Library Censorship

[realisticphish]

I am a library student, in my last semester. One of my final classes is Library Ethics, and I am in the middle of a surprisingly reasonable online debate with a classmate. He holds the opinion that patrons at a given library should be able to vote on what books or other materials are provided; that is to say, that they could by simple majority ban certain books or materials, or a certain topic, from the library. His reasoning is that the patrons are the ones funding the library (as they are often funded through local levies), so they should be able to select how their money is spent. He says that they can go to a different public library, or the internet, or purchase the material themselves.

I am of the opinion that the whole idea of libraries is to present as much information as possible. I don't think any idea, regardless of how hateful, offensive, or controversial, should be closed to discussion. And I think it is the job of the library to protect the rights of the minority opinions, since they are often the ones who have trouble finding materials that cater to them. And often, the patrons of libraries do not have the means to travel to a different library, or purchase materials themselves.

Everyone should understand that there IS functional censorship in library purchasing. Part of a library's responsibility is to be as useful as possible to its patrons. There's no point in buying 30 copies of Dawkins' or Hitchen's latest book if the library is in small-town Alabama, and there's no point in buying 30 copies of Ann Coulter's latest book if the library is in Berkeley. The difference is that the idea is not what is being censored; it's based entirely on demand. But the banning of topics in general is totally against library ethics, IMHO. If a library doesn't have a book on atheism, or a book on mormonism, or a book on catholicism, it is not doing its job. The idea is about proportion, not about removing an idea from the public forum.

So I'm interested in DU's opinion on this issue. The discussion has been very civil and enlightening on the class website; it's the nice thing about knowing each others real names, and our common professional goals.

[Taitertots]

1. Even worse, the books selected might be bigoted

With the only books about Atheism being religious attack books. The only books about homosexuality being bigoted attack books.

[realisticphish]

2. that is an issue

This is where I hope (sometimes futilely) that the ethical guidelines of librarianship will stop things like that. But often, its unconscious; after all, if you're conservative, it might not seem controversial to declare liberals to be traitors.

But an educated, ethical librarian SHOULD be able to reasonably purchase for the collection. Library boards, on the other hand...

[Posteritatis]

3. I fear the idea of patrons voting to remove books from shelves

That'd be stacked and manipulated and rigged all over the place, and by both sides of the political spectrum. It's bad enough that a lot of libraries (both public and school) will remove a book based on a single challenge.

They voted to spend money on the library, not to micromanage which titles they're willing to permit others to read. And the idea that most people "can just go to a different public library" is absurd, given how this sort of system would by definition remove all of the offending books from wherever the patrons were complaining.

At least it's a better debate than some of the ones I had doing my public history degree; when you start talking about museums some spectacularly elitist types show up out of nowhere...

[realisticphish]

5. I'm curious

what issues concerning museums do you encounter? Is it in terms of accessibility, or what?

[Posteritatis]

16. A few of my 'colleagues' were worried that they were too accessible

Admissions fees too low, not enough other barriers to entry, that sort of thing. One of them, self-absorbed, patronizing fucker that he was, actually framed an annoyingly lengthly argument about how that sort of thing allows "lesser classes of people" (his words!) to be able to visit museums, and that fees should be high enough to keep the unworthy from sullying them. To this day I'm not sure what he really thought the things were for, but I get the impression that he wanted them left as a sign of social stature and not just as a cultural/educational affair.

We were not in accord with one another to put it lightly.

In my own experience - which is fairly limited; I took the PH degree to get insights into my more mundane historical interests later, and have only done a little outside work in the field before/since then - interpretation is a bigger issue, and starts running into similar territory to what your classmate mentioned, where everyone shows up claiming the right to veto an exhibit or panel or artifact. I understand that to a point, but there's a lot of tension about whether exhibits "should" be this, that, or the other thing these days, and the people I've worked with tend to be all over the spectrum on that issue.

[realisticphish]

21. wow

I've never encountered a real live *adjusts monocle*-type. Everyone I know in museums and libraries would sign a pact with satan if it would get admissions up; the Ohio Historical Society is dying right now, in a large part because they never change their damn exhibits, and don't do a good job of encouraging attendance.

[Posteritatis]

29. "*adjusts monocle*-type" is my new favorite descriptor ever. (nt)

[SheilaT]

25. Those colleagues must REALLY hate

the Smithsonian, which has no admission fees at all.

[Posteritatis]

28. That one loathed it with a loathesome loath-filled loathing, yeah

But see my charitable description of him for my take on that. ;) None of the others were quite that bad, but as it was a top-tier research school in a pretty, ah, monochromatic city there was a lot of talk about cake and the let-them-eating thereof when it came to accessibility issues.

