Opinion ID: 78271
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The School Board's Proffered Inaccuracies

Text: Many of the inaccuracies complained of are inconsequential, which casts doubt on whether those proffered motivations for the book's removal are worthy of credence. For example, one of the inaccuracies is that the book explained that Cuban music is played with maracas made of pumpkins. [ Vamos a Cuba: 28.] Dr. Clark objected: To say that maracas are made of pumpkins shows the utter ignorance of the writer on this matter. The maracas are made from the guiro fruit, dried and properly processed. [7] [R:19:217.] Yet, according to the Dictionary of the Royal Spanish Academy, the guiro fruit in fact is a pumpkin. It is a type of gourd, which are in the same family as pumpkins. While it may have been more precise for the book to say that maracas are made from a guiro fruit or a gourd, it borders on frivolity to argue about whether a maraca is made from a pumpkin. [R:19:277: ¶ 7.] Moreover, it is evident that explaining that a maraca is made from a guiro fruit will mean far less to an American four-year-old than explaining that it is made from a pumpkin, with which Halloween has rendered the four-year-old familiar. [R:19:277: ¶ 7.] The inaccuracy that Dr. Clark considers to be probably the worst factual error in the book, [R:19:48], is at page 29: In a Cuban valley, there are big colored paintings, on the rocks and caves. These were painted by Cuba's inhabitants about a thousand years ago. [ Vamos a Cuba: 29.] The book includes a picture of a rock painting was done in the 1960s, not 1,000 years ago. [R:19:48]. While some Cuban caves do indeed have prehistoric paintings, the one pictured in the book is not one of them. [R:19:278.] While this is misleading, it does not justify removing the book. Another error listed by Dr. Clark is that Cuban houses are not made from palm trunks, as the book noted on page 11, but instead from the upper growth of the palm. [R:19:47.] This seems inconsequential, as a young reader will understand that the houses are made from the palm in any case. In response to the School Board's complaints about generalizations in the book about traditional customs and dress, Ms. Scales stated, all similar non-fiction books about other countries for young children contain generalizations about traditional dress and customs. For example, a book about Scotland for children of this age would almost invariably highlight men wearing kilts when the reality is that these garments are rarely worn and are very tourist-oriented. [R:19:256: ¶ 19.] Such generalizations do not render a book inaccurate so much as they simplistically illustrate Cuba's culture. The book's sentence which has perhaps generated the most controversy is it's first sentence: People in Cuba eat, work, and go to school like you do. [ Vamos a Cuba: 5.] It appears fairly evident that this short sentence is meant to show simply that other children in other cultures also do those things. [R:19:255: ¶ 17.] The record supports the book's evident purpose, which is to paint a very elementary picture of Cuban life and culture in a way that fosters cross-cultural understanding among young children. [R:19:278: ¶ 8.] Explaining cross-cultural commonalities is appropriate for the level of understanding for children in this age group. [R:19:255: ¶ 17.] The book conveys the message that although Cuba may seem very different, when it comes to the essentials, all children are the same in that they also eat, work, and go to school. It is important to note that Vamos a Cuba subsequently states, after the like you do comment, that [l]ife in Cuba is also unique. [ Vamos a Cuba: 5.] First the book stresses the common ground, then it goes onto explain the differences. Without some common ground it is difficult for a child to learn about what would otherwise seem too foreign. It would be inappropriate for a book that teaches children elementary notions of Cuban culture and society to present it the way the objectors would like: a place where, as the majority says, life is badreally bad, [Majority Opinion at 1221]. Instead, [t]he emphasis [is] on things people share in common, not what divides and drives them apart. ACLU, 439 F.Supp.2d at 1288.