Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc. et al v. Camdenton R-III School District et al

Filing 52

MOTION for leave to file excess pages filed by Mark S. Sableman on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 10/14/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Reply in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 1A, # 4 Exhibit 1B, # 5 Exhibit 1C, # 6 Exhibit 2A (CD received by Clerk's Office w/ indication from filer that copy was provided to chambers), # 7 Exhibit 2B, # 8 Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit 5, # 11 Exhibit 6, # 12 Exhibit 7, # 13 Exhibit 8, # 14 Exhibit 9, # 15 Exhibit 10)(Sableman, Mark) Modified on 9/29/2011 (James, Carrie).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, Inc.,
et al.

Plaintiffs
Case No. 2:1 l-cv-04212
V.

Camdenton R-III School District, et al.

Defendants

DECLARATION OF BARBARA STRIPLING
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Qualifications

2

Purpose and Summary

4

Guiding Principles of School Libraries

5

Collection Development Criteria and Application to Internet

8

Filtering and URL Blacklist

11

Harm Caused by Use of URL Blacklist

14

Final Summary

16

Bibliography

16

1

I.

Qualifications
My name is Barbara Stripling. I am Director of Library Services for the New York City

Department of Education. I oversee an office with five professional school librarians and four
support staff. Our responsibility is to support the implementation of effective school library

programs in ous 1700 New York City schools. As Director, I have overseen the development of
a number of guiding and policy documents, including a K- 12 Information Fluency Curriculum,

Grade-by-Grade Benchmark Skills and Assessments, a Librarian's Handbook, a Library Program
Evaluation Rubric, and a Digital Citizenship Curriculum.

I

oversee an annual conference for

over 700 New York City school librarians and 80 vendors, providing professional development

on the latest innovations in library services, teaching, technology, instructional resources, 21st
century skills, and assessment.
At the state level, I was recently chair of a committee for the New York State Education

Department to develop a library program evaluation rubric that is aligned with national school
library standards. This rubric has been adopted and is currently being used throughout the state.
I have offered professional development sessions in several venues across the state on librarian

evaluation, inquiry-based teaching and learning, integration of technology, and student
assessment.
The foundation for my current supervisory position in New York City has been laid

during my 30+ years of experience as a classroom teacher, school librarian, library grant
director, and district administrator. Half of those years were spent in Fayetteville, Arkansas,

where I was school librarian at the high school for 15 years and district administrator for four. I
also directed a library grant program in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for four years. As a result of

2

my experiences, I have an understanding of school librarianship in the Midwest, South, and East
and insight into both the school librarian's and the administrator's perspective.
I have been involved in library professional issues at the national level since I served as

co-editor of the national journal of the American Association of School Librarians (AASL) from
1988-1991 and as president of AASL in 1996-97. I have been a member of the last two AASL

committees charged with writing national guidelines, the latest of which (Standards for the 2j3t

Century Learner) was published in 2007. Other activities at the national level that are relevant to
this Expert Report are my service on the Executive Board of the American Library Association
(ALA) from 2001-2005, on ALA Council (the governing body of ALA) from 1992-96 and 1998present, and on ALA's Intellectual Freedom Committee from 2006-present.
Finally, I have pursued advanced degrees to deepen my understanding of the issues of

librarianship and to ensure that I am leading the librarians in my large district toward creating
effective, 2Vt century school libraries that prepare our diverse students for personal and
academic success, both in school and beyond. I have earned two Master's degrees, an

Educational Specialist degree, and, in May of 2011, a Doctorate of Professional Studies in
Information Management from Syracuse University. I have accepted a position as Assistant

Professor of Practice at Syracuse University starting in January 2012.

3

II.