We were in a Canadian university at the time, but the Smithsonian's basically composed entirely of case studies for public history issues. Fees vary wildly by museum here; most of the ones I've been to are either free or (more often) roughly in line with the price of a movie ticket.

[realisticphish]

30. The Smithsonians are cool in concept

though I think they're garbage compared with a lot of other museums. But they're FREE. And they're all in one place (sort of). And a lot of their historical artifacts are one-of-a-kind

But the Air Force museum in Dayton blows the A&S Museum out of the water, IMHO

[SheilaT]

49. i can't imagine why you think they're garbage.

They seem to me, compared to other museums I've seen, just as good, recognizing that all museums (even those purportedly of the same type) are unique. I may be biased, as I was a docent at the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian some years back.

When I lived in DC it was often quite interesting to watch visitors from other American cities and other countries absolutely blown away by the very concept of a free museum.

[realisticphish]

51. garbage is perhaps a bit strong

poorly organized, at the very least. In every museum, there was no sense of flow to it. The Natural History Museum was probably the best of the ones I visited. It was the one that I had the most active enjoyment of. The American History Museum was meh; it had some cool stuff, but again, just felt thrown together.

Part of the problem, I think, was that the A&S Museum, which I had really, really been looking forward to, greatly disappointed me. It was the first one we went to, and it soured me for the rest. In terms of number of aircraft, I think it is somewhat comparable to Wright-Pat, but there most of the planes are spread out, on the floor, and you can get right up to each side of them. At the A&S, half the stuff was hanging from the ceiling, with little or no information about them. I just felt let down; I had figured the A&S Museum would blow Dayton out of the water. I know they're working with much, MUCH more limited space, and the lack of entry fees, but I was still disappointed.

The best way I can describe my issue with the Smithsonian Museums was the lack of flow. It was "here's this! and here's this! Look over here, there's this!" As I said, NH was ok, because it actually followed the various habitats. But everything seemed so focused on keeping people with short attention spans busy, that I think a lot of information was left out. Now that I think of it, that's probably my biggest problem. There seemed to be so much potential information, but I got a sentence or two at most per item.

[RKP5637]

4. I agree with you! "... that the whole idea of libraries is to present as much

information as possible." Short of that, we approach "Fahrenheit 451" IMO.

[realisticphish]

6. that's my thought

I loathe the "slippery slope" line, but I think that's the case here. If a library can ban a book by simple majority, why not a whole city? County? State? Country?

[RKP5637]

12. As you know, that's part of totalitarianism, restrict the information to the

state party line, a very "slippery slope" line. And in line with that are those that rewrite history to a particular liking and peddle it as truth. I'm glad you have your philosophy of open information!

[realisticphish]

15. I think

that I am actually more radical than even some other liberals. There are many people I respect who are ok with banning racist publications, or Holocaust denial. To me, that is anathema to a free society.

[RKP5637]

24. I too think all information needs to be available in a free society. IMO once one

starts restricting such publications, denials, etc. a free society starts to pale.

[nickinSTL]

7. I'd say 90% of librarians would agree with you

the VAST majority of librarians are seriously in favor of libraries being a place to access information, WITHOUT any kind of censorship, whether applied by library staff, library board or library patrons.

Your instructor is also opposing Principle 2 of the ALA (American Library Association)'s Code of Ethics:

We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.

Edited to add: Ok, 90% might be an exaggeration, but the VAST majority of librarians would agree, anyway.

[realisticphish]

11. just to clarify

not my instructor, a classmate

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. I could see influencing future buys, but not material already in place

If the library has subscriptions to journals no one reads but there are others, not currently in the stacks, that users want, then certainly user opinions should be considered. Removing existing material makes no sense.

[realisticphish]

13. yes

If you have a subscription to Taxidermy Weekly that has never been accessed, it's reasonable to cancel a subscription. And weeding takes care of books on the shelf that don't get used. If people in a town aren't interested in a particular topic, the book will eventually get weeded

[csziggy]

38. Weeding out entire subjects is not good for a library

I grew up in a small town with a public library that was very good. The librarian worked very hard to keep a balanced collection, even though for some subjects, the books seldom left the shelves. I was (and still am)a voracious reader and by the time I was fourteen, I was working my way through the entire non-fiction section. I appreciated the librarian's efforts at covering all subject areas and how it contributed to my self-education. When it came time to clear out old books, she sometimes asked me my opinions on my particular areas of interest, since she knew I was very familiar with the entire collection.

