WILL UNWOUND #569: “Weekend Meditation – Some Final Thoughts on Banned Books Week”
October 1, 2011Banned Books Week ends today. I will miss it. Over the years, it has become an effective catalyst for creating a conversation about precisely why libraries are important.
What Banned Books Week teaches us is that libraries are important because books are important. If books were not important, people would not try to ban them. Books contain ideas, and ideas can be very powerful. Some people think these are ideas are so powerful that they can be destructive to human beings. That is why they want certain books banned.
What kinds of books can be destructive? Here are just a few examples that I can think of off the top of my head:
- Books that deny the Jewish Holocaust.
- Books that claim with “scientific evidence” that the earth is only 5,000 years old.
- Books that extol the virtues of using tobacco and other drugs.
- Books that claim that certain human races are genetically inferior to other human races.
- Books that depict and glorify the sexual objectification and exploitation of men, women, and children.
- Books that give instructions on how to produce terrorist weapons in your basement or garage.
I am sure that you can think of other types of books that contain ideas that are destructive to human beings. I am also sure that you would not want these types of books in your library. I know I do not want the books described above in my library. Does that make me a censor or a selector? It’s a fascinating debate. Basically it comes down to this: If you’re a librarian, you’re a selector; if you’re a patron, you’re a censor.
If you closely read the excellent background materials that the American Library Association provides to support Banned Books Week, you will discover that in almost every single case, a library book is challenged because an individual or a group thinks it will be harmful or destructive to human beings, and in most cases the concern is specifically with the effects the book will have on a young person.
In the majority of instances, the local library board or governing body successfully resists the challenge. In a small minority of cases, the challenge is upheld and the book in question is removed from the shelf, is subjected to age restrictions, or is removed from a mandatory classroom reading list.
In many cases, cases which never get reported to the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom, a librarian never selects a controversial book or surreptitiously removes it from the shelf to avoid a nasty challenge battle.
This is where a librarian goes from being a selector to a censor. The irony, of course, is the librarian becomes a secret censor to avoid the stigma of being identified as a public censor.
That is why we need a new mindset in the profession. We should welcome book challenges, not condemn them. It is within the give and take of an open and honest debate that we can be open and true to our ideals.
Look at it this way: without book challenges there would be no Banned Books week, and that would be a shame because the amount of interest that Banned Books week produces (which grows from year to year) is a positive sign that libraries are important; books are important; and ideas are important.
Some fundamental questions from a non-librarian: What’s wrong with a community library tailoring its inventory to community values? What’s wrong with a little community censorship and book banning? Is censorship based on community values always bad? Whose intellectual freedom is being served when community values are offended?
Bill-
Those are interesting questions. I don’t have any answers, however, having read a large amount of library history and its relationship to cultural and social change, there have been times in which community values and deciding to “ban” materials form a library furthered racist agendas, classist ideas, misogyny, and xenophobia because they were community values. If you’ve never read about Ruth Brown, it’s a book worth reading about a librarian who wanted to cater all readers and community, reached resulted in her being terminated.
If community values were never challenged, where does that leave us? And, I’ll ask the question I always ask, whose community values are we talking about? The majority of people in the community, the community people who have the most money, and therefore, the most influence, or the people in the community who actually “have to” use the library?
There’s no such thing as community values. A community is made up of individuals, each with their own values. There may be a great deal of overlap, but no community is completely homogenous. Ugh. And how boring if it were!
I had a priest once tell me that people who never questioned their faith, didn’t really have faith. They just had blind acquiesence. (spelling? anyone?) You aren’t born with values, you develop them. How can you develop them if you aren’t exposed to a variety of ideas, values, belief systems, etc?
There are a lot of questions librarians can ask themselves to check and see if they are being a selector or a censor:
- Am I not buying it because I personally don’t like the ideas in it?
- Am I not buying it because I’m afraid someone would object to it?
