A Cunning Stunt

[Paul in Qatar]

I read the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning. In one or the other was a report of an amusing and (literally) provocative stunt pulled by some group of right-wing people somewhere.

It seems this is Banned Book Week (month, whatever), so these groups bought various books that exposed their anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution, anti-everyone else views and donated them to libraries across the country. The librarians refused to put them on the shelves.

The right-wing people then cried "Book Banning!" And they were right. Almost without regard to the politics, you have to admire a good prank.

Are they right? Do we now see the "repression that is inherent in the system?"

[Gaudere]

Libraries don't put any book they get on the shelves just because it's free. I wouldn't expect them to put up any random pro-gay book just because someone donated it to them either.

[Frodo]

I read the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning. In one or the other was a report of an amusing and (literally) provocative stunt pulled by some group of right-wing people somewhere.

It seems this is Banned Book Week (month, whatever), so these groups bought various books that exposed their anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution, anti-everyone else views and donated them to libraries across the country. The librarians refused to put them on the shelves.

The right-wing people then cried "Book Banning!" And they were right. Almost without regard to the politics, you have to admire a good prank.

Are they right? Do we now see the "repression that is inherent in the system?"

If true, those librarians should be at the very least reprimanded, if not fired, now, considering the source (right wing groups) I'll wait for a more unbiased source confirming the facts before believing it.

[Lobohan]

I read the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning. In one or the other was a report of an amusing and (literally) provocative stunt pulled by some group of right-wing people somewhere.

It seems this is Banned Book Week (month, whatever), so these groups bought various books that exposed their anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution, anti-everyone else views and donated them to libraries across the country. The librarians refused to put them on the shelves.

The right-wing people then cried "Book Banning!" And they were right. Almost without regard to the politics, you have to admire a good prank.

Are they right? Do we now see the "repression that is inherent in the system?"Do you mean espoused? Because otherwise I'm confused.

[Ludovic]

If true, those librarians should be at the very least reprimanded, if not fired, now, considering the source (right wing groups) I'll wait for a more unbiased source confirming the facts before believing it.No, unfortunately, there isn't infinite resources available to stock every single book donated to a library. How many empty shelves do libraries typically have? Plus, it takes degreed librarians to categorize, enter in the info, and find room for new entries, even if there were enough space for it and the actual book was free.

Believe me, I wish that I could donate a book to a library and they'd put it on a shelf somewhere instead of selling it but that's just not the case.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The right-wing people then cried "Book Banning!" And they were right. Almost without regard to the politics, you have to admire a good prank.

Are they right? Do we now see the "repression that is inherent in the system?"

If the libraries they donated to stock comparable books with the reverse view to their anti-whatever then they may have a case. Otherwise it is just a stunt and not a very cunning one.

Also, while a library likely would have a book on Evolution where would you put a book on Creation? While technically the opposing viewpoint they do not belong in the same section. Creationism is religion and evolution science. So it is hard to do a tit-for-tat on such books I'd think.

[Cisco]

It seems this is Banned Book Week (month, whatever), so these groups bought various books that exposed their anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution, anti-everyone else views and donated them to libraries across the country. The librarians refused to put them on the shelves.

The right-wing people then cried "Book Banning!" And they were right. Almost without regard to the politics, you have to admire a good prank.

Are they right? Do we now see the "repression that is inherent in the system?"
A dirty trick but it's not fully right or wrong. The library didn't "ban" the books, so they're wrong there. But if they were Oprah's book club selections I have a feeling they would've found shelf space, so they're right there. Maybe libraries should have a "hate-fueled word vomit" section.

[Shodan]

No, unfortunately, there isn't infinite resources available to stock every single book donated to a library. How many empty shelves do libraries typically have? Plus, it takes degreed librarians to categorize, enter in the info, and find room for new entries, even if there were enough space for it and the actual book was free.

Believe me, I wish that I could donate a book to a library and they'd put it on a shelf somewhere instead of selling it but that's just not the case.
Thanks for explaining your position, Governor Palin.

Regards,
Shodan

[Frodo]

No, unfortunately, there isn't infinite resources available to stock every single book donated to a library. How many empty shelves do libraries typically have? Plus, it takes degreed librarians to categorize, enter in the info, and find room for new entries, even if there were enough space for it and the actual book was free.

Believe me, I wish that I could donate a book to a library and they'd put it on a shelf somewhere instead of selling it but that's just not the case.

I thought it would be end up being something like that, however i think a review of what books ARE in the shelves in those libraries would be in order, to confirm that there is no bias

[E-Sabbath]

Most of the time, when I donate books to a local library, they wind up in the next book sale.

[Giles]

Yes, I've been involved in monograph acquisitions for an academic library, though not for a public library. The only difference, however, is that academic libraries add more of their donations to the collection, because they are trying to be more comprehensive and because they are happy to add things just-in-case someone might need them in the future.

