May 13, 2014

Steven Troen

District 196 Director ofTeaching and Learning

3445 153rd Street W.

Rosemount, MN 55068

steven.troen@district196.org

Dear Mr. Troen,

We are writing in response to a recent challenge to Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You by Barthe DeClements in school libraries.

The primary ground for removal of the book is the complainant’s objection to the use of the word “retarded,” which, the

complaint states, is “not people-first language and is a disrespectful term.” We strongly urge you to retain the book. While we

understand the complainant’s concern, censoring a book because some people find it objectionable would undermine

educational principles and raise serious constitutional questions.

In Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You, the main character, Helen, is a sixth grader who has many talents but can’t keep up in

reading, no matter how hard she works. She is faced with the choice offailing or taking special education reading classes,

which also means facing ridicule from her friends. Helen decides to tackle her reading problem and take the special ed class,

despite the negative implications of the “retard room.”

The author’s choice of language confronts the teasing and casual cruelty often encountered by students with learning

disabilities. According to one teacher who posted a review of the book online, “DeClements did a great job depicting Helen's

challenges with a learning disability as she navigates sixth grade and finally finds some answers in the end. This book is great

for teachers like myselfbecause it allows us to see the impact the " little things" we choose to do or not to do can have on a

student. It' s a great book for students because it depicts Helen's decision-making processes and the ramifications as she

chooses to utilize the special ed. room as a resource to help her read.”

This view was echoed in other reader comments: “This is a wonderful book! I am a Special Education Class Instructional Aide.

I am currently reading this book with my students and they love it! Since my students are in a Resource Class like Helen, they

can really relate. They enjoy laughing at the situations that Helen gets herself into and they can understand with how she feels.”

Another commenter would “recommend [the book] to anyone who wants to understand how kids with LDs might feel about

themselves, and to any kids with LDs who need an LD heroine. Yeah, it' s from the 80s, but it' s one of those books that survives

because its protagonist and its story are so memorable.”

Without questioning the sincerity ofanyone who objects to the book, their views are not shared by all, and they have no right to

BY ELECTRONIC MAIL

impose those views on others or to demand that the library shelves reflect their personal preferences. Parents may be equipped

to make choices for their own children but, no matter how well-intentioned, they simply are not equipped to make decisions

that address the needs of the entire student body.  

Moreover, removing the book would raise constitutional concerns. School officials have a constitutional obligation not to

suppress material because some find it objectionable or offensive. The Supreme Court has cautioned that, " [l]ocal school

boards may not remove books from library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books and seek by

their removal to ‘prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters ofopinion.’" Board of

Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853, 872 (1982)(plurality opinion) . This constitutional duty applies with particular force in the school

library, which, unlike the classroom, has "a special role.. .as a place where students may freely and voluntarily explore diverse

topics." Campbell v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, 64 F. 3d 184, 190 (5th Cir. 1995) .

In practice, acceding to the demands to remove something that one person finds objectionable invariably invites multiple,

sometimes conflicting demands to exclude other material. The attempt "to eliminate everything that is objectionable…will

leave public schools in shreds. Nothing but educational confusion and a discrediting of the public school system can result…."

McCollum v. Board ofEduc. , 333 U.S. 203, 235 (1948) (Jackson, J. concurring) .   Any effort to remove books containing language

that is “politically incorrect” in everyday usage would threaten a great deal of literature, such as The Adventures ofHuckleberry

Finn, To Kill A Mockingbird, and The Merchant ofVenice, children’s books like Little House on the Prairie and Babar, and more.

No one has to read something just because it’s on the library shelf.     A parent whose “child is exposed to sensitive topics or

information at school remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family’s moral or religious context, or to

supplement the information with more appropriate materials.” Parker v. Hurley, 514 F. 3d 87, 105 (1st Cir. 2008) (citation

omitted) .    

We urge you to retain Sixth Grade Can Really Kill You in school libraries, so that those students who wish to read it may do so.

This result would show respect not only for First Amendment values and obligations, but also for all members of the school

community, by allowing people to make their own decisions about what to read and think.

Please feel free to contact us ifwe can be ofany assistance in resolving this matter.

Sincerely,

Chris FinanPresidentAmerican Booksellers Foundation ForFree Expression

Judy PlattDirector, Free Expression AdvocacyAssociation ofAmerican Publishers

Joan BertinExecutive DirectorNational Coalition Against Censorship

Charles BrownsteinExecutive DirectorComic Book Legal Defense Fund