BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

May 13, 2014

Steven Troen
District 196 Director ofTeaching and Learning
3445 153rd Street W.
Rosemount, MN 55068
steven.troen@district196.org
Dear Mr. Troen,
We are writing in response to a recent challenge to Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You by Barthe DeClements in school libraries.
The primary ground for removal ofthe book is the complainants objection to the use ofthe word retarded, which, the
complaint states, is not people-first language and is a disrespectful term. We strongly urge you to retain the book. While we
understand the complainants concern, censoring a book because some people find it objectionable would undermine
educational principles and raise serious constitutional questions.
In Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You, the main character, Helen, is a sixth grader who has many talents but cant keep up in
reading, no matter how hard she works. She is faced with the choice offailing or taking special education reading classes,
which also means facing ridicule from her friends. Helen decides to tackle her reading problem and take the special ed class,
despite the negative implications ofthe retard room.
The authors choice oflanguage confronts the teasing and casual cruelty often encountered by students with learning
disabilities. According to one teacher who posted a review ofthe book online, DeClements did a great job depicting Helen's
challenges with a learning disability as she navigates sixth grade and finally finds some answers in the end. This book is great
for teachers like myselfbecause it allows us to see the impact the "little things" we choose to do or not to do can have on a
student. It's a great book for students because it depicts Helen's decision-making processes and the ramifications as she
chooses to utilize the special ed. room as a resource to help her read.
This view was echoed in other reader comments: This is a wonderful book! I am a Special Education Class Instructional Aide.
I am currently reading this book with my students and they love it! Since my students are in a Resource Class like Helen, they
can really relate. They enjoy laughing at the situations that Helen gets herselfinto and they can understand with how she feels.
Another commenter would recommend [the book] to anyone who wants to understand how kids with LDs might feel about
themselves, and to any kids with LDs who need an LD heroine. Yeah, it's from the 80s, but it's one ofthose books that survives
because its protagonist and its story are so memorable.
Without questioning the sincerity ofanyone who objects to the book, their views are not shared by all, and they have no right to

impose those views on others or to demand that the library shelves reflect their personal preferences. Parents may be equipped
to make choices for their own children but, no matter how well-intentioned, they simply are not equipped to make decisions
that address the needs ofthe entire student body.
Moreover, removing the book would raise constitutional concerns. School officials have a constitutional obligation not to
suppress material because some find it objectionable or offensive. The Supreme Court has cautioned that, "[l]ocal school
boards may not remove books from library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by
their removal to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters ofopinion." Board of
Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982)(plurality opinion). This constitutional duty applies with particular force in the school
library, which, unlike the classroom, has "a special role...as a place where students may freely and voluntarily explore diverse
topics." Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F. 3d 184, 190 (5th Cir. 1995).
In practice, acceding to the demands to remove something that one person finds objectionable invariably invites multiple,
sometimes conflicting demands to exclude other material. The attempt "to eliminate everything that is objectionablewill
leave public schools in shreds. Nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting ofthe public school system can result."
McCollum v. Board ofEduc. , 333 U.S. 203, 235 (1948) (Jackson, J. concurring). Any effort to remove books containing language
that is politically incorrect in everyday usage would threaten a great deal ofliterature, such as The Adventures ofHuckleberry
Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Merchant ofVenice, childrens books like Little House on the Prairie and Babar, and more.
No one has to read something just because its on the library shelf. A parent whose child is exposed to sensitive topics or
information at school remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the familys moral or religious context, or to
supplement the information with more appropriate materials. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87, 105 (1st Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted).
We urge you to retain Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You in school libraries, so that those students who wish to read it may do so.
This result would show respect not only for First Amendment values and obligations, but also for all members ofthe school
community, by allowing people to make their own decisions about what to read and think.
Please feel free to contact us ifwe can be ofany assistance in resolving this matter.
Sincerely,

Joan Bertin
Executive Director
National Coalition Against Censorship

Chris Finan
President
American Booksellers Foundation For
Free Expression

Charles Brownstein
Executive Director
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Judy Platt
Director, Free Expression Advocacy
Association ofAmerican Publishers