Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Part I
Jonah Goldberg was not pleased with Banned Books Week: Just a Lot of Propaganda Says Jonah Goldberg, the post that I wrote for the Turley blog last Sunday. In my post, I criticized Goldberg’s op-ed titled Banned Books Week is just hype, which appeared in USA Today on September 5th. Goldberg responded to my criticism of his op-ed with a blog post titled Banned Book B.S. Cont’d at the National Review Online (NRO). He said that my effort to come “to the rescue of the Banned Book Week crowd” was “entirely underwhelming.” He added, “A big chunk of her response restates my op-ed while casting her incomprehension as if it’s a rebuttal.”
Goldberg said my insinuation that the threat of book banning is a more serious problem than we realize because of the book challenges that go unreported to ALA (American Library Association) was “incredibly lame.”
Goldberg: The ALA has been saying this for decades, even as the annual rate of reported cases has remained remarkably constant — and low! — for about a quarter century. Moreover, many of the reported cases listed by the ALA are little more than disputes over whether a book is age-appropriate. These disputes don’t end in books being pulled from shelves. They are merely “challenges” — which the BBWers lump in with “bans.” If your seven-year-old comes home with a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and you complain that it’s not age appropriate, your “challenge” gets lumped in with the total number of ominous “bans and challenges.”
I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Goldberg is aware of the types of reconsideration policies libraries have in place and the procedures that are supposed to be followed when a book is challenged. Many book “disputes” never reach the level of a formal challenge when individuals or groups making complaints about books are asked to fill out reconsideration forms. Many complaints can be dealt with easily and amicably. To my knowledge, cases which are resolved quickly don’t get “lumped in” with “bans” or reported to ALA.
Case in point: When I served as a school librarian, a mother spoke to me after school one afternoon about a book her son had borrowed from the library. She handed me the book and told me she didn’t think it was appropriate reading for her child. I listened to her concerns. I told her that she could fill out a reconsideration form if she felt the book should be removed from the library. She told me she wasn’t asking that the book be removed from the library. She said she just didn’t want her son reading it. There was no disagreement. I didn’t bully her into making that decision. That was the end of that book “dispute.” The mother left the library satisfied with my response. I never reported this incident to ALA.
Goldberg’s example of a seven-year-old coming home with a copy of Lady Chatterly’s Lover is laughable. I am sure no elementary school libraries or children’s rooms in public libraries include that book in their collections.
I should add that not all challenged books are library books. Some challenged books are those which are included on school reading lists or those which teachers have read aloud in the classroom. Complaints about books such as these would usually be dealt with by school administrators or school boards.
Goldberg is correct in saying that not all challenged books are pulled from shelves. Still, there are books removed from library shelves every year. There are also books removed from school reading lists. Does Goldberg think it’s of no importance or concern because only some of the challenged books are removed or banned?
FYI—Some information on challenged and banned books:
Taken from Book battles heat up over censorship vs. selection in school by Natalie DiBlasio, (USA Today)
Books banned by various schools in the past six months include:
