Appeals court hears arguments in case over children’s book
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has heard oral arguments in a case involving the Miami-Dade School Board’s (MDSB) decision to ban a children’s book depicting life in Cuba. MDSB defended its action on the ground that the book presents no information about Fidel Castro or the harsh realities of life under a communist dictatorship. School board attorney Richard Ovelmen argued that his client nixed the book because it is "rife with factual omissions that render it unsuitable." Commenting on MDSB’s ban on the books, Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida (ACLU-FL), warned the court that the board’s action "could result in the creation of a road map on how to engage in censorship." However, two of the panel’s judges questioned the ACLU-FL’s reasoning. Senior Judge Donald Walter compared the Cuba book to a book about Adolf Hitler that would credit the Nazi leader with creating the Volkswagen and bringing Germany out of the depression but failing to mention the Holocaust. Judge Ed Carnes asked if people would feel the same way about a book about North Korea, which the current White House considers part of a terrorist "axis of evil." He noted the situation in Cuba is "different because it's not in vogue'' in the national conscience. MDSB voted last year to remove the book after a parent, who had been a political prisoner in Cuba, claimed the book painted an inaccurate picture of life in Cuba. ''You can't teach that to small children," says MDSB member Perla Tabares Hantman, who voted to ban the book. "The fact that I happen to be Cuban-born has nothing to do with it. I felt that the book was inaccurate, and I would vote the same way on any book that was inaccurate." In removing the book, the board overruled the decision of two academic advisory committees and the recommendation of Superintendent Rudy Crew. Legal costs in the case have exceeded $250,000.
Last year ACLU-FL filed suit in federal district court, challenging the board's decision. That court ruled that the school board's opposition to the book was political and that it should add books of different perspectives to its collections instead of removing the offending titles. "There's a difference between a book not being complete and a book being inaccurate," says Mr. Simon. "All a publicly elected body has to do to ban a book is utter the word inaccurate? If that's the case every library administrator and library association in the country should be worried." In its appellate court brief, MDSB argues the book should be removed because it does not mention Cuba's lack of civil liberties, the political indoctrination of public-school children or food rationing, among other issues. "A book for this age group can be inaccurate because of its omissions," said Judge Carnes. ACLU-FL attorney JoNel Newman stressed that the book was part of an apolitical geography series. "The political viewpoint is that there isn't one, it's beyond the scope of the book," she told the Eleventh Circuit panel. "The School Board can't remove a book simply because it wishes to inject a political viewpoint."
Miami Herald
By Tania deLuzuriaga
[Full story
[Editor’s Note: The lower court ruling is summarized below.]
[NSBA School Law pages on ACLU v. Miami-Dade County Sch. Bd.]