When I moved here to Tallahassee as a library science student I was appalled at the wretched collection the local library had. The library was smaller than that of my home town - in a town ten times as large. Many subjects were poorly represented or only represented by out-dated books. Then I found out that the capital city of Florida had not had a public library at all until the 1950s.

(Andrew Carnegie offered Tallahassee a public library, the same as he had my home town. Unlike my home town Tallahassee turned it down. It seems one of the requirements for accepting a library from Carnegie was that all citizens had to be allowed to use the library and the leading citizens of Tallahassee did not want to let the poor and the non-whites to be allowed to use the same library as they did. Tallahassee still has the private subscription library they had when they turned down Carnegie's offer - the entire collection fits in a very few small rooms.)

For the subjects that were not covered in the local library, I had to go to the university library or the state library and hope that they had coverage. At that time (early 70s) the public library did not even have access to inter-library loans so I could not request books from other places. For the average citizen who wanted to learn about odd subjects, they were SOL here in Tallahassee.

Even after the library improved, they were very bad about dumping entire subject categories unless they had citizen requests. I scored a lot of great booked weeded out of their collections, like when they cleared out all their needlework book other than cross stitch, every book on weaving and fiber arts, and so forth. When I asked a librarian about that, she told me that the books were "too old" to be useful, as if needlearts have changed significantly enough to eliminate every single book older than twenty years, even if they were often used for reference and learning by the community. Many of those titles have been reprinted many times, even if they were originally published a hundred years ago.

As a result of that weeding of needlework books, our local public library has abysmal coverage of that subject. Our needlework group has discussed donating a collection of good books on the subject to the library, but since we have several librarians as members, we understand the problem of making sure our donations are not discarded if someone not familiar with the subject does not understand the value of a comprehensive basic collection. We are exploring donating the use, but retaining the ownership, so if the library does not want to keep them, our group will get our books back.

While I understand that libraries cannot keep every book they purchased or have donated in their collections, I believe that they need to keep a well rounded collection. In addition, librarians need to balance newly printed books against classic and historic ones when they determine which ones to keep.

[KonaKane]

9. "So let them go eat at a cafe that does allow Blacks!"

Your friend suffers from the same lapse of moral logic.

[Posteritatis]

17. Ouch!

Accurate, though.

[rrneck]

10. Voting on available information

sounds like a good way to Balkanize entire neighborhoods. Funding a library doesn't mean you get to decide what information other people get. It means that you are making as much information available as possible. It sounds like your friend has a libertarian/authoritarian streak.

Taxes are made as a contribution to the common good. The voting booth for elected representatives is where you get to tell society what to do.

[Not Me]

14. You are absolutely right

I manage a public library, and feel that we have a responsibility to present all viewpoints regardless of the topic and the prevaling ideologies in any of the locales that we service.

It *does* pain me to see Glenn Beck or Billo's new books out there, but that's what we are here for.

[realisticphish]

18. that's why

I get pretty angry when liberals and conservatives alike go into libraries and book stores and hide materials that they disagree with, or move it around (Bible into the fiction section, etc). It may be amusing at the time, but it does nothing except make more work for staff and smacks of suppression.

I'm getting used to gritting my teeth, but damn, it's hard sometimes. I volunteer at the moment (jobs are not exactly common right now), and even shelving books, when asked questions I've had to stop myself from giving my opinion on certain things. I consider it training for my future jobs :)

[Posteritatis]

20. To be fair it's often good for "us" to have the crazy stuff available too

A archaeologist friend and I are doing a paper on popular archaeology right now, using some of the wackier people - the von Danikens, the Menzieses, etc - to study how some of the silly fringe stuff developed. The things I've checked out in the last few weeks are useful in that context, if unbelievably embarrassing at times.

[KonaKane]

19. A library made up only of books I agree with, is not a library.

It's a toy collection.

[X_Digger]

22. Just as the library of congress catalogs _all_ material, so should libraries

I was listening to a local public radio station and the author (I forget his name) mentioned, the LOC catalogs much material that is objectionable or controversial. Heck, they're archiving _all_ public tweets.

The thought being that future generations should be able to decide what is appropriate to consume, not be limited to what today's standards are, as those will obviously change over time.

By the same token, public libraries serve patrons not just today, but linearly through time. Shouldn't the same consideration be made?

[Boojatta]

23. Banning is a great way to ensure appropriate use of funds.

I can provide some anecdotal evidence from my own personal experiences. Last week, I set aside some money to buy a bag of carrots at the supermarket. It occurred to me that I could be tempted to buy all sorts of products before I got to the carrots, and then I wouldn't have enough money left to pay for the carrots. To prevent such an event, I decided to create a personal ban list of supermarket items that I wouldn't buy.

