Hello, all,

Like everyone on the forum, I read with dismay Jim Zwick's note about _Huck
Finn_ and "A Rose for Emily" (one of my favorite stories that I teach
whenever I can) creating a "hostile work environment" and therefore at risk
of banishment.  I forwarded Jim's note to a friend who's been an attorney
for a number of years.  His response to me is below.  We may not have as
much reason to worry as we feared.

ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT READING LEGAL OPINIONS WOULD KNOW BETTER
THAN TO EXTRACT A LITIGANT'S CONTENTION AS THE OPINION OF THE COURT.  THE
REASON I EVEN LOOKED THIS UP IS THAT I COULDN'T BELIEVE THE 9TH CIRCUIT
WOULD HAVE ISSUED SUCH A RULING.  THE DECISION ACTUALLY STANDS FOR THE
PRECISE OPPOSITE PROPOSITION.
THE NINTH CIRCUIT HELD THAT IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A COURT TO
INTERFERE WITH A SCHOOL'S CURRICULUM, ESPECIALLY BASED ON CONTENT.  THEY
DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT.

THE "QUOTE" IN HIS MESSAGE FROM THE OPINION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE BODY OF
THE OPINION.  THIS IS ALSO NOT A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT CASE, AS WAS
CONTENDED IN THE MESSAGE; THE BASIS OF THE CASE IS THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
AND TITLE VI OF
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.  ALSO, HIS REFERENCE TO A MARYLAND COURT
DECISION BANNING ANGELOU AND MORRISON WORKS FROM THE SCHOOLS SIMPLY DOES
NOT EXIST (I DID A TWO YEAR RETROACTIVE SEARCH).  IN FACT, THE LOS ANGELES
TIMES REPORTED THAT THE MARYLAND SCHOOL BOARD VOLUNTARILY WITHDREW THOSE
WORKS FROM THE CURRICULUM BECAUSE THEY WERE "TRASH" AND "ANTI-WHITE."  THE
VAGUE REFERENCE IN THE MESSAGE TO ARIZONA CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION REGARDING
CURRICULUM IS UNVERIFIABLE.

My friend is doublechecking, but it looks like the student's complaint was
not upheld by the court.  If I get any additional information, I'll pass it
along.

Jim McWilliams