Is restricting access to books the same as banning?

[Morgainelf]

This article (http://news.bookweb.org/670.html) discusses a recent ruling at a school in Arkansas where a parent's complaint about Harry Potter has spurred the school to restrict access to the series. They have placed the books behind the desk, and children must have their parent's permission to check them out.

Another parent is now suing the school, arguing that this is the same as banning the books. By requiring permission to check them out, there is a stigma associated with the series and with any child who is seen reading the books.

Though I've read the Harry Potter books and see nothing wrong with children reading them, I think there may be reason to limit childrens' access to some books. I remember needing my Mom's permission to check books out of the "grown-up" section of the library when I was 8 or 9. And for good reason - there certainly are books that I would not want my child to read until she was old enough to handle the material, and I would be furious if she were allowed to check them out without my knowledge. (Granted, my daughter is only 18 months old, but it won't be that long before I'll be faced with this situation.)

I also remember a rule in middle school (grades 6 - 8) that anyone seen reading Judy Blume's Wifey or Forever would have the book taken away and be given detention.

Though I think the Christian Right's furor over Harry Potter is unwarranted, I can't help but think that children's access to some books should be limited. We limit access to R rated movies and CDs with explicit content, and we keep racy magazines behind the counter. This allows parents to have a say as to whether their child is mature enough for the content.

How is this different? How is this considered "book banning?" What are your thoughts?

[Crusoe]

It's not banning. The book is there. Anyone can take it out, providing they have permission. If the conditions attached to taking the book out were ludicrously prohibitive ("you must have written authorisation in triplicate from both parents, the headmaster and your senator") then you could argue it was contructively a ban. From your description, though, I don't see this as a "ban".

To argue it is a stigma is a bit tenuous, in my opinion. By that token, I should have been allowed to read every James Herbert or Graham Masterton pulp novel in my local library without intervention, since it certainly embarrassed me to have the librarian phone my parents to check I was allowed to read them.

[Rug Burn]

Some parents are just plain loony. To see anything so objectionable as to warrant the necessity for a permission slip to read a freaking children's story is deplorable.

I could imagine a book with graphic violent and sexual images being inappropriate for young children; but I doubt there are any books in most public schools that I would even raise an eyebrow about.

Encouraging a child to read can only be a good thing. Stifling there pursuits in literacy is much more wicked than any book they may read.

[tomndebb]

Kids don't have to get up in front of a class and declare "I want to read Harry Potter." They merely need to show up on their own, at their own choice of time, present the permission slip, and take out the book. They can then take the book home to read (or, if it's reading library instead of a lending library) put the book inside a loose-leaf binder the way we used to read Mad Magazine and lots of other stuff.

I am vehemently opposed to censorship, but the plaintiff is going too far. The library has instituted a practical compromise between those idiots who can't let their children exercise their imaginations and people who do not want to stifle their children. If this twit wins, libraries will simply stop ordering any book surrounded by any controversy--and where will the students find reading material, then? (And the libraries will then dodge the censorship charge by pointing to budget constraints; only the Library of Congress can afford to purchase a copy of everything out there.)

I would have preferred that the school board had followed the 15-0 vote of the library board and not taken the series off the shelf. However, the argument that the children "won't know" about the book because it is not on the shelf can easily be rectified with a prominent list of "permission only" books posted at the desk. There are simply better ways of handling this than taking such drastic action that the forces of ignorance will be encouraged to rise up and crush all availability.

[december]

I deplore the school's action.

However, it's not banning. Even if the school chose not to carry Harry Potter books at all, it wouldn't be banning. After all the school library can only carry a tiny, tiny of all books. They are always obliged to choose what books not to include.

[Iteki(actually)]

With this in place, the only people who can read the books are the people who would have been let read them anyhow. Is reading not another way of expanding ones horizons?

Its like sex-education in Ireland, parents have to give their permission to allow the child to attend the sex-education part of the class. The kids who don't get the permission are also the kids (WAG) who's parents won't have explained to them how things work. Either way, it always ends up the kids who didn't hear properly about sex are the ones who end up pregnant at 17 (ymmv).

