The BBC noted today, July 24, that "US judge overturns Cuba book ban". The Miami-Dade Student Government Association and the ACLU said removing the book (which presents a positive view of the country as it is now) had violated students' constitutional right of access to information under the First Amendment.
"By totally banning the Cuba books and the rest of the series, the school board is in fact prohibiting even the voluntary consideration of the themes contained in the books by students at their leisure," said Judge Gold.
America and Florida are again seeing the results of those who would deny access to knowledge to those who voluntarily seek to read freely. In this case it is political rather than religious, and the complainant, Juan Amador Rodriguez, may have good reason to feel strongly about the Castro government. He does not want his primary school daughter to read anything positive about the country where he was a political prisoner. The desire to protect her is valid enough for a parent.
However, he also fled this totalitarian regime to enter into the freedoms that the American Constitution guarantees. That means his daughter does not have to read the book, Vamos A Cuba. It does not mean that his complaint nor the support of a strong member of the Miami-Dade County School System, Frank Bolaños, can keep other children from this book nor from the entire series of children's books that had been banned.
The entire, lengthy legal opinion of the United States Southern District Court, Southern District of Florida in the case of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida v. Miami Dade County School Board is available as a PDF document for download.
The Miami Herald, which has been reporting on this issue, published an article by Ani Martinez on 14 July titled "VAMOS A CUBA Book's foe sensitive to tyranny" where she describes the Cuban exile's third grader's interest in her father's homeland. Ten-year-old Yilen Amador Rodriguez couldn't wait for bedtime so she could show her dad a book about Cuba that she had brought home from school.
The third-grader had often heard her father talk about his homeland at the dinner table. But she was surprised when he began to thumb through Vamos a Cuba, which Yilen had checked out last spring from the library at Marjory Stoneman Douglas Elementary School in West Miami-Dade County.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - John P O'Connor
The possesive form is children's book not "childrens' "
2 - Howard Dratch
You got me! That is the trouble with writing in the wee hours of the morning. Back to Eats, Shoots and Leaves, an adult's book on the fun of grammar.
3 - J avsq
isnt this peachy , next they wanna ban other books , that "might offend our children"--- bs
4 - Realist Not Dreamer
Banning books is common across our country. I remember when the book "Little Black Sambo" was removed from the library shelves because the title contained the word "black".
Rather than censor a book, it seems school officials, librarians, and parents could help decide when, or if, a particular book is age-appropriate for a particular child. When a child understands the historical background against which the book is set, then, perhaps the book in question would be appropriate reading.
I would not want any child to read a book at any age that would instill fear into their lives. The times we live in are fearful enough without pushing books that are inappropriate in front of them only to create more fear and distrust.
5 - Max
Now the ACLU wants to make "good little communists" out of Florida's children? This is REALLY disgusting! While I agree it is not compatible with American values to ban books, on the other hand, it is not in our best interest to indoctrinate our children in a philosophy that is vehemently Anti-American.
6 - Clavos
Max,
You obviously haven't read the book. All it does is paint too rosy a picture of life in Cuba under Fidel, which offended the sensibilities of the more rabid Cubans here in South Florida. There is NO anti-American content whatsoever in the book.
While I agree it is not compatible with American values to ban books
It is not simply "not compatible," Max; It's unconstitutional and illegal.
7 - Beth
Mr. Rodriguez needs to write his own book about his life in Cuba. Then, when some "Friend of Fidel" complains about the 'offensive content', let's see whose rights the ACLU will uphold.
8 - African/Amer. Freedom Fighter aka ( AAFF)
Some folks in this USA, still haven't learned what freedom
is. I'm really suprised to hear from new immigrants with
the terrible experiences in their own backward countries,
trying (unwittingly) to create the same thing here.
Since you've seen and lived freedom here, please return
to your homeland and try to institute changes there, or
let the child read and make up her own mind.
Rest assured, it won't be a difficult choice.
AAFF.
9 - Nancy
I never could figure out why "little black Sambo" was yanked: the kid in the story was ingenious, brave, and enterprising. If anything, he was heroic, defeating those tigers & getting his stuff back - and bringing back pancake batter to his mom into the bargain!
10 - Clavos
Beth #7: The book wasn't simply "complained about"--it was BANNED, which is why the ACLU stepped in.
If someone were to attempt to ban an anti-Fidel book, the ACLU would take them to court as well-they're only interested in preserving the Bill of Rights, not a specific political agenda., At various times they have defended right wing extremists such as the KKK, when their rights were being violated.
11 - Les Slater
Juan Amador Rodriguez claims that, "When you are five years old in Cuba, you denounce your family and belong to the state"
That claim is nonsense, the family is strong in Cuba and family ties are defended by the Cuban government. Witness the Elian case.
Those that try to ban books have nothing credible to say about democracy.
Trying to ban books is bad enough but preventing people to find out for themselves by prohibiting travel to Cuba is worse.
If travel to Cuba were totally open some of the ignorance exhibited in the post and the responses would be absent.
12 - Sam
This case is simple and straightforward. There was no need for an 89 page opinion. This book is riddled with lies and fantasy. This book is not based on fact therefore, propaganda. This is NOT protected by the First Amendment. Judge Gold seems to think that all of the Cubans who fled their country, did so on a lark, things are ok there. As for those who long to travel to Cuba, why don't you speak to those whose property was seized by the government, speak to those whose family members were executed by Castro, speak to those who risk their lives on rafts to get to the US. Until then, please don’t be so ignorant on this subject!
13 - Les Slater
Sam #12
"As for those who long to travel to Cuba,"
If you are refering to me, I do not long to travel to Cuba, I've been there a couple times though, 1995 and 2000. I know many people that travel often.
