Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Is <a
href="http://www.isthatlegal.org/archive/2005/04/proselytizing_b.html";>This</a>
a Book Banning?
Under [1]the American Library Association's definitions, presumably it
would be. I wouldn't say that -- I don't think removing a book from a
school library is properly called "banning," and I don't think it
should be seen as violating the First Amendment (notwithstanding
[2]the opinion of four Justices in Board of Ed. v. Pico (1982)).
Here's the full story, from [3]Eric Muller (IsThatLegal?):
Not long ago my daughter came home from public elementary school
with "Journey to Japan," a book she had checked out of its library.
My daughter is in the third grade. The book is not simply
available, but on a special shelf of books that kids get a sort of
"extra credit" for reading and answering questions about. . . .
(. . . I have asked that my daughter's school remove this book from
its shelves, and they have done so on at least an interim basis
while their library committee reviews it.)
In Journey to Japan, a home-schooling American Christian family
travel to Japan. There they meet a Japanese girl named Yoko. The
American family quickly learns that Yoko is in some sort of
conflict with her parents, especially her stern father.
The American kids keep hearing about this strange religion called
"Buddhism," but don't know anything about it. The main thing they
learn is that Buddhists worship many gods, not one. "What if they
choose not to believe in Buddha?" the young protagonist asks an
American adult. "They don't have that choice," the adult explains.
The protagonist confesses that she finds the Japanese religion
"confusing."
The conflict between Yoko and her father intensifies through the
book, and the reader learns that Yoko is stealing off to some
undisclosed location each night. The American kids learn that
Yoko's father condemns her as a "rebel" and a "bad person."
There is some discussion among the Americans about Buddhist and
Shinto religious practices, and the protagonist comments that these
practices "all seem kind of confusing." "That's probably why Yoko
won't go [to the Buddhist and Shinto services] anymore," an adult
explains.
The source of the tension between Yoko and her father is revealed
in Chapter 9, when the Americans go to a Japanese Christian church
and find Yoko there.
It suddenly dawns on the protagonist: "Yoko was not a bad
person-�she was a Christian!"
Yoko explains her situation to the Americans: "When I was a little
girl, I went to a church down the street for Bible school on
Sundays. My parents let me go. . . . It wouldn't hurt me, they'd
say. By the time I was twelve or thirteen, I was sure that I loved
Jesus and wanted to be part of God's family. I read my Bible and
prayed. In the last few years, I knew I could not keep going to the
Buddhist temple and the Shinto shrines. I do not believe in many
gods. I believe in only one."
"I love my family," she explains, "but I love Jesus more."
At the end of the book, Yoko comes knocking on the American
family's door, explaining that her father has turned her out.
Everyone prays, and the American father assures the worried
children that God will take care of Yoko, "just like He cares for
us."
Yoko ends up deciding to come to America. "It still hurts to be
away from my family," she says, "but I know God is taking care of
me."
The book's dedication is "To our friend and sister in Christ,
Yoko."
A few thoughts:
1. I think there's no Establishment Clause problem with a school
library's keeping the book on its shelves. (Recall that though
Eric objects to the book's being on "a special shelf of books that
kids get a sort of 'extra credit' for reading and answering
questions about," he asked that the book be removed altogether.)
Though the library does in some measure endorse the books in the
library as fitting reading, it doesn't endorse all the views in
those books as being correct. Parents can easily explain this to
their children, and I think that many third-graders can figure
this out even on their own. For that matter, I would hope that one
things school teach is that not everything that's written in a
book -- even a school library book -- is true.
Moreover, if the Establishment Clause does bar school libraries
from stocking such books, then this wouldn't just apply to books
whose primary focus is pro-religious -- it would also apply to
books that have some religious themes (try the Chronicles of
Narnia), or even books in which some appealing characters are
religious, and express their religious views. Would even the
Christmas Carol be immune? Courts ought not, I think, read the
Establishment Clause in a way that would demand the exclusion of
such views from school libraries.
2. At the same time, I think it's probably bad judgment for the
public school library to include books that overtly criticize
(even mildly) other religions -- at least for the lower grades --
unless the books have such great historical or literary value that
they need to be included. Naturally, people are free to express
such criticisms outside school, and many religious belief systems
necessarily involve implicit and often explicit criticisms of
rival systems. Still, it seems to me that public schools ought to
try to teach tolerance of other religions, and the most effective
likely way of doing that, at least for lower grades, is by not
carrying criticisms of those religions.
Adults and even teenagers need to learn a complex mix of tolerance
of others' beliefs but a recognition that those beliefs may be
wrong, even deeply wrong. But for third-graders, I think, the best
way of learning that, at least in a public school, is by stressing
the tolerance, and not focusing on the beliefs' supposed error.
Also, though, I'm no expert on Buddhism, I'm not sure that the
book's description of Buddhism is quite correct, which may be
another reason the school shouldn't carry it.
Nonetheless, these are matters of judgment about education policy,
morals, and manners, often involving subtle differences of degree.
They ought to be decided by school administrators, subject to
moral suasion by parents and by the public, not by courts.
3. What about putting religiously proselytizing books -- assume for
now that they don't include explicit or obvious implicit
criticisms of other religions, or of irreligiousness -- "on a
special shelf of books that kids get a sort of 'extra credit' for
reading and answering questions about"? I think this too is not
unconstitutional (though neither is it constitutionally mandated).
Moreover, it seems to me that many religious parents (and maybe
even some religious kids) would like to have this as an option for
their own kids; other kids are getting extra credit for reading
about things that they or their parents find interesting or
enlightening, and the religious parents may want their kids to get
extra credit for reading about things that they or their parents
find interesting or enlightening. Nor do I think that there's
anything unconstitutional -- or educationally sound or otherwise
improper -- in the school's facilitating this.
4. But, some parents may say, my child is being exposed to religious
beliefs I disapprove of, without my knowledge or permission! So?
The child will be exposed to lots of religious beliefs in lots of
contexts, many with much more pressure (say, peer pressure from
classmates) than that provided by one of many library books (or
even one of many library books that one can read for extra
credit). It seems to me that parents have plenty of time,
authority, and power to counteract this, by explaining to the
child that while others believe the things in the book, they (the
parents) don't believe it, and by explaining why the child
shouldn't believe it.
In fact, this may give the parents a good opportunity to actually
strengthen their teaching of their own religious views to the
child: It's often confrontation with rival religious views, and an
explanation of why those views are supposedly mistaken, that helps
reinforce in the child the parents' views.
Now I can certainly understand why some parents might nonetheless
not want their children exposed at school, or in the school
library, to a favorable, emotionally persuasive presentation of
these rival views (whether religious or political). That's one
reason that I don't think schools should be barred from removing
books. But I don't think they should have a constitutional
obligation to remove them. And I think that people who are in a
religious or political minority should expect that their child
will indeed be exposed to the majority's views in the school
library -- and though they can try to persuade the majority that
the books should be removed, they should have no legal or moral
entitlement to having those books removed.
References
1.
http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm
2. http://volokh.com/2003_06_22_volokh_archive.html#105639185384343252
3. http://www.isthatlegal.org/archive/2005/04/proselytizing_b.html
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