- Am I not buying it because I have limited funds and there are other needed titles?
- Am I not buying it because professional reviews questioned the accuracy?
- Am I not buying it because I wouldn’t let MY kid read it…
We have to make so many judgement calls in our purchasing decisions. I think if you’re even asking yourself the question as to whether or not you are being a censor, you’re probably not.
That being said, I haven’t purchased an Ann Coulter book in 4 years. Hate the woman. Think her books are vitriolic crap. Kept an eye on the holds lists to see if anyone at our library was looking for her books. Promised myself I would buy them if there were holds or someone asked. But no one has. Was I being a censor? I think I could easily argue either side of that one…
Great faith is not possible without great doubts – our rector uses that phrase often and I believe him.
“What’s wrong with a community library tailoring its inventory to community values?”
Nothing, and that’s exactly what we do, every time we purchase materials. The books in our libraries did not get there haphazardly. They’re there because someone spent careful thought selecting them, knowing that there was a desire and/or intellectual need for each one.
We don’t start out with every book and exclude books based on people’s aversions, we start out with nothing and include books based on people’s information needs.
Community values consist of the accumulated values of everyone in the community, which means that some books are included that meet some patrons’ needs, but may offend others.
Thanks, LibraryRose. You’ve confirmed my understanding. However, I would see not selecting, or “banning”, otherwise popular material on the basis of particular community values as legitimate tailoring Am I right about that? Unless, of course, the community upholds the value of “absolute no censoring” above all.
How about moon landing denial books? Can you be that guy?
No, any book that we have sufficient demand for in our community should be purchased, regardless of whether someone else in the community finds it objectionable.
Would you want the Bible banned from the library because someone else was opposed to it? Would you want books about the moon landing banned because of the conspiracy theorists who object to it? Or would you rather have a few books in the library that teach you about the moon landing and one that argues against the moon landing, in order to provide the patrons who hold the minority viewpoint with the book they want to read?
You might be surprised at the level of the demand for books about UFO sightings, ghosts, and other paranormal topics.
Bill, sorry if I’m anticipating the answers already written, but I felt compelled to respond based upon my 37 years of librarianship and my 60 years as a human being.
No community is so homogeneous that differing views do not exist. For those views not in the mainstream, libraries are the sacred place of maintaining access to all points of view. Even if your community is full of perfect heterosexual families, some teenager or adult will question his/her identity. Outside the public library, where are the legitimate resources for him? A young woman has symptoms of a sexually transmitted disease, or pregnancy. She may be beaten if she asks her parents. An orthodox Jewish community has a small population of people interested in Buddhism. There is no community–beyond Stepford, perhaps–without differing opinions. To shut down those opinions because they differ from those of the majority is immoral, IMHO. The public library is the place to make those differing views available.
And, as an academic librarian, if I don’t purchase books of opposing viewpoints, even if you don’t necessarily subscribe to any of them, in order to provide faculty and students with a robust collection for critical thinking of all points to an argument or debate, it is downright criminal.
I work in an academic library, so I don’t have to worry about censoring anything or having people censor anything. I’m sure other subject liaisons have had to buy books that they were nervous about purchasing. As the art and humanities purchaser, if they ask for it, I buy. If I think something is important for academics, I buy it.
These people are over 18, so no one says anything. I would imagine if they did we would say, “These people are over 18, they don’t have to read it unless it is assigned for class.” Good luck trying to get a tenured professor to change their reading list. Besides, they are big girls and boys (most of the time), so they better get use to different, “ugly” opinions.
Do I think people should be allowed to challenge books? Sure. Do I think they get to get to tell my 8 year old nephew what he can read and what should be shelved for him to read in his library? Nope. That’s what *his* parents are for, dang it.
Will, I read you as saying you would not select books promoting a creationist view for a library you worked for. Correct?
