Cary v. Board of Education of Adams-Arapahoe School District 28-J
598 F.2d 535, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13327 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local school board has the authority to determine public school curriculum, and its decision to remove specific books from an approved reading list for elective high school courses does not violate the First Amendment rights of teachers, so long as the decision is not a systematic effort to exclude a particular viewpoint and a wide range of materials remains available.
Facts:
- Five tenured teachers taught elective language arts courses for eleventh and twelfth graders in the Adams-Arapahoe School District.
- The courses were designed to use optional reading materials chosen from classroom libraries or personal sources.
- A High School Language Arts Text Evaluation Committee, composed of teachers, administrators, parents, and students, was formed to review and recommend books.
- The committee reviewed numerous books using specified criteria and recommended a list of 1,285 approved titles.
- After a public meeting, the Board of Education voted to approve a list of 1,275 books but excluded ten specific books that had previously been used in the courses.
- The Board of Education did not provide a written statement of its reasons for banning the ten books.
- The board issued a directive that the banned books could not be purchased, used for class assignment, or read for credit, and that teachers could be dismissed for insubordination for violating this directive.
- It was stipulated by the parties that the books were not obscene and that no systematic effort had been made to exclude any particular system of thought.
Procedural Posture:
- Five high school teachers filed a declaratory judgment action against the Board of Education for the Adams-Arapahoe School District in the United States District Court.
- Both the teachers and the school board filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the school board, ruling that while the teachers had a First Amendment right to choose the books, they had waived this right under their collective bargaining agreement.
- The teachers, as appellants, appealed the trial court's decision on the waiver issue to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
- The school board, as cross-appellant, appealed the trial court's underlying finding that the teachers had a constitutional right to choose the books.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local school board's decision to ban ten specific, non-obscene books from being used for class assignments or credit in elective high school language arts courses violate the First Amendment rights of the teachers who wish to use them?
Opinions:
Majority - Logan, Circuit Judge
No, the school board's decision does not violate the teachers' First Amendment rights. Local school boards have broad authority to control instruction and determine the curriculum in public schools. The court first rejected the trial court's finding that the teachers had waived their constitutional rights through their collective bargaining agreement, interpreting the contract to preserve their constitutional entitlements. On the merits, the court reasoned that while teachers do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate, this freedom is not absolute within the classroom. It is legitimate for a school's curriculum to reflect the value system of the community. Viewing the approved reading list of 1,275 titles as the official 'text' for the courses, the court concluded the board was acting within its rights to define the parameters of the course by omitting the ten books. The court found this was not a systematic effort to suppress ideas, but rather a permissible exercise of the board's discretion over course content, even if the decision was a political one influenced by members' personal views.
Concurring - William E. Doyle, Circuit Judge
No, the school board's action was permissible, but the reasoning should be different. While concurring in the result, this opinion expresses concern that a school board should not be permitted to make arbitrary exclusions from a reading list. The exclusion of books should not be based on a board member's subjective disapproval. Ideally, a board should be required to give reasons for its decisions so that a court can review them for arbitrariness. An exclusion based on purely subjective or unstated reasons would be an unconstitutional invasion of the classroom. This opinion concurs only because the majority's reasoning can be interpreted as disapproving of such arbitrary selections.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant authority of local school boards in controlling public school curriculum, prioritizing it over individual teachers' claims of academic freedom under the First Amendment. It establishes that a board's curricular choices, including the removal of specific books, are generally permissible as long as they do not constitute a broad, systemic censorship of ideas and a wide array of educational materials remains accessible. The ruling creates a high bar for teachers seeking to challenge such decisions, suggesting that courts will be deferential to the board's role as the community's representative in setting educational policy, even if those decisions are political or based on members' personal preferences.
Unlock the full brief for Cary v. Board of Education of Adams-Arapahoe School District 28-J