Purpose and Summary
I have been asked to provide an opinion on whether the URL Blacklist filter serves the

interests identified by the Supreme Court plurality decision in United States v. American Library
Association, Inc., 539 U.S. 194 (2003):
To fulfill their traditional missions, public libraries must have broad discretion to decide what material to
provide to their patrons. Although they seek to provide a wide array of information, their goal has never
been to provide "universal coverage." Instead, public libraries seek to provide materials "that would be of
the greatest direct benefit or interest to the community." To this end, libraries collect only those materials
deemed to have "requisite and appropriate quality." (citations omitted). Id at 204.
[B]ecause of the vast quantity of material on the Internet and the rapid pace at which it changes, libraries
cannot possibly segregate, item by item, all the Internet material that is appropriate for inclusion from all
that is not. While a library could limit its Internet collection to just those sites it found worthwhile, it could
do so only at the cost of excluding an enormous amount of valuable information that it lacks the capacity to
review. Given that tradeoff, it is entirely reasonable for public libraries to reject that approach and instead
exclude certain categories of content, without making individualizedjudgments that everything they do
make available has requisite and appropriate quality. Id at 208.

In my opinion, URL Blacklist serves neither interest outlined in the ALA decision.
Librarians must have discretion to decide what materials are of appropriate quality to offer their
patrons. The broad strokes of categorization of websites employed by URL Blacklist, with no

criteria for determining quality or more precise subcategories, effectively remove a librarian's
ability to apply professional collection development criteria.
No librarian would have the capacity to evaluate individually the vast quantity of

resources and information available through websites on the Internet; therefore, librarians must
depend on reliable categories, criteria, and reviews to determine the appropriateness of the
resources for their student population. In other words, for categorization to be acceptable, it

must be based on professional judgment. URL Blacklist appears to use no professional oversight
or judgment in establishing its broad categories or assigning websites to categories. The

categorization is based on subject matter alone without reference to quality or appropriateness. It

4

is applied in a manner that is discriminatory to certain perspectives. I will offer more specific

evidence about URL Blacklist in Section V below.

III.

Guiding Principles of School Libraries
As a profession, the library field is guided by the First Amendment to the U. S.

Constitution as well as principles, policies, and documents issued by the American Library
Association. A foundational statement of principles is the Library Bill of Rights, first adopted by
ALA Council in 1948. Several points in the Library Bill of Rights are pertinent to this case:

library resources should be provided for "the interest, information, and enlightenment of all
people of the community the library serves"; materials should present "all points of view" and
should not be excluded based on the background or views of the creator, nor because of the ideas
presented in the work; and libraries should "challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their
responsibility to provide information and enlightenment" and resist the "abridgment of free

expression and free access to ideas" [Library Bill ofRights, latest revision adopted by ALA
Council, 1996].
The Freedom to Read, another foundational statement of principles by the American

Library Association that guides the profession of librarianship, ties preservation of a democratic
society to the freedom of all members of the society to read and have access to a wide diversity

of materials representing all viewpoints and conflicting opinions. Librarians have a
responsibility to make available a wide spectrum of diverse materials and opposing viewpoints

without imposing their own "political, moral, or aesthetic views," without proscribing based on
viewpoint, and without prejudging or labeling material as "subversive or dangerous." Librarians
recognize that "freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and inoffensive."
[The Freedom to Read, first adopted by ALA Council in 1953, latest revision adopted in 2004].

5

The American Library Association has also adopted Interpretations to the Library Bill of

Rights that further clarify school librarians' professional responsibilities in their dual role as
librarians and as educators, the rights of youth, and the impact of technology on providing access

to information. These aspects of professional responsibility are explained below.
School librarians are leaders in promoting intellectual freedom for their students by

providing instruction, resources, and services "that create and sustain an atmosphere of free
inquiry" [Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program: An