According to a recent Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form, with a further 38 percent believing that humans evolved but God directed the process. I assume the 38 percent seeing a God-directed process would agree that the process could have taken more than Bishop Ussher’s 6000 years. But I think the 40 percent who believe God directly created humans in their present form would also endorse a bible-based determination of the earth’s age.
Forty percent is a pretty huge chunk of your tax base to deny a book to. Hasn’t, after all, contemporary public library selection been reduced to “give ‘em what they want”?
So give.
If the argument is made that you are paid to exert professional judgment in the selection of materials, your public may ask why your judgment should override theirs, especially when the books are being bought (or not bought) with their money, not yours. What qualifies you to self-appoint as their intellectual superior? Is “nonselection” merely code for “not buying books liberals don’t like”?
I’m not making this argument but merely bringing it up, for you certainly shall hear it.
I think you make an interesting point that librarians should actually encourage the airing of sharply contrasting viewpoints. Would you be willing to live with the results of such airings?
It is easy to set up straw men to knock down: Bomb-making manuals and self-published screeds from white supremacists (though extreme freedom of expression advocates will argue for inclusion of such things). But controversies about books are usually much more nuanced and thus decisions about them are much more difficult.
Let’s take the controversial 1994 bestseller, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray. Working under the assumption that intelligence is indeed accurately measurable, the authors presented a statistical argument correlating intelligence with personal wealth and social standing, and controversially asserted that genetics plays a large role in intelligence, and even more controversially suggested that race may play a role.
That is the point at which the debate blew up. Especially since the authors were also arguing for a shift in U.S. social policies based on what they felt their data were telling them.
The press, as it does, ran roughshod over the nuanced nature of the arguments, and so the debate sometimes devolved to accusations that the authors were racist and to calls for their book to be excluded. It seemed an echo of the fierce controversy that erupted over the views of Cal Berkeley educational psychology prof (and hereditarian) Arthur Jensen in the late 1960s.
Despite challenges to the soundness of Herrnstein and Murray’s analyses (and there were many, including a published rebuttal from eminent paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould) and the fact that many found their conclusions dislikable and morally objectionable, librarians seemed to have voted for inclusion. Today, according to WorldCat, the primary edition of this now 17-year-old work is still held by 3,678 libraries worldwide, including two academic ones here in Phoenix where I live and six public ones, including one that you, Will, know very well.
I’m not making any point about how far to carry “nonselection” on the one hand and freedom of reading on the other. I am suggesting that the process isn’t easy and that there may not be a one-size-fits-all solution. The Bell Curve gave off an odor many found disagreeable but it was no screed. Librarians opted to include it, and Professor Gould’s book as well. I think they made the right choice.
I do very much like your assertion that a public airing-out of differences over books may be healthier for us than handing out the challenge form and deeply hoping that the patron goes home and forgets about it. (Don’t you think most librarians hope that book challenges will “just go away”?)
We won’t all sing kumbaya together, though. There will always be absolutists for whom only black-or-white will do.
No one said it would be easy.
“…handing out the challenge form and deeply hoping that the patron goes home and forgets about it.” I hope there aren’t very many librarians doing that!
I hope any librarian who has a book choice questioned listens to the patron and explains not only their reason for selecting that particular book, but for selecting a broad range of titles. And I hope that every librarian would consider the question and not just dismiss it out of hand. I don’t want the patron to just go away and forget about it. I want them to come to an understanding about the situation and feel heard. Then the challenge becomes moot.
But please – have a reconsideration form and a formal process!
This afternoon, I was in a bookstore and was helped at the register by a young man wearing an “I read banned books” t-shirt. I complimented him on the shirt, and his response made me realize that he didn’t have a clue about Banned Books Week.