I read anything I could get my hands on in school, some appropriate, some not so appropriate, but none of it seems to have damaged me. FTR my school library had a copy of James Herberts "The Rats" which I read at about 12, thought was wonderfully horrible and haven't thought about again until I read the post about 3 up :)

[BobT]

Librarians are loathe to require parental permission to check out anything. The party line of the American Library Association is that requiring a parent's permission is pretty much the same as banning a book. If you put a book on the shelf, it should be able to be checked out by anyone who wanders in. It's not the job of the library to act as a parent.

[photopat]

It seems silly to me, but at least the kids who want to read the books and whose parents aren't overy concerned will be able to. It could also end up working in the library's favor. As I recall, anything which was restricted was immediately alluring as well. Maybe more kids willl want to read the books to see what all the fuss is about. I hope so. Maybe they'll start to gain a new perspective.

If it was up to me I'd say go ahead and read them, but it's not and at least the parents seem to be paying attention to what their kids are doing (even if they are doing so from an awfully conservative standpoint).

[Lemur866]

Yes, it is stupid to require a permission slip to check out Harry Potter. But what is the alternative? Taking a book out of a library might be equivalent to banning it, but what about not getting the book in the first place? Libraries that don't want to fight these battles, and aren't allowed the permission slip angle, will simply not get controversial books. Nobody pickets the school library because it DOESN'T have Huckleberry Finn or Catcher in the Rye. And so everybody loses, except the kids.

[Cervaise]

I agree that making the Harry Potter books (the Harry Potter books, for crying out loud) "permission-only" is stupid, but given the demands (and the political power) of the close-minded bluenoses who evidently think their faith is so weak that it can't withstand reading a book about brooms and magic mirrors, and the alternative of the library avoiding controversy by not having the book at all, I can't see that it's anything but a necessary, if chafing, compromise.

[Rug Burn]

They could give out library cards like drivers licences where there are restriction codes on them. Then they should make the close-minded parents of these poor kids go to the library and pick out all the books that they find offensive. Then the parents can enter their childs ban list into the school library database.

The more I think about it, the more I love this idea. The close-minded parents are the ones who get inconvenienced. Everyone would have the same looking library card. This way the normal children that are allowed to view the books don't have to feel weird about checking them out or remembering to get their permission slip signed.

It would be very interesting to see how many of the parents that make a stink about this would actually take the time out of their day to look through the library and make their lists. I'd guess less than 1/3 of them.

[Crusoe]

But how many would just refuse to let the children go to the library (or confiscate the cards)? Never underestimate laziness as the enemy of responsibility.

[clairobscur]

The library has instituted a practical compromise between those idiots who can't let their children exercise their imaginations and people who do not want to stifle their children.


I disagree. Given that parents who think that reading Harry Potter is harmful for their children are likely a minority, a practical compromise would have been to require from these parents a written statement saying that their children shouldn't be allowed to read the books.


Anyway, I don't think a compromise is necessary, since I don't believe that parents should have a total control on what their children are allowed to have access to. And certainly not in a public school. If parents are so concerned with Harry Potter, they can put their children in some private school of their choice or homeschool them. There's no reason to put the burden on the school library for something everybody except them think is harmless.


If I'm convinced that french fries are a major health hazard for whatever reason, I should keep my children safely at home, instead of expecting that all children in his/her school will have to present a written permission before being served french fries.

[doreen]

The difference between keeping Harry Potter books behind the counter, and the OP's example of needing permission to check out books that were not in the children's section is a big one.The latter system is one in which the books are divided according to the intended audience, not by the subject matter. Books about sex (or more specifically the reproductive system s and processes) intended for children will still be in the children's section. Under that sort of system, Harry Potter ( and any other book intended for children)) will still be right out there on the shelves, and if a parent doesn't want their child to read it, that parent will have to deal with it.What's next, stores needing written permission before selling a child certain books?

And while I certainly don't believe that requiring parental permission is equivalent to banning, the one thing I will never understand is if the conservative parents are only concerned about what their own children read, why don't they simply forbid their own children to read the books. Are they afraid it won't work, or do they just want the librarian to be the "bad guy"?

[j666]

I'm in favor of making the parents fill out restricted lists; they could not take away the kids' cards, isn't that their student ID?

I would support grade-level controlled access, by content. But where would we place 'Oliver Twist'?

[samclem]

First off--I'm more liberal than your worst nightmare.

