In 1984, parents of a Minneapolis, Minnesota, ninth grader came before the school district's "Students' Right to Learn Committee" to object to what they described as a bowdlerized version of "Romeo and Juliet" in the Scott, Foresman text, and the publisher's failure to acknowledge in the text that the play was abridged. The committee concurred with the parents' conclusion. In spite of the parents' preference for having the book removed and returned to the publisher, the committee recommended specific steps the district should take, including expressing censorship concerns to the publisher, requesting statements from all publishers justifying any abridgments, and reminding teachers to inform students that "Romeo and Juliet" is abridged and to have a complete version available if a student should want it. Scott, Foresman is not the only publisher to abridge texts, although it is the only one to acknowledge it--in the teacher's manuals. Some publishers provide extensive abridgements and surprising reasons for them; others offer praise for the committee's concerns. From this experience, the committee has learned (1) a great deal about the publishing business and the powerful influence of states on textbook adoption policies; (2) that a wider range of literary selections is either being excluded from texts altogether or being more extensively "edited" than was suspected; (3) that school districts must look more critically at texts, and not rely on the information provided by publishers; (4) that the district's process for selecting texts is inadequate, due in part to the open text selection policy; (5) that publishers do respond to constructive criticism and negative publicity; and (6) that teachers must unite to express concerns if problems such as these are to be solved. (Two annotated bibliographies concerning the issues and complexities in textbook writing and textbook adopting, and specific problems in the development and selection of literature anthologies are included.) (HTH)