I think that’s the biggest problem in the whole business: most people, no matter which side of an issue they are on, are not very well informed about it, nor have they necessarily heard more than one side of it. (Joe’s comments are directly relevant to this.) What they do have are values that they consider essential to their understanding of themselves, society, and creation. Whether those values are the result of deep thought and study or (as is more often the case) the result of persistent and often passionate indoctrination by family and a variety of opinion leaders, including the media, clergy, teachers, and other paid persuaders, many of whose ethics are less than admirable. When they feel those values are under attack, they are likely to lash out.
When that happens, reasoned debate is very seldom possible. Librarians are charged with trying to keep public debate open, reasoned, and civil. It’s not an easy job. It gets even harder when librarians take sides in the debate, which it is all too easy to do.
At the same time, librarians have the responsibility of being gate-keepers for the debate. We have to be sure that the leading spokespersons for the the different sides of the debate are present, especially those who can reasonably and responsibly articulate their position. But there are other voices wanting to be heard in the debate who are neither reasonable or civil. As gate-keepers, we determine that their arguments will not contribute positively to the debate, and we brush them aside.
It isn’t a job for the faint of heart.
Amazing. Librarians will talk eloquently about how they do not censor, yet the truth leaks out anyway. Amy won’t buy Ann Coulter books because she calls them “vitriolic trash.” She says she would buy them if they appeared on hold lists, but they haven’t, therefore she’s sticking to her position.
Let’s just for a moment be liberal in our interpretation of a “hold list” and include “purchase requests” in there as well. It’s difficult to place a book on hold that you don’t own, and therein lies the rub.
I don’t know how many Coulter books have been written, but she’s had seven on the New York Times bestseller list. Seven. And you’re saying NOBODY wants to read them? How then, pray tell, did those books get on the most famous bestseller list in the country? Is she going around the country buying her own books?
Coulter is certainly provocative and liberal librarians are not her target audience, but to anyone not immersed in the progressive mindest they are a hoot. They are also well-researched and are designed to make liberals squirm in their seats. To see what other people feel about her books, read a few reviews on her latest: http://www.amazon.com/Demonic-How-Liberal-Endangering-America/dp/0307353486/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317492678&sr=1-1
Now, how many people here have actually read an Ann Coulter book cover to cover? How many have read “Demonic”?
I thought so.
And you wonder why conservatives are ambivalent about library funding. Is it because they can’t even FIND anything in your library that represents their values? Do they perhaps think of the library as just another progressive mouthpiece promoting Michael Moore as a paragon of virtue?
When I read that someone won’t buy Ann Coulter books it makes me want to go out and buy all of them the same way I bought “Satanic Verses” when the Mullahs of the religion of peace put out a contract on Salman Rushdie’s life.
But I won’t have to. My library has ten of her books. At least my library doesn’t just talk the talk, it walks the walk. My faith is restored. At least someone is doing it right.
Mick makes a very good point. We own 5 books in our academic library by Coulter. For me, I would be remiss in my duties, if I didn’t. It’s not about being a librarian, censorship, or banning, it’s about supplying scholars with what they need. Coulter AND Moore both make my head hurt. I believe both of them are attention people rather than information people, but they do get my students and researching, so I’ll buy them. We both their books. How in the world are students suppose to learn to critical think and form ideas, if they don’t have a number of books with various viewpoints?
For me it is easy. However, I don’t subscribe to too much professional or political rhetoric. I subscribe to the idea that my students need information.
Thanks, Mick. I think many public libraries are doing it right: A search of WorldCat shows 1,269 institutions currently holding Coulter’s book in its various forms, print and electronic.
The WorldCat record provides notes about contents and an abstract: “Contents: The psychology of the liberal; The historical context of the liberal; The violent tendencies of the liberal; Why would anyone be a liberal? Abstract: The controversial weekly columnist presents an assessment of liberalism in relation to mob behavior, detailing how the Democratic Party relies on mobs and mob thinking in the promotion of its agenda.”
It is hard to see under what professional selection criteria any librarian would pass over Coulter’s book. Mainstream publisher? Check. Widely reviewed? Check. Appearance on bestseller lists? Check. The author a widely known columnist and political commentator? Check. Public demand? Check.
