Submitted by Denitsa on
UNITED STATES
Title:
Monteiro v. The Tempe Union High School District
Court:
United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
Citation:
158 F.3d 1022 (1998)
Date:
19 October 1998
Instrument(s) Cited:
First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (the "Equal Protection Clause")
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VI")
Case Summary:
Background:
A high school in Arizona required its students to read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain and A Rose for Emily by William Faulkner. Both literary works contained repeated uses of a derogatory word that is offensive to African-Americans. The appellant, who is the mother of one of the students, claimed that her daughter and other similarly situated African-American students suffered psychological injuries and lost educational opportunities due to the required reading of the two books. The appellant also claimed that by assigning these literary works, the school district had created a racially hostile environment. The appellant brought claims under the Equal Protection Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the prohibition of racial discrimination by any government agencies that receive federal funds in Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Issue and resolution:
Access to information. The issues in the case are whether the assignment of books which contain racial epithets violated the rights of the students under the Equal Protection Clause and whether the school district had created a hostile racial environment. The Court held that there was no violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but the appellant's complaint did allege sufficient facts that the school district created a hostile racial environment, so the Court remanded this issue to a lower court.
Court reasoning:
In deciding whether assigning the disputed books violated the Equal Protection Clause, the Court had to weigh the competing interests of whether the rights of high school students to receive information or ideas, even when contained in literary works that contain racial overtones, outweigh the rights of students to receive a public education that neither fosters nor acquiesces a racially hostile environment.
The Court first notes that courts should grant broad discretion to school districts to establish the curricula that they believe to be appropriate for the educational needs of their students. Being highly conscious of the prospective impact of their decision in this case, the Court notes that if the appellant were to succeed in this litigation, there would be a threat of future litigation that would lead many school districts to avoid the use of any books or other materials that express messages or simply use terms that could be argued to cause harm to a group of students. The Court acknowledges that the number of potential lawsuits that could arise from the varied educational curricula across the country might be unlimited and unpredictable.
The Court acknowledges that books can cause harm to students, especially when they contain racial epithets and/or other offensive content. However, the fact that a student is required to read a book does not mean that those students will accept the views presented in such book. Furthermore, the Court states that it is important for students to learn and think critically about offensive ideas to be able to develop their critical thinking skills.
The Court spends less time discussing the issue of whether the school created a racially hostile environment. After reviewing all the facts presented, it found that the appellant alleged sufficient facts to raise a cognizable claim and remanded this issue to a lower court to consider it at a later date.
Concurring Opinion:
One of the judges wrote a concurring opinion, in which he stated that he concurred with the Court's ultimate decision, but stated that certain books such as those promoting the views of the Aryan Nation, the Klu Klux Klan and other similar hate group might trigger different issues if they were to come before a court.
Impact:
Legal commentators have observed that by ruling in favor of the school district and generally acknowledging a school district's broad discretion over creating its curricula, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals effectively limited the number of complaints by parents and students alleging that certain required reading was offensive or harmful.
Notwithstanding the Court's ruling in Monteiro, there have been numerous instances where U.S. courts have overturned school board's decisions. In 2003, a federal district court in Arkansas overturned a school board decision that required students to gain their parent's consents before being able to access Harry Potter books located in the school library.
Notes:
For more information on children’s right to freedom of expression and access to information, including a selection of case law, please see CRIN’s campaign ‘Protect children, end censorship’.
Link to Full Judgment:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1281281.html
This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.
