What Pico means

| 12 Comments | 1 TrackBack

In a post below, Ed Brayton mentioned the controversy in Gull Lake, Michigan. One item in the Thomas More Law Center's press release particularly caught my eye (and you know how painful that can be): TMLC repeatedly cites the 'confiscation of thirty copies of the book Of Pandas and People' by school authorities.

Now, Pandas And People is the standard collection of creationist claptrap which has been dealt with many times before. And the letter that TMLC sent to the school protesting this 'confiscation' is full of many misrepresentations and unsound scientific claims—for example, it refers to 'the standard Darwinian ‘random chance' explanations' of evolutionary change, when, of course, neither Darwin nor his successors have ever claimed that evolutionary change results from randomness. But set aside the questionable science for a moment. What about this book confiscation?

According to TMLC,

The school board had purchased thirty copies of that book with the knowledge they would be used in the seventh grade biology classroom. Those books now sit in a box in the principal's office with one placed in the library as a reference book, which cannot be checked out.

This, they claim, 'smacks of ‘book burning' and is clearly in violation of first amendment Free Speech rights of students to receive information as set forth in Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No 26 et al v. Pico, 487 U. S. 853 (1982) [sic; it's 457 U.S. 853].'

Well, no, not exactly. First of all, no books were burned. No books were destroyed, or discarded, or even removed from the library. They were instead taken and placed in the principal's office. A pretty significant difference from book burning, by my reckoning.

Second, I'm a great admirer of Pico, but, as Inigo Montoya might say, I do not think it means what they think it means.

Most importantly, Pico was not a majority opinion, and is not, therefore, binding precedent. It was a plurality opinion, which means that it's highly persuasive, but not an authoritative statement on the First Amendment. To be a binding decision—that is, to be 'the opinion of the Court'—a case needs to receive the votes of five of the Justices. Pico produced a fractured opinion, with a plurality written by Justice Brennan, and supported by Justice Marshall, Stevens, and Blackmun (who did not join in one of the parts of the plurality opinion). Justice Blackmun wrote a separate opinion for himself, as did Justice White, who only agreed with the outcome of the case, but not in any of Justice Brennan's reasoning. Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell, then-Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor issued a dissenting opinion together; Justice Powell then wrote another dissenting opinion which Justice O'Connor joined, and then Justice Rehnquist wrote his own dissenting opinion which Chief Justice Burger and Justice Powell joined. In other words, Pico has six opinions, and none of them are binding law. The plurality decision, of course, is the most persuasive one, but that's all it is.

That plurality decision held that the First Amendment protects a generalized right to receive information—but, to be accurate, it is not a 'Free Speech right[] of students,'—it is

an inherent corollary of the rights of free speech and press that are explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution, in two senses. First, the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them.... More importantly, the right to receive ideas is a necessary predicate to the recipient's meaningful exercise of his own rights of speech, press, and political freedom.

Pico, 457 U.S. at 867. The very vagueness of this right and its origins upset several dissenters. See, e.g., id. at 887-89 (Burger, C.J., Powell, O'Connor, Rehnquist, JJ., dissenting). So it's not as easy as this violating the free speech rights of students.

But, most importantly, the plurality in Pico emphasized that its holding was limited solely to the question of removing books from the school library—and not to the question of removing books from a classroom curriculum: the library, the plurality said, 'is the principal locus' of the freedom of inquiry. Id. at 868. Unlike the classroom, wrote Justice Brennan,

use of the...school librar[y] is completely voluntary on the part of students. Their selection of books from these libraries is entirely a matter of free choice; the libraries afford them an opportunity at self-education and individual enrichment that is wholly optional. Petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. But we think that petitioners' reliance upon that duty is misplaced where, as here, they attempt to extend their claim of absolute discretion beyond the compulsory environment of the classroom, into the school library and the regime of voluntary inquiry that there holds sway.

Id. at 869. Pico specifically says that libraries are different than classrooms, and as the TMLC acknowledges, students may still consult Pandas And People in the school library if they wish.

Indeed, Justice Brennan took pains to note that school officials 'rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries.' This discretion means that school officials may remove books even from school libraries—and certainly from classrooms—'if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the ‘educational suitability' of the books in question.' This is because removing books because they are pseudoscientific trash 'would not carry the danger of an official suppression of ideas, and thus would not violate...First Amendment rights.' Id. at 870-71.

TMLC's letter is simply an attempt to intimidate with legal flash-boom. It shouldn't work. A school is well within its legal rights to remove several hundred pages of fraud and quackery from the class and curriculum; indeed, it should be applauded when it does so.

