Cleveland Heights Teachers Union
CHTU Update - Book Banning - January 16, 2009
By the Book- or - Ban the Book
If you checked the grievance update on our CHTU website you probably know that the Union initiated a formal objection under the Administration - Union Concern provisions of our contractual grievance procedure because a middle school principal, with the subsequent backing of central office, removed a periodical from the school’s library because he believed an illustration on the cover was inappropriate.
The Union objected to the removal of the periodical because the specific Board of Education policies governing objections or challenges to library materials by students, citizens, or staff members were ignored. It is clear and uncontested that the Board has the ultimate authority in the approval and selection of library materials as well as curricular materials. However, the actual selection of materials falls upon our Media Specialists as part of their professional responsibilities. Once materials are selected, and challenges or objections arise from students, staff, parents, or community members, then the policies and procedures adopted by the Board kick in.
Essentially, these procedures call for a kind of due process and review by the Board to insure that personal opinion, doesn’t trump the First Amendment as is in this instant case. Moreover, the Board’s own policy cites the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, which advocates protections against censorship of library materials. It should also be noted that this particular periodical is one that the Board had approved for several years, and it was the illustration on the cover that the principal and central office found objectionable and which led to the removal. The Union’s objection to the banning is based on procedural flaws, not the item itself. A dangerous precedent is set if principals can arbitrarily remove library materials.
The Union attempted to resolve this matter informally by requesting that Administration comply with Board policy. Our request was denied. As required by contract, the Union submitted a position paper on the matter, and presented it to the Board on December 16th. The Administration is also required to submit a position in writing, but failed to do so. The Board discussed the issue in an Executive Session (closed to the public) and responded December 19th in a letter from the Board President. The response not only rejected the Union’s claim but also accused the Union of attempting to circumvent and usurp the Board’s “ultimate authority”. On January 6th, the Union, during the public comment section of the Board of Education meeting asked the Board to reconsider. Once again we were rebuffed.
It is our intention to continue to press for the appropriate remedy formally through our grievance procedure or in the court of public opinion.
We will keep you updated. If you would like copies of our position paper and the related correspondence between the Board and the Union, contact us by phone or e mail.
Fraternally,
Tom Schmida, President
