulgar language thrown in for good measure.
Imagine three local school board members getting so worked up over this list that they sprint back to their community. They want to know if their school libraries house any of the listed baddies. One board member couldn’t help but feel triggered by books that tackled racial issues. This might sound like a recent episode in a state like Texas, but believe it or not, it all went down back in 1975 in Levittown, New York. The aftermath? A pivotal—and kind of messy—U.S. Supreme Court decision about how far school authorities can go when they want to remove books based on political or ideological motives.
The Landmark Case: Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico
Fast forward to 1982, the Supreme Court delivered what’s known as the **Pico decision**. It’s complicated, and legal experts still debate its implications today. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. penned an opinion reminding everyone that the First Amendment limits how school boards can censor library books. He argued that students have the right to access information. Brennan eloquently stated that “A school library, no less than any other public library, is a place dedicated ‘to quiet, to knowledge, and to beauty.'” He firmly stood against the removal of books simply because authorities didn’t agree with their ideas.
But here’s where it gets tricky. Brennan’s opinion wasn’t the verdict of an outright majority. Only three justices fully sided with him; others had their own takes on the situation. This loose coalition led to a lot of wiggle room for interpretation in lower courts, creating a legal mess. Justin Driver, a Yale law professor who studied the case, calls Pico a “nebulous decision.” But he points out that lower courts have taken it as a sign that school officials don’t have unlimited power when it comes to yanking books from libraries. Intent definitely matters in these cases.
Current Wave of Book Challenges
We’re now in a time where many educators feel it’s the perfect moment to revisit this decades-old court case. It could offer some guidance during this latest wave of book challenges sweeping through schools nationwide. Parents and lawmakers are blasting lists of “objectionable” books with themes of race, gender, and sexuality. These combos don’t sit well with some folks.
Take Texas, for example. In November, Governor Greg Abbott made a push for the Texas Education Agency to whip up standards to keep “pornography” out of schools. He cited two titles with LGBTQ themes—*Gender Queer* by Maia Kobabe and *In the Dream House* by Carmen Maria Machado—as problematic because they supposedly depict obscene content. Meanwhile, Republican state representative Matt Krause kicked off an inquiry into education content, circulating a whopping 850-book hit list that gets a little too close for comfort for many students and educators.
This massive list includes critical works like the Pulitzer Prize-winning *The Confessions of Nat Turner* and *Between the World and Me* by Ta-Nehisi Coates. Krause didn’t stop there; he even asked schools to look for books that might make students feel uncomfortable or guilty based on their race or sex. It’s honestly wild how these debates over reading material have taken on a life of their own.
And it’s not only a Texas thing. Over in North Carolina, Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson also stirred the pot in October, calling for the nailing shut of library shelves that hold *Gender Queer*, *Lawn Boy*, and *George*. Just this month, some parents even filed a criminal complaint against the Wake County school system over these books. They claimed the content could breach obscenity laws. Talk about raising the stakes!
The Implications of Pico
April Dawkins, an assistant professor of library and information science at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, features insightful commentary on this matter. She’s worried about the organized campaigns behind these challenges. “These organized efforts have developed playbooks on how to challenge books in schools,” she notes. Dawkins cautions that the increasing number of these challenges could lead to a chilling effect. School librarians might hesitate in their collection decisions, worried about backlash.
The Pico case began with three school board members attending a conference in 1975, where they got the list of so-called problematic books. Frank Martin, one of the members, took action, getting into a high school library (yes, he snuck in there!) to check for the books. He discovered entries for nine titles that sparked his anger, especially over a book that dared to discuss George Washington’s ownership of enslaved people.
The drama continued as the school board insisted on removing these reads, citing them as “anti-American” and “just plain filthy.” A review committee of parents and school staff made mixed recommendations about retaining or tossing specific books. But the school board didn’t follow through, and they ended up yanking nine books from library shelves.
Students, led by Steven Pico, sued under the First Amendment for their right to access those books. Initially, they didn’t succeed in federal court, but the U.S. Court of Appeals later sided with them. They felt that a deeper look was necessary to determine whether the board had valid reasons for the removals. When the case climbed to the Supreme Court in 1982, justices struggled. They knew they had to weigh the delicate balance between a local school board’s discretion and the rights of students under the First Amendment.
Pico’s Legacy and Its Relevance Today
So, what can we glean from Pico as students, teachers, and activists battle contemporary book bans? It turns out opinions among educators diverge widely. Charles R. Waggoner, a professor at Eastern New Mexico University, gets his students to grapple with the Pico case. They break into lively debate about whether it implies that school boards have the right to remove books altogether. He emphasizes the need for schools to have a clear procedure ready when book-removal requests pop up.
Meanwhile, Driver argues that although the Pico ruling doesn’t give a straightforward First Amendment stance, it certainly suggests some limitations on how school officials can handle library collections. The courts interpreted Pico differently over time. In some instances, the ruling supported students’ rights, while in others, it merely threw a curveball. In one case, the attempts to remove *Harry Potter* books were blocked, showing that the legacy of Pico still resonates.
Ultimately, no cohesive consensus exists over how Pico affects today’s challenges, leaving many feeling uneasy as the tug-of-war over educational content continues. While some courts equate his case with pushing back on censorship out of personal disapproval of ideas, others offer vague interpretations that don’t truly guide decision-making.
In a time when the conversation around social justice, identity, and culture grows louder, it’s more crucial than ever for schools and communities to engage thoughtfully with literature. Conversations about different perspectives, identities, and struggles matter. After all, everyone deserves a chance to learn from the written word, no matter how uncomfortable it may feel. The fight for access to books and ideas isn’t just about pages and covers—it’s about the values we uphold and the stories we share in our communities. Let’s not forget that literature thrives when we embrace diversity and resilience.