6. My Argument

This case at first glance seems that it did not need to go to the Supreme Court but the students persisted that the motivation was the Board's dissent of the ideas expressed. People are always going to be worried about government control and administrative agencies seeming to run their lives and I think it is beneficial to society for people to non-violently discuss their disagreements because it inspires education, cooperation and communication. The School Board already had a system in place to judge the content of its library and it is possible people would not have noticed the removal if it wasn't publicized in a local newspaper. Members of the Supreme Court who dissented with Justice Brennan saw the possible dangers of this decision and how the case may distort people's views of the Supreme Court's purpose. Are they meant to be the ultimate censor by judging if the motives of groups are interested in educational suitability? I don't believe so otherwise it would be a waste of time and that is why the precedent needed to be established. The First Amendment does not mention a right to receive ideas, merely a right to freely express your opinions and "inquire" information. Many of the books contained scenes that used small amounts of slang and racial slurs, or scenes that may be seen as somewhat sexually explicit and others were simply controversial in their opinions of founding fathers. In junior high and high schools, I believe that students and teachers should be able to discuss ideas from outside perspectives and examine more than just the story itself. They should promote learning who the author is and when he or she lived and what they experienced and how it affected who they were/are and why they would create the material. It should be a very deep, logical and open-minded environment. I understand that there is separation of church and state and people are protected from bombardment of religious, racist or atheist ideas in school but to prepare for college and life you need to be able to think critically. Focusing on small pieces only to better understand the totality of the idea and how it integrates into history, life and society. So it seems inevitable that the Supreme Court would become involved in a case like this, only to attempt to decide once and for all if this is how it should handle the outlet of information and knowledge in schools. But it also seems unnecessary and unusual that the Federal District Court sided with the School Board's flimsy motives and informal actions to remove the 9 books, 8 of which were optional reading after they had already unnecessarily upset the students enough (by ignoring their opinions) to take them to court.