Opinion ID: 78271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The School Board's Proffered Inaccuracies and Omissions

Text: The majority finds that [a] fact of great significance in deciding whether the School Board was motivated to remove Vamos a Cuba because of inaccuracies is that the book indisputably does contain inaccuracies. [Majority Opinion at 1211.] The majority says that it is undisputed that the book ... contain[s] inaccuracies and that [i]f there had been no factual inaccuracies, the book would not have been removed. [Majority Opinion at 1227.] My independent view of the record, however, fully supports the district court's determination that these inaccuracies were merely post hoc rationalizations for the book's removalplausible but disingenuous justifications. ACLU, 439 F.Supp.2d at 1282. The majority faults the district court for going through this very exercise, stating that [t]he district court's decision about educational suitability is ... wrong for the... fundamental reason that it was not a matter for the district court to decide, [as] [s]uch questions are the perfect example of a core educational policy matter within the exclusive province of local school boards. [Majority Opinion at 1225.] But the district court's purpose in examining the educational suitability of the books was to get to the heart of the actual motivation on the part of the School Board, which the Supreme Court requires. See Pico, 457 U.S. at 870, 102 S.Ct. at 2810 (holding that while school boards rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries ... that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner); see id. at 907, 102 S.Ct. at 2828-29 (Rehnquist, J., joined by Burger, C.J. and Powell, J., dissenting) (cheerfully conced[ing] [that school boards] may not exercise[] [their discretion] in a narrowly partisan or political manner); Zykan, 631 F.2d at 1306 ([N]othing in the Constitution permits the courts to interfere with local educational discretion until local authorities begin to substitute rigid and exclusive indoctrination for the mere exercise of their prerogative to make pedagogic choices regarding matters of legitimate dispute.) (emphasis added). Federal courts must engage in some analysis of the educational suitability of a book if this is the suggested basis of a school board's decision. Here, the Miami-Dade School Board found that the book was inaccurate and contains several omissions. [R:19:172.] In order for a court to determine if the proffered reason for removal was pretextual, it must evaluate those findings. A court must evaluate whether the proffered motivations have such weaknesses, implausibilities, or incoherencies such that they are unworthy of credence. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, we do not overstep our bounds by evaluating educational suitability for this limited purpose. See Virgil, 862 F.2d at 1517 n. 6 (Courts have not hesitated to look beyond the stated reasons for school board action.). Only the School Board has the authority to determine whether a book's content makes it suitable for the school library shelves. But after carefully reviewing the evidence, the district court concluded that the School Board removed the book not because of its factual inaccuracies, but because a majority of the School Board agreed with the members of the community who considered an apolitical picture of Cuba to be offensive. Cf. Pratt v. Ind. Sch. Dist. No. 831, 670 F.2d 771, 778 (8th Cir.1982) (holding that a school board could not constitutionally ban films from the school curriculum because a majority of the school board objected to the ideological and religious content of the films). I do not decide the educational suitability question, as the majority contends that I do. [ See Majority Opinion at 1226.] Instead, I scrutinize the School Board's proffered omissions and inaccuracies to see whether there are such weaknesses, implausibilities, and incoherencies in the record to support the district court's determination regarding the genuine motivations for the removal decision.