But, I think I support the ruling, and would not get too bent out shape about having to give my child permission. It's the unfortunate problem of having to go along with community standards, as long as they're constitutional. I've lived in places/times in my life where blue laws kept store closed on Sunday until 1:00P.M. When decent church goers got done with their requirement and could then be allowed to go shopping,

Was I pissed? Sure. But you pick your battles. Learn to prioritize what is important in the land of the blind.

I think that I agree with a previous poster that revenge will probably be sweet. There have to be kids who's parents won't allow them to check out the books, but you can bet your sweet ass that they will get them. Hell, I would encourage my kid to pass them around to those poor unfortunates. You better believe this will happen.

[TVAA]

If books aren't on the shelves, how will kids find out about them?

Clearly the Harry Potter books are sufficiently famous that this doesn't really apply, but what about less famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) works?

I get most of my books from libraries by browsing the shelves. Unless I happen to use the card catalog or online database to look for a book, I probably won't find out about it if it's behind a desk somewhere.

If someone had removed Ursula K. Le Guin's A Wizard of Earthsea from my school's library, I probably would never have read it. If it was stuck behind the librarian's desk, the end result would have been about the same.

[Nonny Mouse]

I'm against this. In putting the books out of sight and requiring parental permission to take them out, the library's essentially giving credence to the idea that there's something wrong with them. These are books that the vast majority of people seem to have no problem with. Those that do - are free to tell their own children not to read them. And if the kids don't listen - well, sorry, but that's a problem between the parent and the child. The library's job is to make popular or classic children's books available, not police who is or is not allowed to read them.

Nonny

[Kalashnikov]

I wonder if they have the bible out on the shelves.... and what would happen if enough people complained about that.

[WV_Woman]

The close-minded parents are the ones who get inconvenienced.

Parents who don't want their kids reading what they feel is unsuitable material are close-minded?

Perhaps, or maybe parents who would let their kids read ANYTHING they want aren't too smart.

Your idea is good, though.

I'm amazed that the majority of this thread thinks it is BAD for parents to have some say about what their kids do and do not read!

Parents aren't supposed to tell their kids what to do, but the minute some snotty kid pulls a gun at school, people start screaming "where are the parents?"

[Green Bean]

WV_Woman: I heartily support any parent's efforts to keep their kids from reading unsuitable material. (I also support the efforts of the kids to read the unsuitable material, but that's another story.) But this is a matter of the library controlling the access, not the parents. I don't think it's the library's place to act in loco parentis. Ever.

I don't think this is book banning, but it is not okay, either. It is better than not having the book at all, however. I like tom~'s idea of having a prominent list of "permission only" books. A ready-made reading list!

Or perhaps another option would be to have "regular" library cards and "restricted" library cards. Kids would automatically be issued the regular card. If a parent wishes to restrict his/her kids access, then he/she must contact the school with the request for the restricted card. That way, the burden would be on those that wanted the restrictions.

Or the best option yet is the one doreen suggests: the parents can just forbid the kids to read the books that they find unsuitable. Parents doing parenting! Imagine that.

[WV_Woman]

Green, I agree re: librarians being parents.

However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let's say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid's borrowing record.

Your 13 year old kid could also go look at porn on the library's computers and they won't do anything about it.

That ain't right, either.

[ivylass]

Censorship is when the gov't says you can't read or publish a book. If Wal-Mart decides not to sell a certain book or to remove an issue of The Enquirer off the shelves, that is not censorship.

In this case, it is the parents who have the control of the situation. The library is not saying Johnny can't read this book, they're saying they want to make sure Johnny's parents don't have a problem with it. Asking permission of parents is not censorship.

What would be an issue is if Johnny's parents said that little Suzy from across the street can't read the books. They wouldn't get far, but that's infringing on someone else's rights.

Now, if Johnny had the permission slip and the library still said no, (other than the books being checked out elsewhere) well...

[doreen]

However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let's say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid's borrowing record.


You (may) have no right to demand that the library inform you. (and I expect that depends on whether you had to agree to be responsible for books checked out on the card, as I did for my children's first library card, and if the record cotinues to exist after the book is returned). However, you, as a parent, have every right to inspect whatever books your child brings into your home, whether borrowed from the library , bought at a bookstore or borrowed from a friend.

