December 17, 2015

Mr. Jacob Oliva, Superintendent

Flagler County Public Schools
1769 East Moody Blvd. Bldg. #2
Bunnell, FL 32110
olivaj@flaglerschools.com
Mr. Dustin Sims, Principal
Flagler Palm Coast High School
5500 E. Highway 100
Palm Coast, FL 32164
simsd@flaglerschools.com
Dear Mr. Oliva and Mr. Sims,
I am writing on behalf of the Arts Advocacy Program at the National Coalition Against
Censorship (NCAC), an alliance of 55 national non-profit organizations united in
defense of free expression, to urge you to reconsider your recent decision to prohibit
the display of a student artwork in a school hallway exhibition space.
It is our understanding that the work, a watercolor by a Flagler Palm Coast (FPC)
senior, depicts a stylized female torso visible from just below the breasts to just above
the knees. In the words of a local news source, the genitalia of the figure are not
covered with so much as made of a many-petaled, scarlet-pink flower in bucolic
bloom. The piece, entitled Rebirth and Enlightenment, was created for an art class
taught by Mr. Edson Beckett, who regularly invites students to submit their work for
temporary display. When the student submitted this piece, Mr. Beckett brought it to
Mr. Sims attention out of concern that it might be found objectionable. Subsequently,
the administration decided not to permit the display on the grounds that it would be
inappropriate to place the painting in view of children.
The suppression of a student work based on vague and subjective criteria of
appropriateness is both educationally unsound and legally suspect. The beauty of the
human body has inspired painters, photographers, sculptors, and choreographers for
many centuries. A blanket ban on nudity in art would bar students from seeing the
work of Praxiteles, Michelangelo, Titian, Rubens, Rembrandt, Renoir, Manet, Picasso,
and so many other classical and modern artists. It would also send the message that the
human body is an object of shame reserved solely for private titillation.
Not only have nudes been a central subject of art from ancient times, but figure drawing is a
staple of art education. Trying to teach art while excluding the human body is hardly possible

Not only have nudes been a central subject of art from ancient times, but figure drawing is a
staple of art education. Trying to teach art while excluding the human body is hardly possible
and displaying student art, having it seen and critiqued by others, is part of the educational
process. Treating the work of a young artist as somehow shameful and refusing to display it puts
a chill on his expression and impermissibly discriminates against subject-matter.
The suppression of the work is also likely to be found in violation of constitutional principles. It
is well recognized that students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or
expression at the school-house gate. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.
(1969). While school officials may limit student expression when it could lead to a substantial
disruption of the educational process, I suspect you would agree that there is nothing in Rebirth
and Enlightenment that would cause a disruption of the educational process at FPC. Furthermore,
public school officials are constitutionally barred from prohibiting the expression of ideas simply
because they dislike them. Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26
v. Pico (1982).
Although the Flagler County Public School Board Policy Manual does not address the exhibition
of student art in public gallery spaces as such, Chapter 9 prohibits the display of speech or
expression which is obscene to minors (in Sections 904 and 905). As defined by Florida statute,
obscene materials depict sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value. As the Supreme Court has ruled in multiple cases, mere
nudity is not obscene and enjoys full constitutional protection. Invalidating a Jacksonville
ordinance that banned drive-in movie screenings containing nudity in part because they could be
seen by children, the Court stated: It is clearthat, under any test of obscenity as to minors not
all nudity would be proscribed. Rather, to be obscene, such expression must be, in some
significant way, erotic. Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 403 U. S. 20 (1971). Erznoznik v.
City of Jacksonville (1975).
We urge you to reconsider your decision and find a possibility to display the work in the coming
weeks. We also strongly recommend the development of a district policy on the use of school
gallery space that welcomes community input while fully protecting student rights of expression.
As a school administrators you must be fully aware of how important it is not only to support the
creativity of young artists, but also to set an example of respect for free speech principles. We
would be happy to assist you in crafting such a policy.
Sincerely,

Svetlana Mintcheva
Director of Programs