Vamos a Cuba? No.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Miami-Dade school board in the infamous "Vamos a Cuba" case. This all began when Juan Amador Rodriguez complained to the school board about a book that was in the library at his daughter's school. The book offers a very pleasant view of Cuba, a view that Rodriguez says distorts reality.
The school board evaluated the book and ruled that it should be removed because according to Rodriguez it violated their own criteria for admissibility. Rodriguez paraphrased the criteria for me in a telephone call. He says that the rules state that no book shall be circulated in the school libraries that distorts the history or experiences of peoples or ethnic groups. So the book was ordered removed and then the court cases began.
This was trumpeted as a censorship case but really became a case about who has the authority to decide what books get chosen for local public school libraries. Juan Amador says that if it's the job of a federal judge then perhaps we don't need a school board.
The judges ruled in favor of the board and against the ACLU.
"There is a difference between not including graphic detail about adult subjects on the one hand and falsely representing that everything is hunky dory on the other," Judge Ed Carnes wrote.
You can read my thoughts on this case, from the time it came up, here.
Juan Amador told me as we hung up:
There's no way that a 32-page children's book has the right to erase a 50-year tragedy.
UPDATE: Cigar Mike posts a pertinent excerpt from the ruling in the comments:
Contrary to Dr. Perez’s and Ms. Gonzalez’s apparent assumption, some of the other books in the “A Visit to” series, which are aimed at the identical age group, do contain information similar to that which they asserted would not be age-appropriate in Vamos a Cuba. The book A Visit to Cambodia tells its audience: “Not all young people can go to school. There has been war in Cambodia for more than 20 years. Many schools have been destroyed.” [R:28:A Visit to Cambodia at 23] Despite providing this information, the Cambodia book also tells children that “Cambodians travel and go to school like you.” [Id. at 5] Similarly, A Visit to India informs children: “Many children are too poor to go to school. Their families need them to stay at home. The children help farm or they beg in the streets.” [R:28:A Visit to India at 23] Nonetheless, the book also proclaims that “Indians eat, sleep, play, and go to school like you.” [Id. at 5] Inexplicably, only the “A Visit to” books on England, Scotland, Wales, and Canada do not contain the “like you” formula language. [See R:28]
The district court concluded that the “like you” statement in Vamos a Cuba was “apolitical and content-neutral.” ACLU, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1283. The reality, however, is that regardless of politics the “like you” representation is inaccurate. All of the experts in this case agreed that people in Cuba do not live like people in the United States. As the plaintiffs’ own expert explained, they don’t because “[r]ationing of consumer goods, indoctrination in schools, limitations and prohibitions on entrepreneurship, urban decay, government controlled markets, austerity in dress, overcrowded mass transit, tourist-only beaches, exclamations of religious fervor before firing squads, the politicization of university admissions, and more, have been part of the reality of Cuba.” [R:19:278:¶ 8]
Although everyone agreed that Vamos a Cuba contains inaccuracies, the district court still concluded that “ban[ning] books because of perceived inaccuracies sweeps too broadly.” ACLU, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1284. There are two fundamental flaws in that characterization. For one, the inaccuracies were not merely “perceived.” They were undisputed. For another thing, the book was not being banned. It was being removed from a school’s library shelves. The book could still be found in public libraries in the area, and it was available for purchase from any of several online book sellers.12
The problem with this whole thing is that it's a Pyrrhic victory at best. This will probably go to the Supreme Court and who knows where they go on it. At the end of the day, even if the 11th Circuit's decision is upheld, hundreds of thousands of dollars will have been spent on this case --- taxpayer money; our money. These pissing contests are just that. That money could have hired more teachers or helped more kids. Only the lawyers benefit. The suit should not have been brought. It was all about who had the bigger balls here. A sad use of our judicial system.
Correct me if I'm wrong Mike, as you know, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that that the ACLU has caused an awful lot of damage to the country by winning many of these little "pissing contests." I aplaud the courts decision and hope that it stands.
Your original post is one of your best, and one of the few that actually takes a deep breath.
I'll take that left handed compliment.
