McCarthy v. Fletcher
1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 11, 254 Cal. Rptr. 714, 207 Cal.App.3d 130 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public school board's decision to remove books from a curriculum violates the First Amendment if the decision is not reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns. A decision motivated by an intent to suppress ideas or impose a religious orthodoxy is not a legitimate pedagogical concern and is therefore unconstitutional.
Facts:
- Lee McCarthy, a teacher at Wasco Union High School, used John Gardner's novel 'Grendel' in her 12th-grade English class and Gabriel Garcia Marquez's 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' as independent reading.
- A student complained about 'Grendel' on religious grounds, prompting a review by school administrators.
- Superintendent Douglas K. Fletcher and Vice Principal Gerald Johnson found 'Grendel' inappropriate, with Fletcher stating it was 'designed to break down a student’s belief in God, government and the basic respect for the dignity of people.'
- Initially, the administrators, with school board approval, imposed a restriction requiring students to obtain written parental permission to read or discuss 'Grendel' in class.
- The English department subsequently included both books on its proposed reading list for the 1986-1987 school year.
- Fletcher, after reviewing the list and concluding the books were anti-religious, deleted both 'Grendel' and 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' from the curriculum before submitting the modified list to the board.
- The board of trustees adopted the modified curriculum without the two books and provided no statement of reasons for their exclusion.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (a teacher, student, parent, and taxpayer) filed a complaint in the trial court against the school district, seeking an injunction against the restricted use of the book 'Grendel.'
- The trial court granted a preliminary injunction, preventing the district from enforcing its parental permission policy for 'Grendel.'
- After the school board removed 'Grendel' and 'One Hundred Years of Solitude' from the curriculum entirely, appellants filed a supplemental complaint.
- Respondents (the school district) moved for summary judgment on the supplemental complaint.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the respondents, ruling that the board's subjective motives were irrelevant because it was acting in a legislative capacity.
- Appellants appealed the summary judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
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 school board's decision to remove books from a high school curriculum violate the First Amendment when there is a triable issue of fact that the board's motivation was to suppress ideas based on a particular religious viewpoint?
Opinions:
Majority - Franson, P. J.
Yes. A school board's decision to remove books from a curriculum violates the First Amendment if the motivation for the removal was to suppress ideas based on a particular religious viewpoint. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the school board's motives. The court reasoned that the board was not acting in a legislative capacity immune from judicial inquiry into its motives, but rather in an adjudicative-administrative capacity by applying policy to specific books. Citing 'Board of Education v. Pico,' the court held that the board's intent is the dispositive factor; if the board intended to deny students access to ideas with which it disagreed, particularly for religious reasons, it violated the Constitution. The court adopted the standard from 'Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier,' holding that curriculum decisions must be 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.' It clarified that advancing a particular religious orthodoxy or suppressing ideas is not a legitimate pedagogical concern, as the Establishment Clause requires government neutrality toward religion. Because the administrators' evaluations cited anti-religious content as a reason for removal, and the board gave no reasons of its own, a trial is necessary to determine the true motivation behind the decision.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical check on the power of school boards in California to control curriculum content. By requiring an inquiry into the motives behind book removals, the decision prevents school boards from using 'educational unsuitability' or 'community values' as a pretext for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, particularly on religious grounds. It applies the 'Hazelwood' standard to curriculum decisions but crucially clarifies that suppressing ideas to enforce a religious orthodoxy is never a 'legitimate pedagogical concern.' This precedent provides a clear framework for challenging curriculum censorship and reinforces the principle that public schools cannot be used for rigid ideological or religious indoctrination.
