Your Banned Books Week Snippet
Sep. 30th, 2009 11:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
silveradeptYour Banned Books Week Snippet for today - starting with Pretty graphics on how many and why people challenge books over the last 18 years.
And then, two opinions that fairly well sum up the idea of banned books week, via Neil Himself, who blogged the two together and then tweeted about it. First, the columnist declaring that parental challenges are merely lawful redress of grievances, not sinister attempts to ban or censor books, and that librarians are the real censors - taking censorship and banning to mean "making it very hard for someone to obtain a copy of the book or prohibiting its manufacture, sale or distribution" - which is true. The article writer then makes it out that most parental challenges are "I don't want my child to be required to read this book for class, I find it inappapropriate". That should be reason to have a civilized discussion about possible alternatives and have the teacher explain why they feel it's needed. In other words, it requires them to get involved. What more likely happens is "I don't want my child to be required to read this book, I think it's inappropriate, and I don't think anyone else's child should, either", overstepping the bounds of parenting into a wider wish to move or remove the book from curriculum or library shelves. That's not okay.
After mentioning the high failure rate of such challenges ("Why so worked up over something that doesn't work all that often?" - Perhaps because it would succeed more if we didn't get so worked up?), the article writer then turns their eye to the ALA and library selection policies, where librarians get to decide, secretly, what is and isn't part of the collection, which means the government is deciding what you can and can't read, and then shouting down anyone who voices an objection, so in truth, it's librarians who are the censors, not the poor parents, because they want to decide it all and they don't want to hear criticism of their decisions.
Stupid, stupid rat creature. Have you ever actually gone through the process for requests for reconsideration? Have you seen the public documents that are the selection criteria for your local library? Do you understand how seriously we take these things, and that schools do, too? Has it not occurred to you that with unlimited resources and space, we probably would buy everything we could and make it available? I also suggest doing some research into the history of the profession - we used to be the gateways and censors. We got better. (Okay, that's arrogant and dismissive and probably playing into his argument, but we honestly suggest that if you believe librarians are pure censor, ask them about selection and reconsideration processes and how open they are.)
On the other side of the matter, using the West Bend fiasco as a good reason why Banned Books Week is still needed, as well as reinforcing the above-mentioned idea that parenting your child is okay, but trying to restrict the options of other people's children isn't. West Bend is probably not the best example, as it is a clearly lunatic fringe attempting to do things that most sane parental objections wouldn't, but it does make for colorful and inflammatory discussion. And, note, that for several years running, the most challenged book has been a children's book about the true story of two male penguins adopting and raising a chick from an egg.
Frankly, though, we should still keep the Banned Books Week thing going. This is why: Even though it's unproven, the allegation that J.K. Rowling was denied a Presidential Medal of Freedom because the previous administration felt she "promoted witchcraft" should be sufficient proof that we should be vigilant against attempts by the government, or even by well-meaning parents, to restrict what we read, see, and reward.
And then, two opinions that fairly well sum up the idea of banned books week, via Neil Himself, who blogged the two together and then tweeted about it. First, the columnist declaring that parental challenges are merely lawful redress of grievances, not sinister attempts to ban or censor books, and that librarians are the real censors - taking censorship and banning to mean "making it very hard for someone to obtain a copy of the book or prohibiting its manufacture, sale or distribution" - which is true. The article writer then makes it out that most parental challenges are "I don't want my child to be required to read this book for class, I find it inappapropriate". That should be reason to have a civilized discussion about possible alternatives and have the teacher explain why they feel it's needed. In other words, it requires them to get involved. What more likely happens is "I don't want my child to be required to read this book, I think it's inappropriate, and I don't think anyone else's child should, either", overstepping the bounds of parenting into a wider wish to move or remove the book from curriculum or library shelves. That's not okay.
After mentioning the high failure rate of such challenges ("Why so worked up over something that doesn't work all that often?" - Perhaps because it would succeed more if we didn't get so worked up?), the article writer then turns their eye to the ALA and library selection policies, where librarians get to decide, secretly, what is and isn't part of the collection, which means the government is deciding what you can and can't read, and then shouting down anyone who voices an objection, so in truth, it's librarians who are the censors, not the poor parents, because they want to decide it all and they don't want to hear criticism of their decisions.
Stupid, stupid rat creature. Have you ever actually gone through the process for requests for reconsideration? Have you seen the public documents that are the selection criteria for your local library? Do you understand how seriously we take these things, and that schools do, too? Has it not occurred to you that with unlimited resources and space, we probably would buy everything we could and make it available? I also suggest doing some research into the history of the profession - we used to be the gateways and censors. We got better. (Okay, that's arrogant and dismissive and probably playing into his argument, but we honestly suggest that if you believe librarians are pure censor, ask them about selection and reconsideration processes and how open they are.)
On the other side of the matter, using the West Bend fiasco as a good reason why Banned Books Week is still needed, as well as reinforcing the above-mentioned idea that parenting your child is okay, but trying to restrict the options of other people's children isn't. West Bend is probably not the best example, as it is a clearly lunatic fringe attempting to do things that most sane parental objections wouldn't, but it does make for colorful and inflammatory discussion. And, note, that for several years running, the most challenged book has been a children's book about the true story of two male penguins adopting and raising a chick from an egg.
Frankly, though, we should still keep the Banned Books Week thing going. This is why: Even though it's unproven, the allegation that J.K. Rowling was denied a Presidential Medal of Freedom because the previous administration felt she "promoted witchcraft" should be sufficient proof that we should be vigilant against attempts by the government, or even by well-meaning parents, to restrict what we read, see, and reward.
