Board of Education v. Pico: First Amendment & School Libraries
This paper examines Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982), a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case in which five students challenged their school board's removal of eleven books from library shelves. The paper outlines the books targeted, the school board's justifications, and the 5–4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of the student plaintiffs. Drawing on the written opinions of Justices Brennan and Blackmun, the paper explains why the Court found that removing library books to suppress ideas constitutes a violation of the First Amendment's guarantees of free expression and access to information.
- Introduction: Overview of the Island Trees Pico case
- The Books Removed and the School Board's Justifications: Eleven banned titles and board's objections
- The Legal Challenge and Supreme Court Ruling: Lawsuit filed; Court rules 5–4 for plaintiffs
- Opinions of Justices Brennan and Blackmun: Justices explain First Amendment library protections
- Conclusion: Censorship and the First Amendment: Board's actions condemned as unconstitutional censorship
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in concrete details — naming all eleven disputed books and their authors — giving the analysis specificity and credibility.
- It effectively uses direct quotations from Supreme Court justices to support its central claims, letting authoritative legal voices carry much of the argumentative weight.
- The paper connects legal reasoning to a broader constitutional principle, clearly articulating why the board's actions constituted censorship under the First Amendment.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates textual evidence integration: quotations from Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun are introduced, quoted precisely, and then paraphrased to explain their significance. This show-then-explain technique ensures that cited material is never left to stand alone, strengthening the analytical argument.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens by identifying the case and listing the disputed books, establishing factual context. It then describes the legal challenge and ruling. The core analytical section unpacks the justices' written opinions paragraph by paragraph. A brief concluding paragraph synthesizes the constitutional argument, framing the entire episode as an act of censorship incompatible with the First Amendment.
Introduction
This Supreme Court case stands today as one of the most important cases in U.S. history related to the First Amendment. Officially known as Board of Education, Island Trees School District v. Pico, this 1982 case involved Steven Pico and four other students who challenged the school board's decision to remove eleven titles from library shelves in 1976. The removals followed complaints from the group Parents of New York United, composed of members from a mostly conservative community. The case ultimately raised a fundamental constitutional question: can a public school board remove books from a school library simply because it finds their content objectionable?
The Books Removed and the School Board's Justifications
The eleven books in question were Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, The Fixer by Bernard Malamud, The Naked Ape by anthropologist Desmond Morris, The Best Short Stories of Negro Writers edited by Langston Hughes, Down These Mean Streets by Piri Thomas, Go Ask Alice (anonymous), Black Boy by Richard Wright, Laughing Boy by Oliver LaFarge, Soul on Ice by activist Eldridge Cleaver, A Reader for Writers edited by Jerome Archer, and A Hero Ain't Nothin' but a Sandwich by Alice Childress.
All of these books — both fiction and non-fiction — were viewed by the Island Trees school board review committee as "irrelevant, vulgar, immoral, in bad taste and educationally unsuitable" for students. After the news broke in the press, the school board elaborated that these titles were "Anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and just plain filthy" (Crutcher, 2007). The board's characterizations reflected the deep cultural and religious conservatism of the community, and would become central to the legal arguments that followed.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.