1. Athletic Shorts, by Chris Crutcher
2. Big Momma Makes the World, by Phyllis Root
3. The Bonesetter’s Daughter, by Amy Tan
4. Burn, by Suzanne Phillips
5. Great Soul, by Joseph Lelyveld
6. It’s a Book, by Lane Smith
7. Lovingly Alice, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor
8. The Marbury Lens, by Andrew Smith
9. Me Talk Pretty One Day, by David Sedaris
10. Mobile Suit Gundam: Seed Astray Vol. 3, by Tomohiro Chiba
11. My Darling, My Hamburger, by Paul Zindel
12. The Patron Saint of Butterflies, by Cecilia Galante
13. The Perks of Being a Wallflower, by Stephen Chbosky
14. Pit Bulls and Tenacious Guard Dogs, by Carl Semencic
15. Push, by Sapphire
16. Shooting Star, by Fredrick McKissack Jr.
17. The Short and Incredibly Happy Life of Riley, by Colin Thompson
18. Vegan Virgin Valentine, by Carolyn Mackler
19. What My Mother Doesn’t Know, by Sonya Sones
20. “What’s Happening to My Body?”: Book for Boys, by Lynda Madaras with Area Madaras
Source: Jennifer Petersen, the American Library Association
Part II
Goldberg quoted the two paragraphs below from my Turley blog post and described them as “treacle”:
“When a library removes a book from its shelves because someone disapproves of the ideas or opinions contained in the book, that is censorship. When it is done by publicly funded schools and libraries — government agencies — it is a violation of the First Amendment.” (Molly Raphael, President of ALA)
Raphael said we should remember that when a book is removed from a library it is an act of censorship that affects an entire community—not just one individual or one family. She also said that public libraries “serve everyone, including those who are too young or too poor to buy their own books or own a computer.” She added that the reason librarians and library users celebrate BBW is as “a testament to the strength of our freedom in the United States. We celebrate the freedom to read because we all know that we are so fortunate to live in a country that protects our freedom to choose what we want to read. If you doubt this, just ask anyone from a totalitarian society. That is why we draw attention to acts of censorship that chill the freedom to read.”
That’s treacle? Maybe to Goldberg—but not to me.
Goldberg also wrote: If you want to call it “censorship” to pull a book from a library that’s unsuitable for kids or that doesn’t deserve shelf-space compared to a better book, fine call it censorship. But if that’s the case, then there’s nothing unwholesome, dangerous, or sinister about censorship whatsoever. As to whether it violates the First Amendment, that strikes me as nonsense too. Librarians have somehow convinced themselves that they are the final constitutional authority about what should or should not be in libraries, often including relatively unfettered access to online porn.
So…there’s nothing unwholesome, dangerous, or sinister about removing library books that are unsuitable or don’t deserve shelf-space compared to a better book? I’d ask, “Who is supposed to determine which books are unsuitable for children and which books don’t deserve shelf space?” And what about all the quality literature and award-winning books that are often the targets of challenges?
The following three books have been frequently challenged:
Sherman Alexie’s autobiographical YA novel The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian. It won a National Book Award for Young People’s Literature in 2007. (Note: This book was actually banned by the Richland School District in Washington this year. It was later reinstated.)
Lois Lowry’s book The Giver, a novel about a dystopian society, won a Newbery Medal in 1994.
Katherine Paterson’s book Bridge to Terabithia received a Newbery Medal in 1978. Paterson was named the National Ambassador for Young People’s Literature for 2010-2011 by the Library of Congress.
From the Library of Congress:
Katherine Paterson’s international fame rests not only on her widely acclaimed novels but also on her efforts to promote literacy in the United States and abroad. A two-time winner of the Newbery Medal (“Bridge to Terabithia” and “Jacob Have I Loved”) and the National Book Award (“The Great Gilly Hopkins” and “The Master Puppeteer”), she has received many accolades for her body of work, including the Hans Christian Andersen Medal, the Astrid Lindgren Memorial Award and the Governor’s Award for Excellence in the Arts, given by her home state of Vermont. She was also named a Living Legend by the Library of Congress.
Does Goldberg believe that these three award-winning books written by Alexie, Lowry, and Paterson deserve shelf space in a school library? Does he think they are inappropriate reading material for the youth of this country? Does he think more parents should challenge these books?
Part III
Goldberg was kind enough to answer a question that I had posed in my Turley blog post:
Oh, and to answer Magliaro’s question, my answer is Yes, I think it might be a good thing if there were more challenges to librarians’ judgment about what books kids should be reading. Newspapers have a much more obvious and direct connection to the First Amendment, but we don’t consider harsh letters to the editor — i.e. “challenges” to editorial policy — to be censorious. But when a parent questions the judgment of a librarian that’s supposed to be an ominous threat to free speech? That’s bunk.
I’m not sure why Goldberg thinks that newspapers have a more obvious connection to the First Amendment than books do. Do harsh letters to the editor actually censor editorial policy? No. Are book challenges the cause of some books being banned or removed from library bookshelves or school reading lists? Yes.
Goldberg seems to perceive an adversarial relationship between librarians and parents who are concerned about the books their children read. He wrote: “Any such engagement will fuel disagreements. Bullying parents by claiming that any disagreement with a librarian is censorious does no one any good.”
