Chiras v. Miller
432 F.3d 606, 2005 WL 3367698, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 27160 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state school board's selection of textbooks for its public school curriculum constitutes government speech, which is not subject to First Amendment forum analysis or viewpoint-neutrality requirements.
Facts:
- The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) is a state body responsible for establishing curriculum and adopting textbooks for public schools.
- Author Daniel Chiras, through his publisher, submitted his environmental science textbook, 'Environmental Science: Creating a Sustainable Future,' to the SBOE for adoption.
- An expert academic review panel and the Texas Education Agency Commissioner both reviewed the textbook and recommended that the SBOE approve it for use.
- Following public hearings where two conservative organizations spoke in opposition, the SBOE voted 10-5 to reject Chiras's textbook.
- The SBOE issued no formal reasons for the rejection.
- Several board members made public comments suggesting the rejection was based on disagreement with the book's content, such as its premise that economic growth is the root cause of environmental problems, and a desire to reflect a more 'conservative value system' in schools.
- A high school student, Rodriguez, who wished to use the textbook, joined Chiras as a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Chiras (author) and Rodriguez (student) filed a lawsuit against the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the SBOE's rejection of Chiras's textbook constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
- The SBOE filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The district court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the SBOE's decision was reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns under the standard from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier.
- The plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
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 state school board's decision to reject a textbook for its public school curriculum, based on the board's disagreement with the textbook's viewpoint, violate the First Amendment free speech rights of the textbook's author or students?
Opinions:
Majority - W. Eugene Davis
No. A state school board's decision to reject a textbook based on its viewpoint does not violate the First Amendment because the selection of curriculum is government speech. When the government determines the content of the education it provides, it is acting as a speaker, not as a regulator of private speech. As the speaker, the government is entitled to control its own message and is not required to be viewpoint-neutral. This power includes enlisting private entities, like textbook authors, to convey the state's chosen message. Therefore, the textbook adoption process is not a public forum to which authors have a right of access. The court distinguished this from cases like Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which involved a school-created forum for student speech. Furthermore, citing the plurality opinion in Board of Education v. Pico, the court held that any student's right to receive information does not extend to compelling a school board to adopt a particular textbook for its required curriculum, as this would interfere with the board's core duty to inculcate community values.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the government speech doctrine to public school curriculum choices, granting school boards broad discretion to make content-based and even viewpoint-based decisions. By classifying textbook selection as government speech rather than the creation of a forum, the court significantly limits the ability of authors and students to bring First Amendment challenges based on viewpoint discrimination. This precedent strengthens the authority of state and local educational bodies to shape their curriculum in line with specific political or social values, making such decisions largely immune from judicial scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause.
