Avenues for Engagement? Testing the Democratic Nature of Library Book Challenge Processes

Pamela Catherine Callahan, Joel D. Miller
{"title":"Avenues for Engagement? Testing the Democratic Nature of Library Book Challenge Processes","authors":"Pamela Catherine Callahan, Joel D. Miller","doi":"10.1177/01614681241258834","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Public school library book challenges have garnered ample media attention in recent years as many school districts and advocacy organizations have reported record numbers of book challenges. Book challenges are not a new phenomenon, historically speaking, but they have often illuminated values clashes in communities and raise questions about the rights and freedoms of public school students. Judicial rulings and school district policies that address book challenges could provide insights for many members of school communities (including, but not limited to, school board members, students, parents, and teachers) as they experience challenges, but these aspects of the legal record and their influence on responses to book challenges remains underexamined in scholarship. The 1982 Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v. Pico remains the lasting judicial precedent for interpreting public school students’ First Amendment rights as they interact with school library books. We examine the extent to which school district book challenge policies align with court precedent set in Pico (1982) and the implications for students’ rights and democratic participation during book challenges. Drawing on elements of the law and society framework as well as political analysis categories, this study uses qualitative methods to illuminate specific elements of district policies that govern book challenges. Specifically, we examine 29 policies in school districts that experienced a publicly reported book challenge between 2017 and 2021 to understand relationships between school district book challenge policies and the Pico (1982) precedent. Our findings reveal ample space between judicial rulings and school district policies we examine. In fact, we find a broader array of relevant actors in book challenge processes than conceived by the courts and raise implications for students’ constitutional rights and protections related to who policies indicate may or must be involved in these processes, the settings in which book challenge decisions are made, and the limited roles for public involvement during school library book challenges.","PeriodicalId":22248,"journal":{"name":"Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01614681241258834","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Public school library book challenges have garnered ample media attention in recent years as many school districts and advocacy organizations have reported record numbers of book challenges. Book challenges are not a new phenomenon, historically speaking, but they have often illuminated values clashes in communities and raise questions about the rights and freedoms of public school students. Judicial rulings and school district policies that address book challenges could provide insights for many members of school communities (including, but not limited to, school board members, students, parents, and teachers) as they experience challenges, but these aspects of the legal record and their influence on responses to book challenges remains underexamined in scholarship. The 1982 Supreme Court case Island Trees School District v. Pico remains the lasting judicial precedent for interpreting public school students’ First Amendment rights as they interact with school library books. We examine the extent to which school district book challenge policies align with court precedent set in Pico (1982) and the implications for students’ rights and democratic participation during book challenges. Drawing on elements of the law and society framework as well as political analysis categories, this study uses qualitative methods to illuminate specific elements of district policies that govern book challenges. Specifically, we examine 29 policies in school districts that experienced a publicly reported book challenge between 2017 and 2021 to understand relationships between school district book challenge policies and the Pico (1982) precedent. Our findings reveal ample space between judicial rulings and school district policies we examine. In fact, we find a broader array of relevant actors in book challenge processes than conceived by the courts and raise implications for students’ constitutional rights and protections related to who policies indicate may or must be involved in these processes, the settings in which book challenge decisions are made, and the limited roles for public involvement during school library book challenges.
参与途径?测试图书馆图书挑战过程的民主性质
近年来,公立学校图书馆的图书挑战引起了媒体的广泛关注,许多学区和倡导组织都报告了图书挑战的创纪录数量。从历史上看,图书质疑并不是一个新现象,但它们往往揭示了社区中的价值观冲突,并提出了有关公立学校学生权利和自由的问题。司法裁决和学区政策中有关图书挑战的内容可以为学校社区的许多成员(包括但不限于校董会成员、学生、家长和教师)在经历挑战时提供启示,但这些方面的法律记录及其对图书挑战应对措施的影响在学术界仍未得到充分研究。1982 年最高法院审理的 "Island Trees School District v. Pico "一案仍然是解释公立学校学生在与学校图书馆图书互动时享有的第一修正案权利的持久性司法先例。我们研究了校区图书质疑政策与皮科案(1982 年)中法院判例的一致程度,以及在图书质疑过程中对学生权利和民主参与的影响。本研究借鉴了法律与社会框架的要素以及政治分析类别,采用定性方法阐明了管理图书质疑的学区政策的具体要素。具体而言,我们考察了 2017 年至 2021 年间经历过公开报道的图书挑战的学区的 29 项政策,以了解学区图书挑战政策与皮科(1982 年)先例之间的关系。我们的研究结果表明,司法裁决与我们所考察的学区政策之间存在很大的空间。事实上,我们发现图书质疑过程中的相关行为者比法院所设想的更为广泛,并对学生的宪法权利和保护产生了影响,这些影响涉及政策表明谁可以或必须参与这些过程、图书质疑决定是在什么环境下做出的,以及在学校图书馆图书质疑过程中公众参与的有限作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信