[tomndebb]

However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let's say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid's borrowing record.

Your 13 year old kid could also go look at porn on the library's computers and they won't do anything about it.

That ain't right, either.It is also not true, of course. I'm sure that you could find some library in the U.S. where a kid could check out the Kama Sutra, but in the overwhelming number of libraries (among the few that actually even have the book) it would be forbidden to kids. The issue of parents reviewing the borrowing lists of their children is less clear; a lot of libraries permit it, some encourage it, others prevent it. I have never seen evidence of a state law prohibiting access to a child's records although there have been a few attempts to require that parents be provided access. (I do note that most of the libraries I've seen where parents cannot review the records of their children are college libraries where the children are, presumably, legal adults.)

I do not object to a parent having control over a child's reading material; I just see no reason for the library to be involved. I do not believe, for example, that parents are prohibted from seeing what their children check out. Again, it could happen somewhere, but most local libraries will deal with parents as parents and let them review the check-out lists of their children.

Regarding the internet access: most libraries do take an interest in what children view. The ALA actually encourages direct parental supervision as one means of controlling access. The idea that kids are out there cruising the porn sites while librarians deliberately ignore them is nonsense.

[Blalron]

Your 13 year old kid could also go look at porn on the library's computers and they won't do anything about it.

This is complete hogwash. Besides that, your typical 13 year old (hell, your typical 30 year old for that matter) isn't going to go around shamelessly looking at porn in full view of the public.

[gex gex]

originally posted by wv_woman
However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let's say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid's borrowing record.

oh my god! next thing, little suzy will be trying out those moves!


"Suzy! What are you doing????"

"But Mommy, it was in a library book, I thought it was ok"


So, tell me again, why is it the library's job to parent Suzy?

[KellyM]

The parents that want Harry Potter behind the counter aren't trying to protect their own children from Harry Potter; they're trying to protect everyone's children from Harry Potter. That's why (to them) a system where you can restrict just your own child from getting to the book is not acceptable to them, and why the "compromise" that Arkansas reached is not a compromise; it gave the Forces of Darkness exactly what they wanted.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally posted by samclem
First off--I'm more liberal than your worst nightmare.


Actually, my worst nightmare involved Heather Graham, Jessica Alba, and vanilla pudding. Actually, that wasn't a nightmare at all...

Actually, my nightmare consists of the day when someone else can affect my ability to raise my children in the way I see fit. While I have never been interested in reading the Harry Potter books (they seemed too typically fantastic to me), I would whole heartedly support any child reading these books. Think about it, good guy beats the bad guy, and there are plenty of things in the book to inspire the child's imaginiation.

Now, suppose a kid read these books and, God forbid, developed a life-long love for fantasy/sci-fi books. Not only would they learn all kinds of new words, but the mind of this child would be more open to other possiblilities than anyone can possibly imagine. Oh, no! Somebody ban these books! Or at the very least put them behind the counter! Out of sight, out of mind, right?

BTW, I have to wonder how many of the parents who don't want their children to read these books have actually read it themselves. Did they just listen to Jerry Falwell and believe that Satan had written the book from the blood of the innocents? Doubt it.

[BobT]

Originally posted by WV_Woman
Green, I agree re: librarians being parents.

However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let's say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid's borrowing record.

Your 13 year old kid could also go look at porn on the library's computers and they won't do anything about it.

That ain't right, either.

Parents are not entirely precluded from looking at their child's circulation records. If little Johnny has rung up $200 in overdue fines on the Kama Sutra, little Johnny's parents get the bill and they will be able to see what the bill is for. Also more and more libraries let people check their circulation records online. So, if Mom and Pop hold on to little Johnny's library card, they should be able to see what he is reading.

As a working public librarian, I would also say that 99% of all pornography viewed on public Internet terminals is by adults. Minors are usually addicted to chat rooms and game sites.

So, just why is the library supposed to act as the sole authority of what a child can and cannot check out. Some parents want their kids to read Harry Potter, others don't. Is the library (as an institution) always supposed to defer to the parents who want the most restrictive view?

[Morgainelf]

doreen, you make a great point. There is a huge difference between limiting childrens' access to adult material and limiting access to material intended for children.