Are librarians bullies–as Goldberg seems to think? Do librarians “bully” parents by claiming that any disagreement with them is censorious? Goldberg gives the impression that there is constant friction between librarians and parents who express concerns to them about the books their children read. This is not true. In fact, the ALA supports parents’ rights in regard to their children’s use of library resources:
Librarians and library governing bodies cannot assume the role of parents or the functions of parental authority in the private relationship between parent and child. Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that only parents and guardians have the right and the responsibility to determine their children’s—and only their children’s—access to library resources. (ALA)
ALA President Molly Raphael said as much in the response she wrote to Goldberg’s op-ed column in USA Today:
Librarians have always supported a parent’s right to decide what his or her family should read. But in our democracy, other families should be able to make different choices for their own families, not dictated by a particular political or religious viewpoint.
The problem isn’t with parents who are concerned about what their children read and who want to help their children make good book choices. The problem comes when a parent disapproves of a book and decides he/she doesn’t want anyone else’s child to read it. Why should The Giver, Bridge to Terabithia, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian be removed from a library or a school reading list because one parent disapproves of them?
It appears Jonah Goldberg has little respect for librarians or children’s literature. He thinks there should be more book challenges. He thinks there’s nothing sinister or dangerous about certain kinds of book censorship. He claims librarians bully parents. He scoffs at the idea that the removal of books from libraries might violate the First Amendment. I think it’s a sad day when a published book author and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors believes that the American Library Association’s attempt to call attention to the challenging, censorship, and banning of books is just “b.s.”
Part IV
Gordon T. Belt, the Library Manager of the First Amendment Center, wrote the following in Banned Books Week: defending our freedom to read:
“I cannot live without books.” — Thomas Jefferson.
Of all Jefferson’s inspiring and thought-provoking quotes, this one is among my favorites. As the First Amendment Center’s librarian, I have a special affinity for books, and as someone academically trained as a historian, I have an appreciation for the Founding Fathers and for the important words they left behind.
Banned Books Week — Sept. 24 through Oct. 1 — is an annual recognition by librarians and book-minded people that the First Amendment should never be taken for granted. I believe the freedoms embraced by the Founding Fathers in the 45 words of the First Amendment also speak to an implied freedom to read, yet history shows us that the struggle to maintain that freedom has never been easy.
Jefferson believed that censorship only served to draw attention to books that might otherwise be ignored or forgotten. In 1814, Jefferson wrote to his Philadelphia bookseller, Nicolas G. Dufief, concerning Jefferson’s purchase of a book by Regnault de Bécourt, La Création du Monde. American authorities claimed that de Bécourt’s book contained blasphemous material, and had accused the author of selling his book to Jefferson. In coming to de Bécourt’s defense Jefferson eloquently stated, “I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offence against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate.”
Throughout our nation’s history, words that have questioned the authority of our government and religious institutions have faced public scrutiny. Even works by our most well-known Founding Fathers have been censored out of fear of rebellion and societal decay.
Part V
Some Quotes on Censorship:
“Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.” – Voltaire
“Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance.” -Lyndon Baines Johnson
“Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there.” – Clare Booth Luce
“Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody reads.” – George Bernard Shaw
“Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” – Mark Twain
Sources & Further Reading
Censorship On The Rise: U.S. Schools Have Banned More Than 20 Books This Year (Think Progress)
MO High School Bans ‘SlaughterHouse Five’ From Curriculum, Library Because Its Principles Are Contrary To The Bible (Think Progress)
Slaughterhouse Five Sent To Literary Gulag in Republic, MO (National Coalition Against Censorship)
Richland School District Bans The Absolutely True Diary of a Part Time Indian Without Actually Reading It (Seattle Weekly)
Richland School Board reverses course on book ban (Tri-City Herald)
“Banned Books Week” worth the hype (Journal Star)
Book battles heat up over censorship vs. selection in school (USA Today)
Banned Books Week: defending our freedom to read (First Amendment Law Center)
CRDL celebrates Banned Books Week (The Morning Sun)
Banned Books Week promotes, protects freedom (Galesburg Planet)
Column: Banned Books Week is just hype (USA Today)
Banned Books Week celebrates Freedom to Read (USA Today)
Banned Books Week: Just a Lot of Propaganda Says Jonah Goldberg (Turley Blawg)
Banned Book B.S. Cont’d (National Review Online)
Censorship and Banned Books: Quotes about Censorship (New Mexico State University)
Sample Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources (American Library Association)
Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (American Library Association)
Notable First Amendment Court Cases (American Library Association)
“Besides, if you’re going to object to “Brave New World,” that shouldn’t be why. Object because it waits half the book to introduce what Huxley seems to think is its real protagonist. Object because it blames Ford, not Zuckerberg, for the future’s problems.”