Most libraries accept donations, but generally only on the understanding that they are free to add them to the collection or dispose of them as they see fit. If you add it to the collection, you have to catalogue it and find space on the shelves for it. (And shelf space is not free). With public libraries, there is the added consideration that they don't want stuff on the shelves that never gets read, because it makes the users feel that the library is less relevant to their needs. (This probably ought to be a consideration for academic libraries, but they have more of a captive clientele).

There's an exception to the general rule, which is when a person donates a collection of really special material (like grandad's collection of medieval Tibetan manuscripts), they can insist on the collection being retained by the library. However, even then the library has to decide whether it belongs in the collection: it's quite likely that in that case they'd reject it, but say, "Here are some libraries that specialise in Asian materials: they'd be much more suitable for giving this wonderful collection to."

As far a considering donations of politically slanted materials is concerned, I would think that's a point in their favour, as long as,
(1) the collection remained balanced on the political issues after including the donation, and
(2) there was likely to be some interest among the library's clientele in reading up on the issues.
But I still would not automatically accept it.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

This "prank" demonstrates a massive misunderstanding of (a) how libraries work, and (b) what Banned Book Week is all about. Let me explain.

First of all, even small libraries get hundreds or thousands of books donated every year that they simply can't use. That's one of the reasons they have sales. The piece of propaganda you donate will likely end up next to the 37 copies they received of the book club edition of James Patterson's latest book at the upcoming sale. Books end up at that sale for a huge variety of reasons, including the library having too many copies of that book or not enough people checking it out to justify the shelf space.

Secondly, the "book banning" the ALA is talking about consists of people requesting or demanding the removal of a book from a school or library. This does not include the librarian. With 85,000 new titles coming out every month, librarians spend much of their career deciding what not to stock. It's not censorship; it's not book banning; it's just their job.

So, Paul, when you say "...and they were right" in the OP, you're wrong. This doesn't even remotely resemble book banning.

[Whack-a-Mole]

(2) there was likely to be some interest among the library's clientele in reading up on the issues.


How far should this one go? I can understand the library stocking more Stephen King books and less Michael Crichton books if their readers had a clear preference there but when it comes to information is it not important to include a balance of both sides? Maybe the town your library is in is all into (say) creationism...I still think the library should have books on evolution as well. I know you addressed this with your first point...just curious how far this second point is taken in choosing books.

[Paul in Qatar]

Do you mean espoused? Because otherwise I'm confused.

Yes I did. Sorry.

[Giles]

How far should this one go? I can understand the library stocking more Stephen King books and less Michael Crichton books if their readers had a clear preference there but when it comes to information is it not important to include a balance of both sides? Maybe the town your library is in is all into (say) creationism...I still think the library should have books on evolution as well. I know you addressed this with your first point...just curious how far this second point is taken in choosing books.
Well, in the typical small-town library in the US, you might justify a couple of books on each side of the abortion debate. However, if the local Turkish friendship society donated 10 books in Turkish explaining the Turkish position on the (alleged) Armenian genocide, I would not go to the trouble of finding 10 books in Turkish on the other side of the argument: I'd just not accept it, because local interest would be minimal.

Those are extreme points on the continuum, and there's plenty of room to argue about issues in the middle. With creationism vs. evolution, you would presumably have a few textbooks on biology plus a few popular books by people like Stephen Jay Gould to put the pro-evolution argument, so it would be reasonable to accept a few well-presented books on the creationist side.

[Paul in Qatar]

So, Paul, when you say "...and they were right" in the OP, you're wrong. This doesn't even remotely resemble book banning.

So it does not count when a government employee decides what to exclude from the library? Book banning is only when the parts of the community wants a book excluded.

Please, explain further.

[Giles]

So it does not count when a government employee decides what to exclude from the library? Book banning is only when the parts of the community wants a book excluded.

Please, explain further.
Of course, book banning can be done by librarians and other government employees, and has been done many times and in many places. But not purchasing a book or not accepting a donation is not necessarily book banning. It depends on why you did not accept the book, and it helps to have a decent collection development policy to justofy your decisions.

To take an example very remote from politics, if a librarian decided not to buy books by Enid Blyton because they were "trashy" and not worth reading, that would be a form of book banning. However, if there were no Noddy and Big Ears books in the library because in the past children had never or rarely borrowed the books, that would be a responsible collection development decision.

[ZenBeam]

No, unfortunately, there isn't infinite resources available to stock every single book donated to a library. How many empty shelves do libraries typically have? Plus, it takes degreed librarians to categorize, enter in the info, and find room for new entries, even if there were enough space for it and the actual book was free.

Believe me, I wish that I could donate a book to a library and they'd put it on a shelf somewhere instead of selling it but that's just not the case.Thanks for explaining your position, Governor Palin.

Regards,
Shodan

:confused:

[Dangerosa]

Several librarians go into some detail on library collections decisions here

(I think its this thread - its a long one and you have to get through all the 'Palin is EEEVVVIIILLLL' content. It will also explain Shodan's aside.)

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=481583&highlight=collections

(eta, the thread helps)

[Ludovic]

:confused:
I think it's referring to Palin off-handedly wondering what the librarian would do if people tried to donate certain books and there just wasn't enough space in the library for them all!

[Lobohan]

Thanks for explaining your position, Governor Palin.