If you admit crowdsourced data into your considerations, you’ll find that Demonic has garnered 274 reader reviews on Amazon (182 giving it five stars). Moreover, four months after its release, the book still stands at No. 4 in sales in Amazon’s government category and at No. 45 in its politics category.
How could one not opt to include the book in one’s collection?
The issue seems to be Ms. Coulter’s pen, which is dipped in acid. Liberals — and Mick (and I) would say this includes most librarians — will not read Ms. Coulter because she doesn’t speak to them in measured, dulcet tones.
And there’s the rub. What is one person’s vitriolic trash is another’s sharp polemic. (For whatever reasons, conservative pundits seem much, much better at sharp polemic than liberal ones.)
The sharp political polemic derives from centuries of tradition, and pens have been dipped in acid for hundreds of years. We can no more exclude a writer like Coulter than we can exclude Swift. (Though we do exclude Swift, though not because of his acid but because he is no longer popular. Which is another issue entirely.)
The WorldCat total for holdings of Demonic suggests that the presumably numerous liberal library selectors are holding their noses and doing the right thing.
Mick, my library has (apparently) all of Ann Coulter’s books. I checked. In multiple formats from large type to ebooks. I agree with Amy that they are vile and I wouldn’t read them, but in the same way that I want accurate information for a questioning teen, I want to represent my constituents (taxpayers) even if I think they are full of c#$p. And we buy about 80% of request for purchase books, too. We even put the requestors on hold so they’ll get the book first.
Interestingly, I have a mom mad at me right now because I won’t ban her teenage son from the Internet. She doesn’t like the fact that he uses Facebook and Myspace, neither of which runs counter to our Acceptable Use policies nor are they caught by our filters. In a practical sense, we can’t promise to ban the kid, because we have self-serve reservations and even if she cancels his card (which she did) he can always borrow one from a friend. I can’t promise that every staff member will know him to keep him from getting a guest pass. She’s not happy to be told that what her teen reads at the library–in print or online–is her responsibility, not mine. So even when censoring is requested, we can’t always do it.
To clarify, I said I would buy them if they were on our library’s holds list OR if anyone asked for them. No one has. And, to clarify further, before Mick jumps on me again – when I say “ask” I don’t mean officially request that I purchase them. I mean no one has even asked me to place another library’s copy on hold for them. To me, that says my decision is just fine. I don’t feel guilty about it, and I don’t think it’s censorship. My decision meets all of my library’s selection criteria. If, somehow, one of her books got a glowing review in a professional journal, I would probably buy it. But if they’ve gotten them, I haven’t seen them. I did see a review of “Demonic” (in PW?), which basically said it was her usual conservative screed and to buy for demand. No demand, no purchase.
I do buy books that represent the conservative end of the spectrum. I just made a decision not to buy hers.
But what type of professional journals are you referring to? I read few professional journals (partly because they make my head hurt and a significant number of articles do not refer to the type of selection/collection I do), but the ones I do read are somewhat skewed when it comes to reviews or even the type of books they will review.
Weeks back, I was thinking about doing a blog where I reviewed books and posted, at the bottom, a ranking for actually construction of argument, content, who would like it, and what it could be used for in an academic setting. I decided against it because I would review books like Demonic for academic reasons, and I would hope, as my papa taught me, to dissect the argument and provide pros and cons for her writing as well as who should read it, etc. As I thought about reading books that I disagree with or large parts of the “profession” would disagree with, I dumped the idea. I don’t mind debating ideas, but defending a blog just seemed to tiring, for many of the reasons Mick cited. Trying to “walk the talk” in this profession is a struggle (especially when you are non-political).
Good for you, Amy, for standing your ground.
However, I think you are wrong.
Think about it this way: You’re engaging in a sort of prior restraint.