I'm still in the process of making that list! Because I have not yet spent the money that I set aside for the carrots, I'm in a position of fiscal surplus. Meanwhile, my list continues to grow, and I'm thinking of writing a book about this whole experience. However, my book would probably be banned from libraries anyway, so why bother to write it?

[SheilaT]

26. For my personal library and reading

I buy only the books I'm interested. Therefore I never buy anything by any right wing idiot. I also don't buy westerns, or romance novels, or books about fly-fishing.

But libraries need to have as much of everything as is realistic for the given library to have.

I'm curious if the classmate has indicated what books or kind of books he would vote to get rid of. I'm willing to bet he's at the very least a conservative who'd dump more liberal things. I don't know when I've heard of a genuine liberal trying to do such restrictions. Only so-called conservatives and right-wingers care so much about what other people read.

[realisticphish]

27. I get a conservative bent

but we haven't really talked about specific political issues. While of course I am enormously biased, I think that open information and understanding tends to lead towards a more egalitarian, liberal viewpoint. There are exceptions; there are many very well-read and intelligent conservatives, regardless of how we joke around here. But I think conservatives as a rule have more to fear from education than liberals do.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

35. Our library has a way to recommend books for

them to buy by interning the ISBN
Not saying it will make them do it but it is a vehicle for getting something in

[SheilaT]

50. Bingo!

I agree about the many well-read and intelligent conservatives. I can also add thoughtful as a trait for many.

But it is notable that you never seem to see liberals advocating censorship, and how often conservatives do.

[treestar]

31. I would go for letting the librarians pick

when it comes to reading for pleasure, there will of course be the demand issue, but people might want to research in the library. If by majority vote they could keep certain subjects tough to research, that would make the library not as useful to others and the idea is to be broad minded in these areas. Let people read things you don't approve of so that you might have access to read things they don't approve of. Conservatives have a hard time with that concept.

When they want the government to cater to their religion they're overlooking the fact that one day a majority might be another religion, and then they'll resent the government catering to that religion. Another weakness of conservatives is they don't get stuff like that.

[realisticphish]

32. that's why

in my arguments, I tried to frame it from a conservative perspective; what if you were in an area where 51% of people are liberal; can we ban all conservative materials now?

[Curmudgeoness]

33. There is a problem with "majority rules" in certain areas, this is one.

All perspectives should be available in a public library. It all comes down to access to materials. A majority could be as little as 51%, and that leaves a lot of people out of the decision.

With this said, you are right that the library owes it to the patrons to stock books that would be most popular in their area. For my part, if I want to buy a current book, I go to the library, ask if they have it. If they don't, I purchase it for the library with a donation instead of buying it for only myself. The library agrees to let me be the first to check it out when if gets it. Everyone is happy and the library has this book for it's shelves.

[gvstn]

34. I don't think patrons should have the right to ban a book.

Every time that I read an article where a book was pulled from some library it rather upsets me. The books pulled are usually things like "Heather has Two Mommies". Why should that book be pulled when there may be a family in that area that may want to read it? If a parent doesn't want their child to read it they can refuse to let them check it out.

Sex-Ed books for older kids should be available to them. Heck, that is what gets many of them into the library in the first place. It is the kids of prudish parents that actually need to read the books because no one is talking to them at home. Once they get the answers they need they move on to other topics.

No one ever tries to ban detective novels but the language used in them is unbelievably crude. If anyone wants to be embarrassed try picking up your average detective novel and read a page out loud to your mother. I bet you can't do it at any age.

I still believe the purpose of a library is to make knowledge available to anyone that wants to take advantage of it. Community standards shouldn't apply to knowledge. Information should be available to anyone. I guess I'm stuck taking the Library Review's word that there is something of value in an Ann Coulter book but it sure sounds like hate speech to me.

[treestar]

43. Your first paragraph is right

They just want to stop other people from reading it.

[Gormy Cuss]

36. Your classmate shouldn't be a public librarian.

Ask him how he feels about tyranny of the majority.

[realisticphish]

41. I used that phrase, in fact

and he just said "majority rules in a democracy"

I brought up representational government, and he hasn't responded

[donco6]

46. +1 n/t

[LWolf]

37. You are correct.

I didn't finish my master's in Library Science. I did finish half of one, plus a library technician's certificate, and I did work in libraries for 12 years before I finished my teaching credential and moved into the classroom.

It surprises me that a library student would suggest collection development by popular vote. That is counter to everything that I ever learned about collection development. Working in school libraries, I opened 2 new libraries and took one from 1500 volumes to 10,000 volumes. School libraries have a curricular focus. My job was to maintain breadth, but also to focus on areas of study. It was always a fine balance to walk, and I often had to defend maintaining a broad, comprehensive collection.