I laughed out loud when I read that.
I wonder if Jonah Goldberg’s publisher is a member of The Association of American Publishers.
Association of American Publishers Supports Banned Books Week
9/22/2011
http://www.publishers.org/press/47/
Excerpt:
Washington, D.C.; September 22, 2011 — Book censorship violates First Amendment rights and constrains people’s inherent curiosity about the world around them, the Association of American Publishers noted in its
support of national Banned Books Week, September 24-October 1. AAP also pointed to the internet and social media as valuable tools to provide readers, particularly parents, with rich information about content.
AAP, the trade association for the US publishing industry, is one of the 10 organizations sponsoring the popular annual event celebrating the freedom to read and the importance of the First Amendment.
Many AAP member publishing houses are also recognizing Banned Books Week with special web content and publications, social media, author essays, events and supplemental materials for librarians and teachers.
“The power of the written word has always served to unlock readers’ imaginations and encourage them to explore and understand cultures, concepts and worlds beyond their own,” said Tom Allen, President and CEO, AAP.
“There is arguably no more critical period in our recent history to embrace the freedom to read. It is essential to our democracy and inspires the ideas and creative solutions we seek to advance in a global society.”
For Banned Books week, two reasons to ban ‘Brave New World’
By Alexandra Petri
Washington Post, 9/28/2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/post/for-banned-books-week-two-reasons-to-ban-brave-new-world/2011/09/28/gIQAViSe5K_blog.html
Excerpt:
It’s Banned Books week, which prompts a group of Book Loving Organizations (including the American Library Association) to release a list of banned and challenged books.
One of the entries struck me as odd.
“Brave New World” has been challenged in Glen Burnie and Seattle for opposite reasons.
In Glen Burnie, the trouble was too much sexual content.
In Seattle, it was something else. The entry for “Brave New World” notes:
A parent had complained that the book has a “high volume of racially offensive derogatory language and misinformation on Native Americans. In addition to the inaccurate imagery, and stereotype views, the text lacks literary value which is relevant to today’s contemporary multicultural society.”
This seems wrong somehow. It’s more than just the redundancy — not just “contemporary multicultural society,” but “today’s contemporary multicultural society.”
This is the Huxley dystopian classic “Brave New World” we’re talking about. Any time you try to censor it, excited English teachers print out the article and post it on the Irony board.
It’s been a standard of the curriculum for years. Sure, it’s obnoxious in parts. Sure, the wording can sound stilted and old-fashioned, and the subjects of its indignation do not always align with what heats us under the collar nowadays. Sure, it’s out of date. “Of course they’re out of date. Standards are always out of date,” an Alan Bennett character says. “That is what makes them standards.”
Besides, if you’re going to object to “Brave New World,” that shouldn’t be why. Object because it waits half the book to introduce what Huxley seems to think is its real protagonist. Object because it blames Ford, not Zuckerberg, for the future’s problems.
If this list says anything, it’s that censorship isn’t just for unlettered fools any more. It’s for lettered fools, too. You don’t need a pitchfork. Just run the book over with your Prius.
Censors come in all stripes. For every person who says that you can’t read “Brave New World” because it’s got too much sexual freedom in it, there’s somebody else who says that it “lacks literary value which is relevant to today’s contemporary multicultural society.”
Censorship is not just for would-be Savonarolas and yokels with overalls and bonfires. Now you can hold a latte in one hand, dandle a baby panda with another, and try to remove a book from a reading list with a third hand you have acquired for just such occasions. The effect is the same — the book is gone. “This book judges,” you say. “And you know what they say — judge not. We’d better burn it so people don’t see the awful judgy things it says.”