I think about 99 percent of patrons simply check the catalog and if they don’t find an item, they leave. Only a very few take the next step of coming to the human at a service point, and even fewer take the step of making a purchase request.
The reason you think you have no demand is because you’ve never included her books in your collection. Nobody in your community expects you to have Ann Coulter. By not buying, you’ve created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Try a little experiment: Go ahead and buy Demonic (or her next one, since Demonic has already been out for four months), and see what happens. Track the circs.
(Because most patrons check the OPAC, say “hmmm, OK, the library doesn’t have it,” and then walk out the door is why it is so important that our catalog search software be excellent. It isn’t, of course. How many millions of patrons do we “lose” this way each year? Another topic for another day.)
Amy, I think you’re letting the bile that rises when you see the name “Ann Coulter” cloud your judgment. Consider reconsidering.
My disclaimer: I’m no fan of Ms. Coulter’s. Because of her acid pen, liberals — presumably the people she wants to convert — won’t read her books. So she ends up preaching to the already converted. Her work isn’t persuasive so much as it is a rightwing bilefest. And I say this as one who self-labels as conservative. Someone who truly wants to have liberals appreciate the destructiveness of the progressive mindset and rethink their position would choose a different way to write.
Even so, we should be inclusive when it comes to her books for the reasons I cited upthread.
C’mon guys! Who doesn’t love Ann Coulter? Leggy blonde with a sharp conservative wit. She’ll hand you your lunch! …Gotta love it!
C’mon Amy! There’s gotta be some Ann lovers in your community!
1) I said I hadn’t bought any of her books in 4 years, not that I had never bought her books.
2) Patrons CAN find her books in our catalog and place holds.
3) I read Library Journal, Booklist, Publishers Weekly, NYT Book Review and a few others. Purchasing decisions are based mostly on these, plus Book Page (which we offer to our patrons, so they tend to request the titles they review). I also check blogs, keep an eye on NPR, see what’s being talked about on TV, watch who’s visiting local bookstores…I want to see what’s being recommended for libraries, what’s popular, what’s being promoted in the community.
4) I started my library career as a young adult librarian, so I am very aware of the issue of book banning, censorship and intellectual freedom. I work very hard to offer a balanced collection and pay attention to the interests of my community.
5) I don’t know about you, Joe, but at my library the patrons who are savvy enough to look up a book using the online catalog are generally savvy enough to request a title online. The rest don’t even bother looking stuff up and just ask the reference librarians. So I would be pretty surprised if there were a bunch of Ann lovers in my community who couldn’t get a copy of her book through the library.
6) I find it very interesting and educational to find myself being challenged as a censor.
Amy–
To your third point, I stated that my experience is with academic libraries, so my purchasing cannot stem from the typical professional journals because they are slanted. Also, the professors cannot rely on these because of what they use the text for varies. So the publications you list are only minimal limited to collection development because they tend to lean toward one spectrum.
To your sixth point, I never stated you were a censor, I, in particular, was talking about collection development and my role in purchasing items that are vitrolic (both Moore and Coulter) and how I see it as not relating to big “professional library association” words like banning or censorship. It is my job duty, and I hope I do it objectively as possible, therefore, I have to go outside of professional journals, personal perception, and my detest of politics, especially extreme one to insure that I have what is needed to meet accreditation as well as the need of my users. I apologize if my tone indicated that you were a censor. As I said, working in an academic library provides me with a different picture of collection development.
My apologies, Amy, about assuming you never bought any Coulter books. Was it low circulation figures for the titles of hers you bought in the past that led you to your decision to pass over her more recent titles? How did her circs compare to the circs of books by other political commentators?
We in fact don’t really know much about patron behavior when they search our OPACs other than what our gut tells us. My gut says most OPAC users won’t bother, just as most online searchers won’t bother with Google’s advanced search features, or even be aware that they exist. But, yup, I don’t know for sure, nor do you know for sure about just how savvy your patrons are. “Facts” about patron behavior, like so much in library “science,” are not based on evidence. We don’t have information about patron behavior based on solid measurement and analysis. Librarianship, to its great disadvantage, is gut-based rather than evidence-based.
