By Electronic Mail

January 8, 2015
President Norm Abrams
Appoquinimink School District Board of Education
118 South 6th Street
P.O. Box 4010
Odessa, DE 19730
Dear President Abrams and Members of the Board,
We write with regard to the proposal to implement a new book assignment and checkout policy in the
Appoquinimink School District, as presented initially at the December board meeting. As organizations
concerned with the freedom to read, the integrity of the public education system, and the application of First
Amendment law and principles in public institutions, we have serious concerns about this proposal. We urge
the Board, pursuant to its obligation to provide oversight of the school district, determine policy, and adopt
rules and regulations (Policy 1101) to reject the proposal. It represents a significant change in educational
philosophy and approach that would, if adopted, undermine the quality of education in the district,
contravene core First Amendment principles, and conflict with the districts commitment to academic
freedom reflected in Policy 4105.
Of primary concern is the proposed adoption of a rating system, under which certain books would be
flagged for special attention and parental consent requirements. The very premise of the proposal is
questionable, in its assumption that what are defined as mature/explicit materials represent areas of
concern. The underlying assumption that parents should be concerned if high school students are exposed to
literature designated by certain letter ratings (V = excessive violence, L = offensive language, AC = Adult
content, and S = sexual content) reflects a particular set of personal views and values that are not shared by
all and cannot be supported on pedagogical grounds.
The ratings are themselves problematic on their face: what exactly is mature, explicit, or adult content?
How much violence is excessive? Who decides? Because the terms are inherently vague and subjective, the
ratings could be applied to a vast amount of literature routinely read by high school students around the
country. For example, Absolutely True Diary ofa Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie is a critically acclaimed
young adult novel, the recipient of a National Book Award, about a young Native Americans experiences
growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation and later as a student in an all-white high school. A comingof-age story about the search for identity and the struggle to overcome obstacles like poverty and
discrimination, it also contains scenes with profanity, sexual references, violence, and death. Would it get V,
L, AC, and S ratings? Would a book like Eleanor and Park by Rainbow Rowell be rated for adult or sexual
content because of its realistic and touching depiction of teenage romance, including scenes in which the
main characters kiss?
There is no educational reason for having such a policy, much less one confined to books designated by
publishers (for marketing purposes) as young adult literature. Classic literature contains the same, and

often more graphic, content. For example, Agamemnon portrays the murder of children whose body parts are
cut up and served to their father, Titus Andronicus includes more than a dozen killings, rape,
dismemberment, cannibalism, and other atrocities, and Romeo and Juliet includes teenage sex, violence,
death and suicide. The same is true of contemporary adult fiction which is frequently read by high school
students, such as Beloved by Toni Morrison, William Faulkners The Sound and the Fury, or The Kite Runner by
Khaled Hosseini.
Indeed, virtually all complex works of literature contain content that could be described as mature or adult,
but that fact tells you almost nothing about their literary merit, why someone would want to read them, or
what the reader would learn from doing so: books are a great deal more than the sum of their parts, a fact
that is obscured by ratings that are reductionist by definition and thus over-simplify, obscure, and distort
their message. Rating a book is the equivalent of slapping a scarlet letter A on its cover. It stigmatizes the
book and reduces it to a few isolated elements taken out of context. Some parents would mistakenly
underestimate the literary and educational value of books so labeled, and some teachers would be deterred
from teaching or recommending them.
These concerns have caused leading educational organizations to oppose the use of ratings and warning
labels for books. The National Council of Teachers of English in its Position Statement Regarding Rating or
Red-Flagging Books states:
Lists that segregate books into artificially-created categoriesgive a biased perspective, casting a
negative light on listed books regardless of their literary worth, stoking unnecessary alarm over their
content. Such categorization defers to a minority who object to a bookoften for random, personal,
or ideological reasonsrather than the thousands who have read, taught, enjoyed, and benefitted
from the book. More importantly, "red-flagging" privileges the concerns of would-be censors over the
professional judgment of teachers and librarians[and] narrows the curriculum to only books that are
deemed "safe".
.Letter ratings and "red-flagging" is a blatant form of censorship; the practice reduces complex
literary works to a few isolated elementsthose that some individuals may find objectionablerather
than viewing the work as a whole.
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/rating-books. Instead of rating books, NCTE encourages schools
to engage parents in a more direct and meaningful way by finding ways to explain how and why certain
books are used as well as the pedagogical purposes these materials serve.
Similarly, the American Library Association rejects ratings and labels, calling them prejudicial [and]
designed to restrict access, based on a value judgment [about] the content, language, or themes. The
prejudicial label is used to warn, discourage, or prohibit users or certain groups of users from accessing the
resource. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/labelingrating. The ALA
further notes that The adoption, enforcement, or endorsement of any of these [private] rating systems by a
library violates the American Library Associations Library Bill ofRights and may be unconstitutional.
Targeting literary works based on their ideas or content also violates a fundamental First Amendment
principle, that government officials, including public school employees and board members, may not
prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Texas
v. Johnson (1989). Thus, local school boards may not remove books from school libraries simply because
they dislike the ideas contained in those books Board ofEducation, Island Trees Union Free School District
No. 26 v. Pico (1982). Ratings that flag books because of their content and ideas raise the same constitutional
concerns as removing books because someone dislike[s] the ideas contained in those books.
District policy 4105 embraces these critical First Amendment principles in its recognition that academic
freedom is essential to the goals and objectives of the educational system. Those who object to certain kinds

of books are entitled to their views, but they may not impose those views on others, even to the extent of
demanding that the school adopt warnings about content they find objectionable.
Labeling library books is a particularly egregious violation of principles of academic freedom that undermines
the very purpose of libraries, which is to allow students to select reading materials based on their own
interests, maturity level, and values, unburdened by an official warning or value judgment. Needless to say,
parental permission tied to a flawed rating system is similarly flawed. Parents who object to specific materials
are not without recourse, however; Policy 4110 provides a mechanism for them to express their concerns and
request an alternative assignment for their child. District policies thus already accommodate the differing
views, values, and preferences of members of the community, in a way that does not impose one view on all,
or undermine academic freedom or the integrity of the educational program.
High school students need to interact with sophisticated, complex literature, which fosters the sorts of critical
learning, intellectual development, and 21st Century skills that are essential for students to realize the aims of
the districts school's educational mission to provide a world-class education where each of our students
gains the knowledge, understanding, skills and attitudes needed to contribute and flourish in a global society.
Your students would be at a distinct disadvantage in college and beyond if they were not introduced in high
school to books containing adult content.
We strongly urge you to reject the idea of labelling educational materials according to the prejudicial and
value-laden criteria reflected in the present proposal. We encourage you instead to rely on the professional
judgment of educators, in your district and around the country, in freely selecting material that will best
prepare your students to become informed, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and engaged adults.
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,

Joan Bertin, Executive Director

National Coalition Against Censorship

Chris Finan, President

American Booksellers For Free Expression

Judy Platt, Director

Free Expression Advocacy
Association of American Publishers

Charles Brownstein, Executive Director

Comic Book Legal Defense Fund

Barbara M. Jones, Director

American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom

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: President Norm Abrams, norm.abrams@appo.k12.de.us

Superintendent Mathew Burrows, matthew.burrows@appo.k12.de.us
Charlisa Edelin, charlisa.edelin@appo.k12.de.us
Richard Forsten, richard.forsten@appo.k12.de.us
Julie Johnson, julie.johnson@appo.k12.de.us
Kelly Wright, kelly.wright@appo.k12.de.us