I think I learned enough those two times that I have some context to judge what I hear from others.
"why don't you speak to those whose property was seized by the government"
Why should I? I have a pretty good idea of what the first and second land reforms were about and I know about the confiscations of industry and the circumstances.
Typically, in countries that had U.S. beholden dictators, foreign corporations were enormously undervalued for tax purposes and much their repatriated profits were hidden.
Cuba offered to compensate at tax-reported values or tax them retroactively on the values that these previous owners claimed were their true value. They declined either option since they believed they would have them back shortly anyway.
Confiscations have happened all over the world, including in the U.S.
The U.S. does not normally find jurisdiction applicable to those who were not U.S. citizens at time of confiscation. Cuba is the exception. It's purely political.
"speak to those whose family members were executed by Castro"
By Castro? That not only shows your ignorance of fact but also of dynamics of revolution. These people were criminals in every sense of the word. They were notorious for their killings of the population. Don't forget whenever the U.S. operates, murder is par for the course. These murderers were tried.
"speak to those who risk their lives on rafts to get to the US"
I have. That is also the reason that I made my first trip to Cuba.
It turns out that these were not the poorest of the Cuban population. Neither were they starving like what was dutifully reported in the press.
It was the TV coverage that arose my suspicians about the starvation. The talking heads were talking about starvation while the video footage was showing people with good muscle tone getting off the rafts.
1994 and 1995 were the worst years in Cuba after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It was the better off of the population that suffered the most but nobody was starving.
Also, the U.S. has historically refused to give visas to those disiring and applying. While refusing visas there is the very visable 1966 Cuban adjustment act that encourages illegal attempts to get to the U.S. if they make it U.S. shore, wet foot, dry foot policy.
"This case is simple"
Your arguments are simple, as well as ignorant.
14 - Beth
I find it amusing that folks who have been to Cuba a whole TWO times, and those who have read about it, know more than the man who grew up there. If you denounce your family at five, he must have had to do so. As for Elian--he now calls Fidel "Father" and is a spokesman at elementary schools for the communist regime under Castro, as seen on a news program recently.
15 - Les Slater
Beth #14
Amusing? How many times have you been to Cuba?
I don't say I know more than a man who grew up there. There are many who grew up there. They have different stories. There is not only a history of lying, encouraged by a certain political climate in and around Dade County, but intimidation, including murder, of those who would speak otherwise. It is less effective these days, but nontheless real.
Your #7 betrays your lack of a grasp of reality. Your #14 furthers it.
I read quite a bit. I talk to those who came here from Cuba. I've been there twice. I talk to serious people who visit. I have debated one serious leader from the right wing. He was nothing but full of shit.
16 - Beth
Well Les, so much for no personal attacks policy. I have a 'grasp of reality', just not YOURS. Since your debate with a 'serious Right wing leader' resulted in you deciding he was full of ---t, then I guess we know who's Left.
17 - Michael J. West
Beth,
As for Elian--he now calls Fidel "Father" and is a spokesman at elementary schools for the communist regime under Castro, as seen on a news program recently.
...So?
18 - Les Slater
Beth #16
"I have a 'grasp of reality', just not YOURS."
Or that of Clavos either. His is #10 exposed you on that one.
Well, do you support book banning or not? Your #7 expressed irrtation that the ACLU defended the right of children to read that book.
19 - Michael J. West
Sam #12:
This book is not based on fact therefore, propaganda. This is NOT protected by the First Amendment.
Where exactly did you get the idea that propaganda is NOT protected by the First Amendment? Of course it is! In fact, there's a damn good argument to be made that this kind of propaganda is EXACTLY what the First Amendment was designed to protect!
20 - Les Slater
Beth #14 on 'Father'
Calling Fidel 'Father' is not a denounciation of Juan Miguel Gonzalez.
Is referring to George Washington as the 'father' of this country a denounciation of your biological father?
How about catholics addressing a priest as 'father'?
Such nonsence as your accusation about Elian further exposes your distortions of reality.
21 - Dave Nalle
When the schoolboard removes a book from their curriculum and classrooms it's not exactly 'banning' that book. The Supreme Court is right that the book should not be banned - as in made illegal - but I think they're offbase interfering in what a school board chooses to make available in the schools. If someone wanted to put child pornography in the school would that be okay too? How about a book promoting the violent overthrow of the US government? How about propaganda for the KKK?
The First Amendment protects the right to publish this stuff. It should NOT guarantee the right to distribution in any particular outlet, including schools.
Dave
22 - Beth
No, I do not support book banning, and Mr. Rodriguez should discuss the book with his child and tell his side of the story so she can make up her own mind. However, I don't believe he should be attacked for not wanting a society he was a part of portrayed as a rosy lifestyle if it wasn't. Afterall, I'm sure there are those who lived during the Nazi regime that thought--and still do think--the Holocaust was blown out of proportion, but do you want your small, impressionable, children to read a book with a positive, cheery spin on what was done to the Jews? Anyway, I have to go--signing off, enjoyed the discussions.
23 - Clavos
Dave,
The Supreme Court is right that the book should be banned - as in made illegal -
I trust there's a typo in there???
24 - Dave Nalle
Sorry, Clavos. A bit bleary when I typed that. Indeed, the book should NOT be banned. But as I said, it also shouldn't be in the school.
Dave
25 - Clavos
Understood, Dave. But this particular book offends only a segment of the local population (albeit a large one), and they take offense for purely political reasons--I'm really not comfortable with them being catered to at the expense of the rest of the population, who have not objected to it.