Notebook: Local Control (Part II)

by Ann Kjellberg, editor

AUSTIN, TX - APRIL 20: Vandegrift High School Banned Book Club members Angela Gutierrez, 16, Jaea Rivera, 15, and Isabela Rotondara, 16, (left to right) chat during their book club meeting in the schools library in Austin, Texas on April 20, 2022. (Photo by Montinique Monroe for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

Read Part I of this post here

In his book The Short Life and Curious Death of Free Speech in America, Ellis Cose asks whether the pure version of arguments for free speech—that “good” speech always wins out over “bad” speech, and therefore more speech is better—really works. Cose argues that those with power and influence have always had more access to speech, and in recent years, with the Citizen’s United decision and the amplifications of social media, the discrepancy has become more pronounced. A tension was visible in the library book hearing over this issue: historically, as in banned book author Ruby Bridges’ own case, civil rights have advanced from the federal level, supporting an understanding of fundamental American rights on behalf of people who, at the local level, may be in the minority. Libraries’ challenge-review mechanisms ultimately allow the librarian (or, usually, a committee formed to consider the issue) to overrule a complaining parent if having Ruby Bridges’ book serves the First Amendment rights of a minority of the library’s readership.  Parents (citizens, taxpayers) do have some standing in shaping school policy, but, as in any public institution, that authority is curtailed where it impinges the rights of others. (There is a solid Supreme Court precedent, in Island Trees School District v. Pico, for First Amendment rights prevailing in school.)