By Electronic Mail

September 29, 2014

President Richard A. Petermeyer
Ball-Chatham Board of Education
District Office
201 W. Mulberry
Chatham, Illinois 62626
Dear President Petermeyer and Members of the Board of Education,
We write with regard to the challenge to Marjane Satrapis Persepolis in the 12th grade English IV
curriculum, which is on the agenda for the Board meeting later today. As organizations concerned
with intellectual freedom and the application of First Amendment principles in public institutions,
we strongly urge you to support the findings of your professional staff who selected the book and
the review committee who determined that the book meets District goals and objectives, and to
reinstate it.

Persepolis, Marjane Satrapis unique and affecting memoir of her childhood in Iran during the
Islamic Revolution, is a work of great acclaim. School Library Journal called the book a graphic

novel of immense power and importance for Westerners of all ages. It paints a realistic, vivid
portrait of life in a chaotic time, a timely and timeless story, according to Publishers Weekly. We
understand that the challenge relates to both the books content and graphic imagery. Neither
ground provides adequate justification for removing a book that has clear educational value and is
widely taught in high schools around the country, and its removal would be both educationally
unsound and constitutionally suspect.
To remove this graphic novel because of objections to its content is impermissible under the First
Amendment. As the Supreme Court said in Board ofEducation, Island Trees Union Free School
District No. 26 v. Pico (1982), the Constitution does not permit officially prescribed orthodoxy
which limits what people may read, think, speak, or say. The fact that we are confronted with images
along with words does not make a difference, as the complaint suggests, since images, like words,
constitute symbolic expression and are protected by the First Amendment.
Every community is home to a diversity of opinions on moral and religious questions. For every
parent who objects to an assigned book, there will be others who favor it. In practice, the attempt to
alter school curricula in response to individual objections means privileging the moral or religious

beliefs of some families over others. It is precisely this form of viewpoint discrimination by
government officials that our constitutional system is designed to prevent.
Thus, government officials, including public school administrators, may not prohibit the
expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. Texas v.
Johnson (1989); see also Board ofEducation, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico
(1982) (local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because they dislike
the ideas contained in those books )
Indeed, removing the novel may well violate the First Amendment rights of those parents and their
children who do not find the book objectionable and would choose to read it if offered the
opportunity. See Monteiro v. Tempe Union High School District(9th Cir. 1998) (recognizing the First
Amendment right of students to read books selected for their legitimate educational value even if
offensive to some parents and students), Pratt v. Independent School Dist. No. 831 (8th Cir. 1982) and
Case v. Unified School Dist. No. 233 (D. Kan. 1995) (First Amendment violated by removing materials
because of hostility to content and message.) As these cases indicate, the decision to remove
materials in response to an objection about content or ideas is vulnerable to constitutional
challenge.
While parents have certain rights to direct the education of their own children, they do not have the
right to expect the school to adopt a curriculum that reflects or accommodates their personal views
and preferences. Parents have no constitutional right to direct how a public school teaches their
child. Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87, 102 (1st Cir. 2008) Rather, public schools have an obligation to
"administer school curricula responsive to the overall educational needs of the community and its
children." Leebaert v. Harrington, 332 F.3d 134, 141 (2d Cir. 2003). Any other rule would put schools in
the untenable position of having "to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine
moral disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter." Brown v. Hot, Sexy and Safer
Productions, Inc., 68 F.3d 525, 534 (1st Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1159 (1996). See also Swanson v.
Guthrie Indep. School Dist., 135 F.3d 694, 699 (10th Cir. 1998); Littlefield v. Forney Indep. School, 268
F.3d 275, 291 (5th Cir. 2001).
There are few instructional materials that do not include something that is offensive to someone.
Any attempt "to eliminate everything that is objectionablewill leave public schools in shreds.
Nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting of the public school system can result."
McCollum v. Board ofEduc. (1948) (Jackson, J. concurring). The practical effect of acceding to a
request to remove materials is to invite other requests, leaving schools vulnerable to multiple,
possibly conflicting, demands. If parents object to a particular work, they are free to request an
alternative assignment. Meanwhile, other parents and students should have the freedom to choose
from an inclusive and expansive reading selection.
Decisions about instructional materials should be based on sound educational grounds, not because
some people do or do not agree with the message or content of a particular book. This approach is
consistent with constitutional and educational principles and will serve the interests of both the
district and its students. We urge you to demonstrate your commitment to these goals by reinstating
Persepolis. The fact that the book was removed without compliance with district procedures makes it
particularly critical that the Board reinstate it without further delay.

If you have any questions, or we can be of assistance in resolving this matter, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,

Joan Bertin, Executive Director

National Coalition Against Censorship

Charles Brownstein, Executive Director

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Chris Finan, President

American Booksellers Foundation For Free Expression

Judy Platt, Director

Free Expression Advocacy
Association of American Publishers

Millie Davis, Senior Developer

Affiliate Groups and Public Outreach
National Council of Teachers of English

Susanna Reich, Chair

Children's and Young Adult Book Committee
PEN American Center

Cc: Richard A. Petermeyer, President

rpetermeyer@chathamschools.org
Linda Carter, Vice President
lcarter@chathamschools.org
Susan Worley, Secretary
sworley@chathamschools.org
Steve Copp
scopp@chathamschools.org
Brandon Maddox, DMD
bmaddox@chathamschools.org
Jim Neuses
jneuses@chathamschools.org
Lisa Weitzel
lweitzel@chathamschools.org