{"id":4126,"date":"2024-01-31T12:28:32","date_gmt":"2024-01-31T17:28:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/?p=4126"},"modified":"2024-09-27T18:57:21","modified_gmt":"2024-09-27T18:57:21","slug":"a-message-to-florida-heed-brennans-words-in-pico","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/a-message-to-florida-heed-brennans-words-in-pico\/","title":{"rendered":"A Message to Florida: Heed Brennan\u2019s Words in Pico"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Shripad Bangaru<\/a>, Vol. 22 Staff Writer <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Surging in popularity are states engaging in the practice of \u201cbook banning\u201d in public schools. \u201cIn the 2022\u201323 school year, PEN America recorded 3,362 instances of books banned, an increase of 33 percent from the 2021\u201322 school year.\u201d<\/a>  Books such as To Kill a Mockingbird<\/em><\/a> <\/em>and The Kite Runner<\/em><\/a> are just a few examples of the literary works being targeted. Politicians at all levels of government are advocating for and enacting book bans across the county. Groups such as Moms for Liberty <\/a>are creating enormous pressure for these book bans to occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most notably, \u201c[o]ver 40 percent of all book bans occurred in school districts in Florida.\u201d<\/a> Across 33 school districts, there were 1,406 cases<\/a> of book banning in Florida. The next closest state is Texas with 625 bans<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the summer of 2022, Florida passed the Individual Freedom Act<\/a>, commonly known as the Stop Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees Act and abbreviated to the Stop WOKE Act. Among other things, it prohibits \u201cinstruction that suggests that any individual, by virtue of their race, color, sex or national origin, \u2018bears responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish or other forms of psychological distress\u2019 on account of historical acts of racism.\u201d <\/a>The bill was intended by DeSantis to \u201cfight back\u201d against \u201cwoke indoctrination\u201d<\/a> and critical race theory. But Florida wasn\u2019t done.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following year, Florida passed GB 1069<\/a>. The bill requires \u201csex ed programs to teach that sex is determined by reproductive function at birth and is binary and unchangeable and to use only materials approved by the state Department of Education.\u201d<\/a> Furthermore, the bill also allows \u201canyone in the district to object to any material in the classroom or school library or on a reading list that depicts or describes any sexual conduct, even if it is not pornographic, if it is not for a health course. Such material would be removed pending investigation and subject to permanent removal.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past few years, these bans on books touching on race, gender or sexual orientation, became increasingly politicized. Parents who disagree with a school board’s final decision on a book can now also request review of the decision which comes with enormous administrative costs for school districts. Even more concerning, is that school districts must \u201cremove any book challenged because it includes pornography or sexual conduct within five days until the complaint is resolved.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Florida\u2019s practice of book bans flies straight in the face of what the First Amendment is meant to protect. Certainly, some material is far too inappropriate for schools. And certainly, parents may wish to exert some degree of control over their child\u2019s education. Here, however, we are seeing books being banned for the very reasons that they must be kept on the shelves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico<\/a><\/em>, Justice Brennan wisely held that \u201cstudents do not \u2018shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate\u2019 [and] therefore local school boards must discharge their \u2018important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions\u2019 within the limits and constraints of the First Amendment.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Yet, Jennifer Kelly, a chair of Moms for Liberty and a fierce proponent of book bans, stated that she she was not interested in the views of students. \u201cIf they\u2019re 17 or younger? No. It\u2019s their parents\u2019 decision.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This could not be more misguided. These students are our future. Arguing that they lack such freedom is not only contrary to the First Amendment precedent but also fails to muster any semblance of sound logic. Of course, schools (and parents) must have some discretion to control what students are learning, but certainly this is not an absolute freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turning to Brennan again, finding \u201c[o]ur precedents have focused \u2018not only on the role of the First Amendment in fostering individual self-expression, but also on its role in affording the public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.\u201d<\/a> Brennan further held that the discretion afforded to local school boards \u201cmay not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As stated earlier, the ideas sought to be suppressed are those found at the heart of the First Amendment. These are issues of great social, political, and historical value. They foster the most valuable of discourse. Although the concepts are not palatable for some, the First Amendment protects even what we find distasteful. One may even argue that the unpopularity of these issues accentuates the need for First Amendment protection, which has routinely been found at its strongest where unpopular viewpoints are at play.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brennan\u2019s reasoning is on point. Children do not, and should not, lose their rights upon entering school grounds. Accordingly, schools may not, and should not be allowed to ban books to censor certain political viewpoints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While parents have the right to raise their own children, they should not hold the same level of power in a public school as they would within their own home. They also do not possess the right to raise other parents\u2019 children. Book bans affect every child in the school, including many who would greatly benefit from access to such books. Finally, even if these ideas are not entirely tasteful to many, schools are arguably the best setting for children to be exposed to these ideas, where they have a chance to start a discussion with their peers, their educators, and their parents when they come home from school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In sum, these books bans have utterly failed to pass the level of scrutiny required to override the explicit text of the First Amendment that reads that the government \u201cshall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Shripad Bangaru, Vol. 22 Staff Writer Surging in popularity are states engaging in the practice of \u201cbook banning\u201d in public schools. \u201cIn the 2022\u201323 school year, PEN America recorded 3,362 instances of books banned, an increase of 33 percent from the 2021\u201322 school year.\u201d  Books such as To Kill a Mockingbird and The Kite …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10,"featured_media":4129,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[396,11],"tags":[33,40,41,52,85,107,133,138,152,157],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4126"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4126"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4126\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5266,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4126\/revisions\/5266"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4129"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.unc.edu\/firstamendmentlawreview\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}