Interpretation of the Library Bill ofRights, last adopted by ALA Council in 2008]. In practice,
school librarians create an environment of free inquiry by 1) overseeing the adoption and
implementation of district policies and procedures that ensure that students have equitable access
to resources and information; 2) developing collections, both print and electronic, that provide a

range and balance of perspectives and include all sides to controversial issues, as well as
materials to satisfy the personal and academic needs/interests of their students; 3) teaching the

critical-thinking skills of inquiry, including questioning, evaluating resources and information,
reasoning and critical judgment, and developing a line of argument with evidence in order for

their students to become independent learners; 4) providing access to technology and the Internet
and teaching students that they have a responsibility to use the digital environment ethically and
safely; and 5) resisting "efforts by individuals or groups to define what is appropriate for all

students or teachers to read, view, hear, or access via electronic means" [Access to Resources

and Services in the School Library Media Program: An Interpretation ofthe Library Bill of
Rights, last adopted by ALA Council in 2008].
Children and young adults have First Amendment rights in school libraries, including the

right to retrieve information in print, media, or digital format and to interact with and create

information [Minors and Internet Interactivity: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights,
adopted by ALA Council in 20091. The Library Bill ofRights affirms that age should not be

used as a criterion for restricting access to constitutionally protected speech: "A person's right to
use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views."
ALA Council reaffirmed the inclusion of "age" in the list of unacceptable abridgments in 1996

[Library Bill of Rights, affirmed by ALA Council 1996]. Librarians do not assume parental
responsibility in determining access to library materials for children and youth. Instead, the
ALA Interpretation of the Library Bill ofRights states that "only parents and guardians have the

right and the responsibility to determine their children's - and only their children's

- access to

library resources" [Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation ofthe Library Bill of
Rights, revision adopted by ALA Council in 2008].
The digital environment, particularly the Internet, has necessitated the writing of

additional Interpretations to the Library Bill of Rights, in order to make clear and public the
library profession's stance on access to digital information and use of digital tools. In 2009,

ALA Council passed Access to Digital Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of
the Library Bill ofRights, recognizing the responsibility of libraries to use technology to enhance

both the access to information and the creative expression of ideas. Both this Interpretation and
library professional practice dictate that libraries must not restrict users' rights to express,
receive, create, or participate in constitutionally protected speech.
Use of the URL Blacklist for filtering decisions would, in my opinion, cause harm to the

students in the district. Districts have an obligation to ensure that filters do not prevent users

from exercising their First Amendment rights to access constitutionally protected speech. In
fact, filtering that discriminates against viewpoints is a violation of international rights as set

7

down in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: "Everyone has

the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions
without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media
and regardless of frontiers."
URL Blacklist also violates the mission of an educational system to nurture the mental
and emotional development of every child in the district in a safe environment of mutual respect.

The United Nations' Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights, Article 26, defines that universal
right: "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the

strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote
understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall
further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

IV.

Collection Development Criteria and Application to Internet
One of the major responsibilities of school librarians, and the most relevant responsibility

for this case, is developing the collection of resources available through the library. School
districts should have a collection development policy approved by the Board which includes the
educational criteria used for selection of library materials as well as the procedures for dealing

with challenged materials. Selection criteria may vary slightly from district to district, but in
every case, library materials should be selected to provide a balance in viewpoints, diverse
cultural perspectives, a wide range of topics to answer the needs and interests of all of the
students and teachers, and multiple formats, reading levels, and (depending on the population of
the school) languages.
Librarians approach collection development as an inclusive, not an exclusive, process. In

other words, they do not exclude materials because they are controversial or represent a

8

viewpoint with which the librarian may disagree. The materials should "reflect a diversity of
political, economic, religious, social, minority, and sexual issues" and should result in a balanced

collection [Diversity in Collection Development: An Interpretation of the Library Bill ofRights,
revision adopted by ALA Council in 2008].
Librarians select materials based on professional standards and established review

procedures. Librarians follow the criteria explicitly stated in their Collection Development
Policy (e.g., accuracy, currency, authority, appropriateness for students and curriculum) in order
to maintain an objective, professional process in collection development. They rely on
legitimate review sources (for example, professional journals, award booklists) in order to ensure
that professional standards have been employed in evaluating the materials.
The digital environment has presented many complexities in the collection development
process. In the first place, it is not possible for librarians to preview (or for any professional

review sources to preview) the multitude of websites currently available and continually
proliferating on the Web. Librarians do not actually add websites to their "collection," because
the sites are virtual and access to them is freely available. It is important, however, to maintain
the same criteria for access to digital information as for access to information in books

- the

digital information should be accurate, up-to-date, unbiased, and authoritative. Students should

have access to diverse viewpoints and all sides to controversial issues.
Librarians have a responsibility to guide students in accessing high-quality digital
information. They have, therefore, employed several strategies that have become standard
professional practice. Most importantly, school librarians teach students the skills to evaluate
websites and the information within them. The digital environment exacerbates the need for
those skills. In the print environment, librarians evaluated the material and built a collection of

9

balanced perspectives and high-quality material. In the digital environment, however, that
responsibility has largely been turned over to the students themselves. The students themselves

must determine if a site is accurate, if the author of information on the web is legitimate and
credible, if the ideas are presented without bias (or at least the bias is explicitly stated), or if the
site has been updated and the links are maintained. Librarians teach students to be responsible

online by actively seeking alternative viewpoints, even when the first few sites they encounter all
represent one side of an issue.

Another strategy that librarians employ to ensure that students are accessing legitimate
and high-quality information on the web is to steer them toward sites maintained by reputable

organizations like public libraries, museums, and archives and agencies like the Library of
Congress or NASA. Even sites that appear to be legitimate at first glance must be evaluated,
however, because it is sometimes difficult to discern the most reputable sites. A recent example

in education will illustrate this difficulty. New national education standards have been released
within the past year called the Common Core State Standards. Librarians and teachers searching
the Internet for information about the new standards often went to the most natural URL:
http://comrnoncore.org. Only those teachers and librarians who used their evaluation skills

discovered, however, that an enterprising group of people (many of whom were educators)
bought the domain name commoncore.org and the legitimate national standards site actually can
be found under the URL: http://corestandards.org.

Because anyone can buy a domain name, anyone can publish on the Internet, and it is

easy for even those trained in evaluating websites to be fooled, librarians supplement their
teaching of information skills by connecting students with reputable third parties who offer

reviewed lists of best websites and valid links to high-quality information. World Book, Inc., for

10

example, offers many links embedded in its online articles. Librarians know that these links

have been professionally reviewed and approved by the publisher and they are regularly

maintained. Information books are increasingly being published with reviewed lists of links for
further information. Organizations like the American Association of School Librarians publish
annual lists of Best Websites.
V.

Filtering and URL Blacklist
Filtering, by its very nature, often results in blocking of sites that fall within the realm of

constitutionally protected speech. Errors of overblocking occur for several reasons, including
decisions by company employees, poorly designed software, key words used for filtering that are

not well defined, inaccuracy caused by reviewing the first page of a website only, lack of clarity
about what should be blocked, and websites that fit multiple categories.
Better filtering systems overcome some of these overbiocking challenges by establishing

clear criteria for what should be blocked, checking for accuracy of classification of websites, the
granularity of the key words used for blocking, the amount of customization allowed at the local
site, and the responsiveness of the administrator to reported inaccuracies or illegitimate blocking.

Every filtering system has errors; therefore, it is important that administrators review the site

periodically for needed revisions and corrections, that complaints and concerns are addressed in
a timely manner, and that categorization decisions are made with human professional judgment,

not simply automated programming

If the blocking of a filtering system is particularly heavy or inaccurate, school librarians
cannot fulfill their responsibilities to teach students the skills necessary for them to be masters of
the information environment and critical thinkers who evaluate diverse ideas, form their own
opinions, and use credible evidence to support their viewpoint. Students must learn to seek,

11

recognize, and evaluate alternative viewpoints

- they have a responsibility both to themselves

and to society at large to be participating and thoughtful digital citizens. Preventing them from
seeing all sides to a controversial issue stunts their ability to think and navigate the complex
information world.
URL Blacklist, as a website that categorizes websites for the specific purpose of feeding

into a filtering system, has serious flaws that lead to particularly onerous blocking.

Viewpoint Discrimination
The categorization of websites by URL Blacklist is done in a viewpoint discriminatory

way. URL Blacklist categorizes websites about gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT)

issues as "Sexuality," even those sites providing simple information. Sexuality is a category
usually blocked by those using the URL Blacklist for filtering decision making. The site for the
GLBT Roundtable in the American Library Association is categorized as Sexuality, for example.

Even GLBT sites with a spiritual message are classified as Sexuality, not Religion.
Categorization is not applied in the same way to anti-GLBT sites. Anti-GLBT sites with

a spiritual message are categorized by URL Blacklist as "Religion," a category not usually
blocked. Any time blocking is done based on viewpoint or content, the result is that the

intellectual freedom and critical thinking of all students are jeopardized.

Crowd Sourcing
Another flaw in URL Blacklist is that its content is generated through crowd sourcing.

Anyone may submit a website for categorization and the list is built through those submissions in
an invisible process. There are no clear criteria for categorization and no explicit authority for

decisions made about the submissions.

12

What often happens with crowd sourcing is that only those who are interested or who
have a specific agenda tend to participate. In the case of URL Blacklist, only those wishing to

have sites categorized so that they will be blocked would be likely to submit a site. Crowd
sourcing influences those new to the site to follow the categorization trends that have been

established by the previous submitters or by whoever set up the site originally.
No Way to Evaluate Authority
URL Blacklist is not backed up by authority; the site identifies no source responsible for

the website. Because no contact information is given, no names can be checked for reputation or
credentials. Consequently, anyone using URL Blacklist has no way to determine the legitimacy

of the site, what individuals or organizations are behind the decision making, or who to contact
with questions or concerns.

No Reason for Categorization
URL Blacklist lists no criteria for its categorization scheme. The categories are

extremely broad and seem haphazard at best (e.g., the list includes both gambling and
gardening). The URL Blacklist site seems to have no professional judgment behind the
categorization decisions. URL Blacklist calls sites "bad" for the viewpoints expressed, not for
quality, accuracy, or viewpoint-neutral characteristics. In fact, the site lists as a positive feature
on its front page that it maintains an "add' list which ensures common 'bad' sites are always

included. No criteria for "bad" are listed.
The URL Blacklist is not a balanced filter; it discriminates in its categorization of

websites, classifying GLBT sites as Sexuality and anti-GLBT sites as Religion. This viewpointdiscriminate categorization is implicit and hard to detect without careful analysis of specific

examples, making it even more dangerous when it is adopted as the basis for filtering.

13

Sloppiness
The quality of the URL Blacklist site itself is low, either through sloppiness or a lack of

professionalism. For example, there seems to be poor or no editing (e.g., "culinary" is

misspelled as "culnary").
No Permanent Administrative "Fix"
Even if a school district recognized that many sites are miscategorized by URL Blacklist
and made a local decision to modify the miscategorizations, that local effort would be undone
almost immediately when an updated Blacklist was downloaded to the district. Not only would
the administrator need to make the same changes again, but he or she might also encounter a
quite different list. The new list has the potential of being quite different because sites change all
the time; the list is constantly being built through crowd sourcing; and there is no way to tell at a
glance how sites have been categorized.

VI.

Harm Caused by Use of URL Blacklist
Use of the URL Blacklist may subject GLBT students to harassment and bullying

because they are different from others. If students have no access to alternative viewpoints, they

will either not know that other perspectives exist or they might guess that the alternative
perspectives are shameful and must be hidden. By not providing information about GLBT
issues, a district sets up an atmosphere of disrespect for that viewpoint and for those students
who are suspected of belonging to the GLBT community. Not only will GLBT students be

harmed personally, but all students' development and tolerance will be marginalized. All
students will lack access to diverse ideas and a balanced perspective.

As a high school librarian for many years in a community that tolerated homosexuals as
long as their sexual preferences were invisible, I saw both teachers and students marginalized. A

14

fellow teacher came to thank me personally and privately for ordering materials on
homosexuality and related issues. She said that she had felt totally isolated and disrespected by
other teachers in our high school. Students who were exploring their sexuality or seeking
information on homosexuality often stole the books we purchased rather than check them out in

front of other students. As a librarian, I considered it my obligation to repurchase continually, so

that students who needed information were able to get it in a private and respectful way.
Because of the desire of the community to keep homosexuality hidden, bullying was a
serious problem in our district. Gay students, particularly young men, were subjected to verbal
harassment and, in one widely publicized case, physical beating by other students who did not
understand and felt threatened by homosexuality.
Some argue that overbiocking of GLBT sites is not a problem, because students can

simply request that specific sites be unblocked. This is not an acceptable solution. In the first
place, if the student has no access to a site, he may not know it exists and cannot, therefore,

request for it to be unblocked.
In the second place, and more importantly, GLBT students are put into an untenable

position by having to reveal personal information about themselves that they may wish to keep

private, just to have access to information that they have every right to see. They may have to fill
out a form, which creates a public document of their request. They probably have to request

from a person in authority (librarian, teacher, administrator) and would fear that person's
reaction. At the least, they will suffer embarrassment and loss of privacy. They would have no
guarantee that their request would never be known by their peers.

Having information available through the Internet is a good solution to the issues I
uncovered in trying to provide access to print GLBT materials. Students can access the

15

information privately and they have a broad range of materials from which to choose. By
filtering out the very sites that provide legitimate and valuable information about GLBT issues,
school districts violate students' right to seek diverse information and multiple points of view.
By forcing students to request unblocking of GLBT sites, school districts violate students' right

to privacy. Furthermore, their request may subject them to embarrassment or even harassment.

Final Summary
My summary opinion on the use of URL Blacklist for school district filtering is that URL
Blacklist is seriously flawed and discriminatory toward a group of people based on content

considerations and not professional judgment. The result is a restriction of students' right to
access constitutionally protected speech and their right to privacy. In addition, URL Blacklist
has the potential to create an atmosphere of harassment and bullying and cause harm to all
students in the district, especially LGBT students.

Bibliography
AASL. 2007. Standards for the 2F'-Century Learner. Chicago: American Library Association.

ALA. 1996. Library Bill ofRights.
http://www.ala.orgIalaJissuesadvocacy/intfreecom/1ibrarybj1i/jndex.cfm.
ALA. 2004. The Freedom to Read.
http://wvw.ala.oig/alalaboutalajoffices/oif/statementspols/ftrstatemenljfreedomreadstate
ment.cfm.
ALA. 2008. Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program: An
Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.
http://www.ala.org/ala!issuesadvocacy/jntfreedom/ljbrarybjll/jnterpretatjons/accessresour
ces.cfm.
ALA. 2008. Diversity in Collection Development: An Interpretation ofthe Library Bill of
Rights.
http://www.ala.org/alaJissuesadvocacy/intfreedorn/libraryb jil/interpretations/diversitycoil
ection.cfm.

16

ALA. 2008. Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of
Rights.
http://www.ala.org/ala!issuesadvocacy/intfreedornllibrarybill/interpretations/freeaccesslib
raries.cfrn.
ALA. 2009. Access to Digital Information, Services, and Networks: An Interpretation of the
Library Bill ofRights.
http://www.ala.org/ala!issuesadvocacy/intfreedomllibrarybill/interpretations/accessdjgital
.cfrn.

ALA. 2009. Minors and Internet Interactivity: An Interpretation ofthe Library Bill ofRights.
http://www.ala.orglalalissuesadvocacy/jntfreecjonijljbraiybjjj/jnterpretatjons/mjnorsintern
etinteractivity.cfrn.

United Nations. 2011. Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights.
http://www.un.org/events/hunrnnrights/2007/hrjhotos/declaratjon%2o eng.pdf
URL Blacklist. http://urlblackiist.corn.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on September j3, 2011
Barbara Stripling

17