Given finite resources, books in high demand ARE given priority already. But BANNING books by popular vote?

That flies directly in the face of the AlA's statement on intellectual freedom:

"Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate, and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of work, and the viewpoints of both the author and the receiver of information."

Intellectual Freedom Manual, 7th edition

ALA actively advocates in defense of the rights of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely as guaranteed by the First Amendment. A publicly supported library provides free and equal access to information for all people of that community. We enjoy this basic right in our democratic society. It is a core value of the library profession.

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/index.cfm

Obviously, voting to ban a book allows the majority to deny access to the minority. Not okay.

And of course, the ALA does not support the banning of books for any reason.

A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. As such, they are a threat to freedom of speech and choice. The ALA promotes the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one's opinions even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those viewpoints to all who wish to read them

The ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom (OIF) promotes awareness of challenges to library materials and celebrates freedom of speech during Banned Books Week. This event is observed during the last week of September of each year. Banned Books Week 2010 will occur September 25 through October 2. See Banned Books Week for information and resources for getting your library or organization involved in this event!

OIF compiles lists of challenged books as reported in the media and submitted to us by librarians across the country. For more about books challenged over the last 20 years, as well as information about classic novels that have been challenged and/or banned, please see Frequently Challenged Books.

OIF also offers support for librarians facing challenges to materials in their library. Please see Challenges to Library Materials for resources and information to help you prepare for and respond to challenges.

If you would like more information about banned and challenged books not covered in the website, please feel free to contact the Office for Intellectual Freedom at [phone], ext. 4220, or [e-mail].

http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/index.cfm

Of course, it's possible that a library student may not appreciate or support the aims of the largest organization advocating for libraries and librarians since 1854. That's problematic, imho.

[realisticphish]

40. actually

he specifically said that the ALA has "taken partisan issues," especially homosexuality, which set off red flags.

I wonder if he might be a first-semester student. Because I agree; it seems to fly in the face of all the ethics I've learned here.

[LWolf]

47. While I don't want to rush to judgment,

he begins to sound familiar. I'm wondering if he understands the importance of professionalism which would require him to leave his personal issues at the door of the library.

It would be interesting to see how he progresses through his studies.

[AngryAmish]

39. When you speak of library ethics, I reach for my....

If there is a more boring, self important lot in the world than librarians I would like to find it.

[realisticphish]

42. Well, thank you

I appreciate the ad hominem towards me, which adds nothing to the discussion. Thanks!

[LWolf]

45. Way to denigrate those who are always

on the forefront supporting and defending "boring" issues like intellectual freedom.

Do you know many?

[AngryAmish]

48. Too many

Everybody likes to think they are important. It is the way our brains are made.

Most of us have the decency to resist telling everyone about it.

[The Straight Story]

44. I remember taking Mein Kampf to work and reading it on breaks

Among many other books (I was a member of the history book club). Several folks thought I was anti-Semitic or a skin head (I was bald at the time, worked in a hot factory and it help keep me cool).

When I read the Egyptian book of the dead, no one said a word. When I was reading a history of the black plague and it's impact on Europe no one said anything.

The problem was not what I was reading but the people who saw it and how they responded.

It all reminds me at times of how people on the left view folks who read the bible - they instantly think they are RW'ers who see the earth as 6,000 years old - ie, they judge people quickly instead of taking some time and trying to understand why the person might be reading something.

[JoeyT]

52. Allowing the public to vote on what books a library carries would be a good way

to make sure the kids in Alabama had access to a thousand copies of the same book and nothing else.
At that point a library is utterly worthless and may as well lock its doors for good.
I can almost guarantee the city I live in would have nothing but bibles and books supporting one specific religion. Everything else would be banned. They actually have more bibles than any other book, and none of them are ever checked out. The people that are interested in that sort of thing have one at home. By which I mean they have more copies of the KJV than they do copies of any other specific book, not that they have more bibles than everything else put together. Last time I was there they had about 60 bibles, all of which are brand new condition. The only reason they have a decent science section is because troublemakers keep donating books to the library. Those books are checked out on a fairly regular basis. And that's how you can get around the censorship made in purchasing.

[WinkyDink]

53. No library save a couple can buy every book. But it serves the future "them", not the current voters

[dembotoz]

54. downside of majority votes is motivated voters

showing up to vote on books is something i prob would not bother to do
(just being hones....)
Like primary elections--motivated voters would skew results.
a crazy wacko church could control the library in a smaller area.