1 TrackBack

Sandefur on Pico from Dispatches from the Culture Wars on April 26, 2005 11:19 AM

Timothy Sandefur has a post at the Panda's Thumb about the Gull Lake situation and the Thomas More Law Center's citing of Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No 26 et al v. Pico in its letter... Read More

12 Comments

Great stuff, Mr. Sandefur. Thank you.

I wondered, too, about the use of unauthorized texts in the classroom. Does Michigan allow that? Are texts approved by the state, or by the district, in Michigan? What is allowed in that district, and in that state, for teachers to stray to a text diametrically opposed to the state standards?

I know that, were I to introduce a text here in Texas that was not approved, it would be very difficult. The state sets standards of knowledge in a subject, and the texts support those standards. A deviation from one of the state-approved texts would probably be grounds for dismissal.

I’m not sure what First Amendment right any teacher would have to deviate from the state-mandated standards, but I suspect it wouldn’t be one that would negate a firing for insubordination.

Legal flashboom, indeed. Teachers who don’t teach what kids need to know are lucky not to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of town on a rail. These guys claim a right to do it instead? Novel legal hypothesis.

Do you think there will be summary judgment in this case?

Would one of you legal eagles explain something to me? How is the lawsuit soon to be filed by the Thomas More Institute in Michigan different from the Peloza case? If it is not significantly different why does the Thomas More Institute think that they have any chance of victory? What am I missing?

But I thought Pico was superceded by Nano, which carries a thousand times more precedent?

(Runs and hides.…)

Michael,

The Michigan case is in a different state.

Are you not a lawyer? You so quickly picked up on the major problem with the case, you could probably play one, effectively, before some school boards. Sadly, you’d be more effective than the counsel they’re getting.

Hey, Reuland–just wait till the Court decides Kelo!

One item in the Thomas More Law Center’s press release particularly caught my eye (and you know how painful that can be): TMLC repeatedly cites the “confiscation of thirty copies of the book Of Pandas and People” by school authorities.

I find it awfully coincidental that “Pandas” keeps popping up in school districts from “anonymous donors”, and the Thomas More nutjobs follow closely behind … Something smells vaguely piscine to me about it . …

Anyone have an inside source to find out who thiese “anonymous donors” are, and if they have any conenction to TMLC? (I doubt that the Discovery-ites have anything to do with it, since I’m quite sure they would be pushing on of their own, uh, magnum opi.)

What about this Law Center — anyone know more about it? Where they get their money, who calls the shots for them, does Ahmanson have anything to do with them?

My curiosity is aroused.

So… some copies of a book are donated, and one is placed in the school library.

That counts as censorship?

I mean, if 30 books were donated, but the school only circulated 28, would that be censorship?

The reasoning seems to be: If you don’t use every copy donated, and use them for the very purpose the donator intended, then you’re denying free speech.

But… isn’t that mind-bogglingly stupid?

Thomas More Law Center appears to be Catholic version of Discovery institute. Senator Rich Santorum is on the Board of Directors along with Jerimiah Denton, Bowie Kuhn Mary Cunningham Agee and Alan Keyes. Founded by Tom Monaghan of Domino’s fame and Ave Maria College.

Thomas More Law Center appears to be Catholic version of Discovery institute. Senator Rich Santorum is on the Board of Directors along with Jerimiah Denton, Bowie Kuhn Mary Cunningham Agee and Alan Keyes. Founded by Tom Monaghan of Domino’s fame and Ave Maria College.

Where does their money come from?

Thomas More Law Center appears to be Catholic version of Discovery institute. Senator Rich Santorum is on the Board of Directors

Why hasn’t Santorum told them that there IS NO scientific theory of Intelligent Design to teach . …?

Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza, I’m sure has plenty of money to fund this sort of activity. Switch to Papa John’s.

Tom Monaghan of Domino’s Pizza, I’m sure has plenty of money to fund this sort of activity. Switch to Papa John’s.

Alas, one thing I learned in my years as an environmental/union organizer is that no matter WHAT corporation you give money too, they are doing something somewhere somehow that they shouldn’t be. ;>

I’ve never viewed such boycotts as being in any way effective (although they *are* handy for generating press time to explain issues to people).

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on April 25, 2005 8:15 PM.

Message from Bob Collins of Alabama Citizens for Science Education was the previous entry in this blog.

Exploding Frogs = Intelligent Design? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter