Dear Superintendent Perry,

Recently, it became public knowledge that the Salem Keizer School District had made the decision to purchase the book Stamped (For Kids) in bulk quantities, to send to elementary schools throughout the district. This book generalizes, glosses over inconvenient facts, and is blatantly factually and historically incorrect. Its inclusion in an elementary school library as a nonfiction title is absolutely inappropriate given the lack of any listed sources to in any way substantiate any claim; an egregious writing faux pas on its own. Without sources, there is no separation between fact and opinion and there is no accountability between the two. This accountability is the very basis of nonfiction writing, and without it, the line between real and imagined is dangerously blurred. In a book filled with factual inaccuracies and biased assumptions portrayed as fact, this distinction becomes of paramount importance.

For this reason and to this end, as stakeholders in the SKSD, we would like to lodge and official and formal complaint against the inclusion of this title in Salem Keizer Public School elementary libraries, for the following reasons:

• Beginning in chapter 1, slavery is represented as being especially and uniquely European. This completely ignores and conveniently excludes the reality of the slave trade all around the world, including the Arabian slave trade in Africa that happened concurrently with the European slave trade. It also omits the narrative-shattering reality that slavery has been in every single society since the beginning of recorded history. Instead of choosing a historically accurate account of where and when slavery existed, this book chooses to frame the discussion around assigning blame to European countries. Again, with no sources.

• In chapter 2, we are confronted with another deep generalization within the first few lines: “American welcomed slavery with open arms and used it to build this country.” To welcome slavery “with open arms” clearly implies that America held no meaningful opposition to slavery. This omits a similar narrative-shattering truth, which is that the morality of slavery has been deeply wrestled with since the founding of our nation. The State of Vermont, acting as an independent Republic, was in fact the very first sovereign state to abolish slavery in 1777. This was a groundbreaking moral decision, as the Trans-Atlantic slave trade was at its peak until the 1780s. The next sovereign country to follow suit was Denmark, with the ban of the import of slaves to its West Indies colonies. This law took effect from 1803. The reality that is intentionally omitted here is that while some states absolutely did build their economies on the slave trade, others states vehemently opposed the practice and actively fought to abolish it. To teach that slavery was “welcomed” in America and embraced “with open arms” is to explicitly teach the absence of critical thinking. This is further enforced by the absence of, yet again, any sources.

• In Chapter 3, we revisit the Revolutionary War and are told that “in order for White Americans to feel comfortable with continuing slavery, they had to break free of Britain once and for all.” This is a bold claim and a revisionist account of historical fact made with – yet again -- absolutely no sources. The fragile tendrils of truth here are woven into a broad application of the Somerset decision handed down in England in 1772. What appear to be intentionally omitted are the historical facts. The Somerset case decided only that a slave could not be removed from England against his will. It did not have any broader implications and Britain continued to profit from the slave trade – both at home and abroad – for another fifty years. The first move away from the practice came from the Slave Trade Act 1807, was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom prohibiting the slave trade in the British Empire. It wasn’t until 1833 that the Slavery Abolition Act prohibited the practice in British colonies. For those of us familiar with history, that’s more than fifty years after the end of the Revolutionary War. It would be completely fictitious to assert that the Revolutionary War was fought “in order for White Americans to feel comfortable with continuing slavery” without the hinderance of Britain. As we have just learned, Britain was actually quite comfortable continuing the practice for well over fifty years after the conclusion of the war.

• In chapter 4, we’re told to be skeptical of math because “math was used as a weapon against Black people.” Mathematics itself is inherently objective. When we replace fact with fiction and use it to denigrate objective truth, we begin a dangerous careen down a very slippery slope.

• In chapter 18 we’re told that “the words the government used to label the Black Panther Party were militant, radical, dangerous.” The implication here is that they were not. We’re led to believe they were built on peaceful community activism. But what is historical fact? The Black Panthers, also known as the Black Panther Party, was a political organization founded in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale. About its formation, Huey Newton himself proclaimed: “political power comes through the barrel of a gun.” Years later, Newton would be charged with murder. The Black Panthers organized armed citizen patrols of Oakland and other U.S. cities.

In 1968, Eldridge Cleaver, one of the most prominent members of the group, led several members on an ambush of the police. In the resulting shootout, a 17-year-old boy named Bobby Hutton was killed. The level of violence involving the group escalated dramatically in the months following the shooting. Cleaver was arrested for his role in the shooting, and a few months later, members of the party were engaged in another shootout with the police. In September, Newton was convicted of manslaughter and Cleaver fled to Cuba. In May 1969, a member of the group, Alex Rackley, was tortured and murdered by other Panthers as they believed he was a police informant. While Stamped (For Kids) tells us that “...the American government…expressed the need to “protect” citizens (White citizens) against the Blank Panther Party” (page 100) we can now see that it was not just white citizens that faced acts of violence perpetuated by members of this party.

While it is certainly true that the Black Panthers were a champion of social justice at the height of the momentum, it's also true that their legacy was marred by violence, corruption and terror. Reinventing history to omit the inconvenient truths does not change what is truth.

• In chapter 20, we are met with an incredibly misleading understatement. “Black Americans were angry [after the beating of Rodney King]. And in pain. So pained and angered that they took over neighborhoods in Los Angeles and expressed their frustrations.” The frustrations that are being referenced here are the Los Angeles riots of 1992. As a result of several days of rioting, more than 50 people were killed, more than 2,300 were injured, and thousands were arrested. The “frustrations” alluded to here resulted in about 1,100 buildings damaged, and total property damage of about $1 billion. The riots were one of the most devastating civil disruptions in American history.

This chapter continues to validate these “frustrations” by quoting Dr. King completely and entirely out of context. When Dr. King wrote that “a riot is the language of the unheard” let us be crystal clear about his meaning, by looking at the fully expressed words from his speech from 1967. His entire point in the relevant section was that riots are counterproductive. The section about the “language of the unheard” immediately follows this paragraph:

“…riots are socially destructive and self-defeating. I’m still convinced that nonviolence is the most potent weapon available to oppressed people in their struggle for freedom and justice. I feel that violence will only create more social problems than they will solve…. So I will continue to condemn riots, and continue to say to my brothers and sisters that this is not the way. And continue to affirm that there is another way.”

One would think that Dr. King would be wholly astonished to hear his words being manipulated in a way that completely ignores his life’s work, which was to achieve change through nonviolent resistance. His own words leave little room for any other interpretation. To suggest otherwise is either ignorance or intentional deception. Quotes taken out of context can just as easily be manipulated as omitting inconvenient historical truths. This is why sources are important; without them, there is no accountability.

In every chapter of the book Stamped (For Kids), there are erroneous and unsubstantiated claims that represent neither accurate history nor good scholarship. The book does not even attempt to disguise the overt bias tied to the narrative it’s supporting, and the most disturbing aspect of it all is that it’s marketed to children between the ages of 6-10.

For those of who have studied child development, it’s not difficult to understand why this is of such concern. Children are literal thinkers. The ability to identify bias is especially problematic for our youngest learners because it involves conflicting ideas and goals they do not yet have the developmental maturity to recognize or unpack. Understanding bias involves critical thinking skills; it involves being able to identify both a positive and a negative meaning and consider both simultaneously. Childhood development tells us that our children do not develop the ability to hold two conflicting ideas or emotions in mind until (at the earliest) eight years of age. This progress is related to developmental changes in children’s language, thinking and skills related to processing, understanding and communicating about emotion. It is related to their ability to think about the perspective of another person, and their ability to empathize.

By marketing this book to children who do not have the ability to recognize the one-sided historical approach taken, the authors are preying on that developmental reality.

Stamped (For Kids) has no place in elementary school libraries.

Let us be crystal clear that acknowledgment of that is in no way synonymous with book banning. That’s an empty comparison intended to distract from the reality of this discussion, and it holds no weight in the discussion. Censorship and discernment are not interchangeable terms. Unfortunately, your director of Library Media Services -- Roger Gage -- exercised none of the latter as he admittedly never read it before purchasing for the district at large. That is entirely unacceptable.

It’s time to exercise discernment, Superintendent Perry. Our children deserve better.

Respectfully Signed,