The school board has no choice but to defend itself in court if sued and they have. But regardless who wins, it is perverse to spend the amount of money that has been spent on this book. I've read the opinion. I agree with the majority opinion in part and disagree with it in part especially on the issue of whether the issue of "motive" can only be decided by the fact finder. Typically motive is something that the fact finder (judge or jury) determines in a case. In all first amendment cases, the government presents a reason for its decision. The School Board presented a legitimate reason to remove the book. The burden then shifts to the plaintiffs to present evidence that the government's reason was a pretext and that the true motive was that they disagreed with the opinions presented in the book which would violate the first amendment. From a procedural standpoint, I think deference must be given to the fact finder. The court addresses this point in the beginning of the decision and distinguishes this case from typical first amendment retaliation cases which are the ones I tend to deal with. The Court says here that it can decide the "motive" de novo. Typically, "motive" is a fact question to be determined by the judge or jury that is hearing the live testimony and can judge credibility. This is not within the province of the appellate court in my opinion and it is where I differ with the Court.
What is sick is how the ACLU uses their kids as Plaintiffs to get this into court so then can rack up those fees if they win. I'm sure the kids don't give a crap about the book. It's like those folks who use their kids to challenge the pledge and other nonsense. It's a waste of the judicial system in my opinion.
What is of interest is this passage from the majority opinion:
Contrary to Dr. Perez’s and Ms. Gonzalez’s apparent assumption, some of
the other books in the “A Visit to” series, which are aimed at the identical age
group, do contain information similar to that which they asserted would not be age-
appropriate in Vamos a Cuba. The book A Visit to Cambodia tells its audience:
“Not all young people can go to school. There has been war in Cambodia for more
than 20 years. Many schools have been destroyed.” [R:28:A Visit to Cambodia at
23] Despite providing this information, the Cambodia book also tells children that
“Cambodians travel and go to school like you.” [Id. at 5] Similarly, A Visit to India
informs children: “Many children are too poor to go to school. Their families need
them to stay at home. The children help farm or they beg in the streets.” [R:28:A
Visit to India at 23] Nonetheless, the book also proclaims that “Indians eat, sleep,
play, and go to school like you.” [Id. at 5] Inexplicably, only the “A Visit to” books
on England, Scotland, Wales, and Canada do not contain the “like you” formula
language. [See R:28]
The district court concluded that the “like you” statement in Vamos a Cuba
was “apolitical and content-neutral.” ACLU, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1283. The reality,
however, is that regardless of politics the “like you” representation is inaccurate.
All of the experts in this case agreed that people in Cuba do not live like people in
the United States. As the plaintiffs’ own expert explained, they don’t because
“[r]ationing of consumer goods, indoctrination in schools, limitations and
prohibitions on entrepreneurship, urban decay, government-controlled markets,
austerity in dress, overcrowded mass transit, tourist-only beaches, exclamations of
religious fervor before firing squads, the politicization of university admissions, and
more, have been part of the reality of Cuba.” [R:19:278:¶ 8]
Although everyone agreed that Vamos a Cuba contains inaccuracies, the
district court still concluded that “ban[ning] books because of perceived
inaccuracies sweeps too broadly.” ACLU, 439 F. Supp. 2d at 1284. There are two
fundamental flaws in that characterization. For one, the inaccuracies were not
merely “perceived.” They were undisputed. For another thing, the book was not
being banned. It was being removed from a school’s library shelves. The book
could still be found in public libraries in the area, and it was available for purchase
from any of several online book sellers.12
It seems that the author somehow does not use the term "like you" when comparing those democratic countries, but it does make the comparison to the totalitarian countries. He probably has an agenda I would figure.
For what it's worth, both Judge Carnes who wrote for the majority and Judge Wilson who wrote the dissent are great jurists. Judge Carnes has written many key civil rights opinions in our Circuit and Wilson likewise is a great jurist. Interestingly enough, Wilson was the dissenting judge in the case involving the termination of life support case.
It's not over; this will go to the Supreme Court since there is no definitive Supreme Court opinion on this topic. Even if the Supreme Court affirms this decision, and nearly a half million dollars have been spent by the school board alone, at the end of the day, someone needs to seriously consider is that money well spent. (You see if the ACLU wins, then the school board will have to pay their fees so then at that point the School Board will have paid their lawyers and the ACLU's lawyers, which together can be close to a million dollars at the end of the day). With the budgetary constraints that the schools are facing each day; this type of money can be better spent elsewhere.
As a librarian, I'm ashamed---but not surprised given the organization's radicalization---that the American Library Association made this case a cause celebre.
The book is a piece of crap. I read it and in my professional opinion, the school board did good in removing it from the shelves. As a librarian, I wouldn't have purchased this book for my library, no more than I would have purchased a book that taught children that the earth is flat, that black children in apartheid South Africa "lived just like you and I," or that there was no Holocaust.