Yet the impulse is strangely understandable. We all know that curious reverse puritanism; not the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy, but — far stronger than that — the gnawing sense that someone, somewhere, may be offended.
Elaine,
Simply put, a tour de force posting.
Brava!
Mike A.,
“Uh oh, Elaine. Now you’ve really done it. Not only have you made Jonah Goldberg irate; you have caused him to pull out a word normally reserved for only the basest of his critics.”
Guilty as charged!
😉
Uh oh, Elaine. Now you’ve really done it. Not only have you made Jonah Goldberg irate; you have caused him to pull out a word normally reserved for only the basest of his critics. I refer of course to his description of your views as “treacle.”
But to the point which Mr. Goldberg completely missed: while parents may appropriately determine what reading material is unsuitable for their own children, they may not appropriately determine what is unsuitable for mine. The selection of materials for inclusion in a library is a daunting task, particularly given the sheer number of books published each year. Librarians operate under guidelines established by boards, and board members can be replaced if their policies are disfavored by the public. What happens with schools, however, is that a few people become irate, enlist their friends and appear at the next school board meeting with torches and pitchforks. In Florida, where I live, the objectors tend to be conservative evangelicals with a specific agenda.
Finally, if one wishes to truly understand the meaning of “treacle,” try wading through “Liberal Fascism.” I could say more about that tome, but, unlike Mr. Goldberg, I don’t find that reacting to treacle is worth very much of my time.
anon,
I originally posted the following comment on Professor Turley’s post titled
“Publisher Announces Intention to Edit Huckleberry Finn To Remove N-Word” (1/4/2011)
http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/04/publisher-announces-intention-to-edit-huckleberry-finn-to-remove-n-word/
Here’s an excerpt from Katherine Paterson’s “Cultural Politics from a Writer’s Point of View.” It was originally published in The New Advocate (Spring 1994). It was later reprinted in the book “Only Connect: Readings on Children’s Literature” (Third Edition, 1996). I assigned it as required reading for my children’s literature course.
In the piece, Paterson, an award-winning children’s author, wrote about writers and censorship. She talks about Ray Bradbury and his book “Fahrenheit 451″:
Paterson:
Ray Bradbury makes this point better than I. He takes the occasion to speak out against would-be censors from the left and the right in a coda written in 1979 for a new edition of his 1950 classic “Fahrenheit 451.” In this coda, Bradbury relates all the well-intentioned suggestions which he has received over the years from critics who wish he would make his various works more acceptable for today’s readers. Anyone who has read this particular book will immediately see the irony here. “Fahrenheit 451” is the temperature required to burn a book, and Bradbury’s book is the definitive fictional treatment of censorship. It escapes being labeled propaganda through powerful characterization and a point of view that manages to offend everyone who is against censorship but thinks a little tinkering with somebody else’s books is justified if the cause is good enough. And one’s own cause always is.
Bradbury laments all the chopping and changing that earnest but misguided editors inflict on books in order to prevent them from offending anyone. And he concludes with this exhortation:
“All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It’s my game. I pitch, I hit, I run the bases. At sunset I’ve won or lost. At sunrise, I’m out again, giving it the good old try.
“And no one can help me. Not even you.”
*****
Paterson also wrote that the contents of her books are her responsibility. She said that she tries to be sensitive to the feelings of others—but claims that her first responsibility is to the story she is writing. She said she tries to come as close to the truth as she possibly can.
Authors like Twain and Paterson attempt/attempted to depict the real world–not the world as we would like it to be. Some of the greatest works of adult and children’s literature have been highly challenged books.
anon,
“Elaine, as others have pointed out, repeatedly, and given up because apparently you seem to them unable to get the point, there is a difference between government bans to pull books, and local parent driven efforts to make sure kids get age appropriate books.”
Who are all the others you speak of who have given up the discussion because I don’t get it? Aren’t school officials, school boards, or city/town officials who demand removal of a book from a school or public library working for the government? Should one parent have the power to demand a book be removed from a library or reading list because he/she disapproves of it or claims it’s not age appropriate? Should just one parent have the power to determine if a book is age appropriate?
