William J. Brennan

“ But that sweeping claim overlooks the unique role of the school library. It appears from the record that use of the Island Trees school libraries is completely voluntary on the part of students. Their selection of books from these libraries is entirely a matter of free choice; the libraries afford them an opportunity at self-education and individual enrichment that is wholly optional. Petitioners might well defend their claim of absolute discretion in matters of curriculum by reliance upon their duty to inculcate community values. ”

“ Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) , observed that "‘students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.'" [21] The school library is the principal locus [p869] of such freedom. As one District Court has well put it, in the school library,
a student can literally explore the unknown, and discover areas of interest and thought not covered by the prescribed curriculum. . . . Th [e] student learns that a library is a place to test or expand upon ideas presented to him, in or out of the classroom. ”

“ That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional [p865] freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes. ”

“ The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers, and no buyers. ”

“ In sum, just as access to ideas makes it possible for citizens generally to exercise their rights of free speech and press in a meaningful manner, such access prepares students for active and effective participation in the pluralistic, often contentious society in which they will soon be adult members. ”

“ Respondents also claimed that petitioners objected to the books in part because excerpts from them were "anti-American." Id. at 140. The accuracy of these claims was partially conceded by petitioners, [23] and petitioners' own affidavits lent further support to respondents' claims. [24] In addition, the [p873] record developed in the District Court shows that, when petitioners offered their first public explanation for the removal of the books, they relied in part on the assertion that the removed books were "anti-American," and "offensive to . . . Americans in general." ”

“ On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. And again, respondents concede that, if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the "educational suitability" of the books in question, then their removal would be "perfectly permissible." Id. ”