The book is misleading, it is full of outright lies and is damaging to a child's education. I would go one step further and call it outright propaganda!
It's a horrible travesty, but not surprising that the ACLU perversely twisted this into a case of "freedom of expression." After all, one is entitled to one's opinions, but not to one's facts and if someone teaches children in school that the earth is flat, that may be his opinion, but its not a fact and no organization should use the First Amendment as a smokescreen to defend his right to mislead children in that way.
Ultimately, what this proves is that the "left" has so successfully trampled on our [Cubans] truths, history and suffering that their twisted, fictitious version of Cuba is given as much validity or more than ours.
If this were a book that claimed that black children in 1940's Alabama lived just like children live today, the book would have been banned not just from the school board, but from all of the libraries in the country and the ACLU would never haven't gotten involved. Why? The suffering of black Americans is not considered an opinion, it is respected and firmly entrenched in the Americans psyche. Ours is not. The Castroite propaganda machinery has so successfully villainized us, that this is seen as another case of those horrible rightwinged Miami Cubans trying to squelch freedom of expression.
The book's cover photo alone is enough to raise serious questions. It shows Cuban schoolchildren wearing their compulsory "pioneer" uniform, which is a sign of the systematic political and ideological indoctrination entrenched in the entire education system. This indoctrination starts from Day 1 of every child's education, regardless of what the parents may or may not believe or want for their children. There is NO choice in the matter, but there is definitely brainwashing. Anyone who does not have MAJOR problems with this simply has no credibility, to say the least. There is massive hypocrisy, disingenuosness and yes, AGENDA, in the ACLU's involvement in this matter. For SHAME.
Yup - to the ALA this is censorship, but they won't make a statement condemning book burning in Cuba.
American schools have increasingly become indoctrination centers since the Carter administration - probably one reason we are falling so far behind the rest of the industrialized world in education. And the American history our children are taught is no more accurate or honest than the crap in this book. It's no coincidence that Americans have become increasingly passive as the government has taken more control over education. What passes for activism today is a joke, and as a result what passes for ethical and responsible government is a tragedy.
Maybe instead of getting up in arms about what amounts to a pamphlet about another country we should be focusing on the entire curriculums in this country that are brainwashing our children every day.
A couple of points need to be made here:
First, anyone who’d care to look beneath the surface of this issue should contextualize the Cuba title with the rest of the titles in this “A Visit To…” series. Here are some of the other countries featured: Brazil, Cambodia, China, Egypt, Israel, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Vietnam… These books are written and designed for students who are around the K to 1st grade level – and their purpose is not to discuss anything political! The title on China doesn’t discuss China’s government; the title on Vietnam doesn’t discuss the after-effects of the Vietnam War; the title on Mexico doesn’t discuss NAFTA or immigration issues. And the reason none of these issues are discussed is because there isn’t room to go into them in a very short picture book, which features about two sentences per page! The purpose of these books is to give students a first introduction to the idea that there are other countries in the world, and that they have different foods, languages, buildings, clothes, etc. Are we really so concerned that there won’t be time to get into the political issues in the next few years?
Second, Heinemann Library (the publisher) just released a revised, reworked, redesigned new edition of the entire series, including the Cuba title. I’ve looked through the old and new books, and the publisher has clearly taken the controversy into account by removing some of the pictures that were accused of showing “too much happiness” in Cuba (because of course, children never crack a smile there). But, the fact is – they have put the old edition of the Cuba book out of print, and they’ve released a revised version. It just strikes me as funny that all of this controversy is continuing over a book that’s not even in print anymore.
For a library advocate, you sure don't read too well. The judges considered the entire series and found that Cuba was not treated the same way. You can read the excerpt from the ruling which I posted.
Secondly, the case is now about who has the authority to decide what books get bought and stocked in the public school libraries. The school board has procedures for selecting and evaluating books. They can't possibly stock every book. So they have to have standards. Sometimes books will slip through the cracks. If they had rejected the book in the first place there would have been no case here. So why can't the governing body that makes the selections change its mind? Does every book that gets removed for any reason have to go in front of a federal judge? Of course not, that's ridiculous.
This is not a case of censorship. Censorship is when you are prohibited from talking. This body (the school board) decided to stop listening. That's different. The first amendment doesn't guarantee a market for your ramblings. It guarantees your right to write them.
Btw if you're a library advocate why aren't you backing the library in this case? After all the school board governs the library and its the school board that got sued by outsiders who were not happy with its decision to remove the book. Who elected the aclu?