In my school library, there were books in the collection that weren’t appropriate reading for the children in our PreK and kindergarten classes–but that were definitely appropriate for our fourth graders.
Sometimes the demand for removal of a book comes from one parent; sometimes it comes from a group. Any individual or group who wants a book removed from a library is supposed to fill out a reconsideration form. Those seeking removal of a book are supposed to examine the entire book and state their concerns about the book and reason(s) for its removal.
See a sample of a reconsideration form at the following link:
http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/banned/challengeslibrarymaterials/copingwithchallenges/samplereconsideration/index.cfm
If someone found factually incorrect information in a nonfiction book and showed it to me, I would ask them to point out the incorrect information. I would have to consider whether the book should be removed. If the book had a number of errors, I would most likely remove it. In fact, I weeded old nonfiction books from my library collection that were out of date and contained incorrect information. One old book I weeded was about space. It had been published well before the first American landed on the moon. It’s information was definitely dated.
Libraries have selection policies–as did mine. I was extremely careful when I acquired nonfiction books for my library. I did my utmost to make sure that I purchased books written by knowledgeable authors and trustworthy publishers.
*****
“When a parent, or group of parents say, or a community group says, there are too many dead old white men in the classroom, we need more classes and books on the reading list about women and people of color, why should their complaints be listened to?
“Why isn’t the removal of one book from a reading list or classroom time about one more boring dead old white guy a tragedy for the entire class and an affront to free speech?”
I should note that it’s some of the books and plays written by dead white men–including Shakespeare–that have been challenged/banned/ removed from reading lists.
School reading lists are updated and changed quite often. New literature is published every year. Times change. Should the people who develop reading lists take into consideration great new literature, the changing times, and concerns about their lists not reflecting a diversity of voices and/or the diversity in our society? Sure. Should one person or one group outside of the educational establishment have the right to determine which books are taken off the list and which new books are added? No.
BTW, I don’t believe in books being removed from libraries because some liberals think they are politically incorrect. I’m not in favor of removing the “N” word from “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” I don’t think an author’s works should be bowdlerized.
Anon,
No. You have it wrong. It’s:
1) Goldberg claims the number of “censored” books includes parents who are merely concerned with THEIR child getting the book.
“Moreover, many of the reported cases listed by the ALA are little more than disputes over whether a book is age-appropriate. These disputes don’t end in books being pulled from shelves. They are merely “challenges” — which the BBWers lump in with ‘bans.'”
2) Elaine rebuts the claim with a link to various libraries policies regarding the reporting of parental complaints, showing that in fact those sorts of disputes are NOT generally reported to the ALA. She then gives a personal example of the enforcement of those policies, one which deals with the exact type situation that Goldberg says is being reported in the official lists, and that she DIDN’T put on the list.
3) You get mad because you lack basic the reading comprehension to realize what exactly is going on.
4) I get bored and point out to you that the person your attacking is saying the exact opposite of what you’re claiming they said.
5) You get mad some more.
6) I respond one last time.
Elaine, as others have pointed out, repeatedly, and given up because apparently you seem to them unable to get the point, there is a difference between government bans to pull books, and local parent driven efforts to make sure kids get age appropriate books.
This whole conversation goes nowhere, because it seems to me, you are unable to engage in any dimension other than a elaines-right-absolutist-position.
When a librarian doesn’t buy a book, that’s not censorship.
When a librarian of his own determination places an age appropriate limitation on a book, that’s not censorship.
When a parent remarks she feels a book is not age appropriate that’s a challenge threatening free speech.
“Does Goldberg think it’s of no importance or concern because only some of the challenged books are removed or banned?””
Ask Goldberg.
My take on his position, after reading yours and your example, is that many of these challenges are indeed bogus, bupkiss, nada, nil, zero, zilch, zip, and that you demean the entire concept of challenged and banned books with your completely bogus example that you use to defend the ALA and your statement that challenged books are the tip of the iceberg threat to the First Amendment.