You are being challenged as a censor because you are acting like a censor, to put not too fine a point on it. Like many censors, you are absolutely certain of your correctness and of your qualifications, ticked off as points in your list above, to choose for others. Given both the sales figures for Demonic and the large number of public libraries that have purchased it, can you be so sure?
Your certainty, and the possibility that you may be projecting your certainty onto your community, is why you are being challenged here. Consider reconsidering.
Why not try the little experiment I suggested upthread? If Ann Coulter’s next book gets nary a circ, I’m prepared to don a bib and dine on however much crow you want to feed me.
Being a veteran of the library workplace, I’m more than familiar with the taste.
I’m just catching up here.
I think you have a responsibility to present a balance collection for patrons and as far as books by political commentators goes I don’t care for books that are uncivil in their titles or the way they present their material; however, that doesn’t mean that my library doesn’t buy books by Ann Coulter, Al Franken and others and that as the acquisitions person at my library I don’t orders those books.
Having said that at my library we do try to also maintain a collection that presents fact based non-fiction that has reliable citable sources as its foundation so we wouldn’t add a book to the collection that presents the Holocaust as a made up story…And I think that a situation like that, what one might deem a false representation of a non-fiction subject, is quite different from adding books by political commentators who are sprouting their own opinions (although one would wish more people in the general public had learned critical thinking in school so that they didn’t take political commentators opinions for fact) – if the information in a non-fiction book is blatantly inaccurate than we wouldn’t add it to the collection but otherwise we try and add as many new books, best sellers and opposite points of view type books as funds allow….
I think that is interesting. Although I think Holocaust denial is not based in fact, as an academic librarian, if it is requested, I would need to purchase it (to give an idea, it may be requested for a rhetoric class or for other subjects such as history or political science). In that situation, it is usually not used as “fact” but as a counterargument tool or study of counterculture thinking. So I am obligated to purchase it.
Which I think goes to show that there is a difference between academic and public libraries as the public library forum is the one I am versed in…
…and, yet, it’s sad to see that more public libraries are shutting its doors (in IN and CA, for example). It’s too bad that less people continue to be on the beneficiary end of these ideas.
[...] Will Manley recently made a statement in a blog entry which conceals a question in the middle, In leading up to the passage I am quoting, he makes a list of books he would never want to see in the library, such Holocaust denial or bomb making. “I am sure that you can think of other types of books that contain ideas that are destructive to human beings. I am also sure that you would not want these types of books in your library. I know I do not want the books described above in my library. Does that make me a censor or a selector? It’s a fascinating debate. Basically it comes down to this: If you’re a librarian, you’re a selector; if you’re a patron, you’re a censor.” [...]
Our Banned Books display generated more interest and comment this year than in all other years I have been in this high school library (11). Teachers and students were surprised to see most of the books in the display and to know they’ve been banned or challenged at some point, in some place. It got them talking about books and it got them to check some out of the library – isn’t that what it’s all about?! I’m looking forward to a bigger and better display and possibly some kind of event to celebrate next year.
Wow! Great debate. In a class I had on public libraries at Dominican University, we covered censorship. First, his belief was that all librarians believe in it and practice it, but most don’t acknowledge it. His thought was that part of selection included cost, community and scope/depth/breadth of your collection. You can’t buy everything – who has the money. Yes, consider your community, but not narrowly. Do you purchase all the bestsellers? Do you purchase certain authors automatically? There are a lot of things to consider in collection and selection. But, if you don’t purchase because of your personal feelings on the matter, you are censoring. There are a lot of books, films and music albums on various topics over the years that I have selected. A good many of them present views that I don’t agree with. However, this is not my personal library. I don’t get to make that call.