““The problem isn’t with parents who are concerned about what their children read and who want to help their children make good book choices. The problem comes when a parent disapproves of a book and decides he/she doesn’t want anyone else’s child to read it. Why should The Giver, Bridge to Terabithia, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian be removed from a library or a school reading list because one parent disapproves of them?””
First pressure from a parent over a local school library is not a first amendment issue, unless that parent is using the authority of the government.
Second, is the problem generated by one parent? Or is it from groups of parents?
Is the problem from any group, just groups of parents, or specific groups of parents?
If a group of psychologists came and said a book in your library was not age appropriate, or factually or scientifically correct even, would you respect that?
If a group of women psychologists came and said a book in your library was not age appropriate, or factually or scientifically correct even, or was sexist would you respect that?
If a group of women catholic psychologists came and said a book in your library was not age appropriate, or factually or scientifically correct even, would you respect that?
If a group of catholic mothers came and said a book in your library was not age appropriate, or factually or scientifically correct even, would you respect that?
While you certainly haven’t said it outright, the impression I get from you over the past few days is that challenges from groups you approve would be taken seriously, and challenges from groups you disapprove of would be taken as a threat to YOUR free speech, not the students.
Hey, let me flip it around and see if you can answer it for me instead.
Ignoring the part about removal of a book from a library, which I’m not going to try and defend
When a parent, or group of parents say, or a community group says, there are too many dead old white men in the classroom, we need more classes and books on the reading list about women and people of color, why should their complaints be listened to?
Why isn’t the removal of one book from a reading list or classroom time about one more boring dead old white guy a tragedy for the entire class and an affront to free speech?
anon,
I was quoting someone else. Those were not my words.
*****
I wrote the following in this post:
“Goldberg is correct in saying that not all challenged books are pulled from shelves. Still, there are books removed from library shelves every year. There are also books removed from school reading lists. Does Goldberg think it’s of no importance or concern because only some of the challenged books are removed or banned?”
*****
Do you have any response to that?
*****
I also wrote this:
“The problem isn’t with parents who are concerned about what their children read and who want to help their children make good book choices. The problem comes when a parent disapproves of a book and decides he/she doesn’t want anyone else’s child to read it. Why should The Giver, Bridge to Terabithia, and The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian be removed from a library or a school reading list because one parent disapproves of them?”
*****
Do you have any response to that?
You wrote that in your original post and that was the point that Goldberg was responding to that you challenged in this post.
aono,
“We do not claim comprehensiveness in recording challenges as research suggests that for each challenge reported there are as many as four or five that go unreported.”
Did I write that in this post?
I think I understood your point just fine Elaine, which began as:
We do not claim comprehensiveness in recording challenges as research suggests that for each challenge reported there are as many as four or five that go unreported.”
Sure, that’s the cockroach argument. One cockroach on the kitchen floor isn’t so bad, until you realize there are ten you can’t see hiding behind the dishwasher.
Goldberg says that’s lame argument because that’s not what’s happening with book bans. What you count as 10 hidden cockroaches in the kitchen is more like dust mites.
Riddikulus! you spell, and out of your wand shoots a tale of … dust mites that you think you somehow supports your original contention that there are hidden cockroaches in the kitchen and destroy’s Goldberg’s argument that dust mites are not cockroaches.
Banned Books Week Reminds Us That Censorship Is Alive and Well in the Internet Age
by Molly Raphael, President of ALA
Huffington Post
9/22/11
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/molly-raphael/banned-books-week-censorship_b_977058.html
Excerpt:
The week of Sept 24 – Oct 1 is Banned Books Week, a time when libraries, schools, and bookstores celebrate our First Amendment freedom to read while drawing attention to the harms that censorship does to our society and our individual freedoms.
Whether in print or digital format, books are a precious resource, providing us with information, entertainment, opinions, ideas, and a window on lives far different from our own. Free access to books and ideas is the foundation of our government and our society, enabling every person to become an educated participant in our democratic republic. Libraries are an essential part of this process, providing the only access for those who do not have the resources to purchase or access books and information on their own.
Yet, far more often than we may realize, individuals and groups have sought to restrict access to library books they believed were objectionable on religious, moral, or political grounds, thereby restricting the rights of every reader in their community. For example, this summer the Republic (Mo.) school board voted to remove Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five and Sarah Ockler’s Twenty Boy Summer from the school library as a result of a complaint that the book “teaches principles contrary to Biblical morality and truth.” More than 150 students and their families have lost access to those books; while a local and national outcry caused the school board to return the books to the library, the books are now on a locked shelf and unavailable to students absent the consent of a parent or guardian.
It’s become popular in the last few years to argue that this kind of book censorship is no big deal. Isn’t the decision to ban the books just a way of helping parents protect their children? What does it matter if a book is banned from a school or library if kids can obtain books from online retailers?
Such censorship is, in fact, a very big deal. Such censorship matters to those who no longer can exercise the right to choose what they read for themselves. It matters to those in the community that cannot afford books or a computer, and for whom the library is a lifeline to the Internet and the printed word. And it matters to all of us who care about protecting our rights and our freedoms and who believe that no one should be able to forbid others in their community from reading a book because that book doesn’t comport with their views, opinions, or morality.
Let’s remember that public libraries and public school libraries are for all the people in the community, and that every community embraces a tapestry of beliefs, lifestyles, and values, from gay to straight, from liberal to conservative, rich and poor, and everywhere in between. Libraries are for everyone, and their collections need to be as diverse as the communities that they serve. Just because views are unpopular with the majority in a community does not mean that we should block individuals’ access to those views.
And let’s not forget that publicly funded libraries are government institutions obligated to uphold the First Amendment rights of all people–including young people–to receive information.
Certainly, not every book is right for each reader, and librarians fully support parents’ rights to decide what books are best suited for their children. But no one should be able to make reading choices for other people’s children, or require that the reading materials available to a community be limited to that which comports with their personal beliefs.
Sherman Alexie speaks and reads from his book “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian.”
anon,
I wrote the following in my post:
Goldberg: The ALA has been saying this for decades, even as the annual rate of reported cases has remained remarkably constant — and low! — for about a quarter century. Moreover, many of the reported cases listed by the ALA are little more than disputes over whether a book is age-appropriate. These disputes don’t end in books being pulled from shelves. They are merely “challenges” — which the BBWers lump in with “bans.” If your seven-year-old comes home with a copy of Lady Chatterley’s Lover and you complain that it’s not age appropriate, your “challenge” gets lumped in with the total number of ominous “bans and challenges.”
I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Goldberg is aware of the types of reconsideration policies libraries have in place and the procedures that are supposed to be followed when a book is challenged. Many book “disputes” never reach the level of a formal challenge when individuals or groups making complaints about books are asked to fill out reconsideration forms. Many complaints can be dealt with easily and amicably. To my knowledge, cases which are resolved quickly don’t get “lumped in” with “bans” or reported to ALA.
**********
I provided that example from my own experience to show that not all parent complaints/expressions of concern about books get lumped in with the total number of bans and challenges reported to ALA as Goldberg claimed.
I’m sorry you misunderstood the point that I was trying to make.
Well done Elaine!
IMHO the illustration you chose to highlight this post might make a great gravatar!
Poor Jonah got his panties in a twist, and unfortunately not in a good way.
This might cheer us:
Gyges, let’s see if you can follow this:
1. Elaine says that the threat of book banning is a more serious problem than we realize because of the book challenges that go unreported to the ALA.
2. Goldberg says this is a lame argument
3. Elaine says it’s a real argument and gives as an example of a book challenge, a mother that comes in to say this book was inappropriate, but she says she’s not asking for it to be withdrawn.
4. It’s pretty clear that to normal non panty twisted humanoids that what Elaine and the parent went through is about a negative 20,000 on a scale of 0 – 10 on book challenges. She didn’t feel out a form, she said she didn’t want the book withdrawn, it is not a book challenge.
5. Nevertheless, Elaine, twisting your panties, says aha! here is a book challenge that I didn’t report to the ALA, this is evidence that Goldberg is wrong to say that unreported book challenges are not a threat.
And I say, again, calling that conversation a book challenge, tallying that up as Elaine wants to do in rebuttal to Goldberg as a book challenge and a book ban, is a huge disservice to common sense and the truth.
Mike,
Yikes! I hope you are wrong! 🙂