Regards,
ShodanHey, no insults in GD! :D

[Miller]

I read the Washington Post and the New York Times this morning. In one or the other was a report of an amusing and (literally) provocative stunt pulled by some group of right-wing people somewhere.

It seems this is Banned Book Week (month, whatever), so these groups bought various books that exposed their anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution, anti-everyone else views and donated them to libraries across the country. The librarians refused to put them on the shelves.


You know, it strikes me as pretty unlikely that any decent sized library wouldn't already have several books on its shelves explaining, at the very least, the pro-life viewpoint. Probably the anti-gay rights and anti-evolution arguments, as well. (I'm not sure what an "anti-everyone else" book would be, so I can't really say if they'd have that or not.)

So, my guess for why the library decided not to stock the books that were donated would be that they felt those viewpoints were already adquately represented in their collection. In other words, this isn't a "cunning stunt" at all: it's just another exercise in political idiocy.

[jimmmy]

here
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/02/AR2008100203644.html) is the (one of the?) Washington Post article - concerning Fairfax County.

IMO it is a poorly poorly written and confusing article. While I disagree with Paul's assessment of it, I certainly see it as designed to stir the sh^t:

Quote:

Fairfax County's policy on library book selection says "the collection should support the diverse interests, needs and viewpoints of the school community." But library officials said donated and purchased books alike are evaluated by the same standards, including two positive reviews from professionally recognized journals.

None of the donated titles met that standard, said Susan Thornily, coordinator of library information services for Fairfax schools

[/Perry White Hat on] Period Kent. That is a good good and interesting article about a Focus on the Family stunt - fill in why they did it and what their reactions were to the refusal and you got yerself a major league Newspaper article.[/Perry White hat off]

Instead what the Post does is offer the idea that FF may be sorta racist and anyway the scholarship is the issue:

Thornily said school librarians have rejected other books that "target minority groups" and would offend African Americans or other nonwhite students. In this case, librarians were concerned about the level of scholarship in the books, many of which come from small church publishers.

"It all goes back to the books and the publishers and the presentation and the research," she said.

WTF? I mean I can certainly see how books put together by guys who believe the earth is 6000 years old and 900 year old Adam had to fight dinosaurs as a boy, would not pass a scholarship sniff test. Get it. But why add this? I think she was either baited or the second quote is out of context.

Anyway - I disagree Paul. No one was "banned" a fact the second to last paragraph of this poor piece of journalism demonstrates this very clearly.

Thornily said she has offered to help find books that meet the county standards and offer a religious view on homosexuality along with other views. She has asked librarians to consider adding such books to their collections.

And instead of leaving it there the next and last paragraph is about students "huddled" in prayer. Presumably not listening to her and closed to all but thier huddle. Oh yeah - this was effective sh^t stirring.

[Paul in Qatar]

I bothers me to no end that there is no way to edit the title and use the appropriate indefinite article. The title originally read "An Amusing Prink." Then I changed the second word to "Cunning" for comedic effect, but failed to change the first word.

Every time I try to get fancy I am hoist by my own petard.

Still, it does make you think. Who does and who should decide what goes on the shelves? Librarians in tennis shoes or taxpayers in NRA caps? Perhaps we could have a rotating executive that decides matters of fiction .... Well that would get out of hand.

Still, it makes you think.

[BrainGlutton]

An Cunning Stunt

What is the difference between the Rockettes and a circus?

A circus is an array of cunning stunts! :)

[sqweels]

Aren't the people pulling this stunt conservatives? What business do they have in demanding the benefits of liberal principles if they have no intention of respecting them?

[Paul in Qatar]

So the politics of the citizen matters in this case? WHy?

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

So it does not count when a government employee decides what to exclude from the library? Book banning is only when the parts of the community wants a book excluded.

Please, explain further.Okay.

It is the librarian's job to decide what books to include and what books to exclude. That's what librarians are hired for. They make that decision every single day as they look at a limited budget and limited shelf space. Obviously, you might think, the budget issue doesn't apply to donated books--but it does.

Let's say you donate 14 books that proselytize your favorite issue. The library already has a couple, and the librarian doesn't feel that they need any more. They dump those 14 books at a library sale for a buck apiece and use that money to buy another copy of the hot new book that has a two-month waiting list.

There's an oversight process, of course. That process varies from town to town, county to county, and state to state, but here's how it works around here:

Librarians do the triage, deciding what to buy (subject to budget and space) and what to discard. If you disagree with the librarian(s), you go to the next step.

The library board hires and fires librarians. They also set policy for the library. If you go to the library board and say "pull this book," and they agree, that is a book banning. The board can also tell the librarian to acquire specific books or series. Do it too often, and the librarian will probably quit.

The city council around here is the ultimate arbiter. They can override the library board, but as far as I know, they've never done so for a particular book here.

Again, just to make this point really clear, you're taking the books donated by this particular "prank" group out of context. To the librarian, they're just a few more on a great, big, huge pile. The vast majority of that pile gets dumped at library sales.

[Voyager]

By the way Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year) notes that 172,000 books were published in the US in 2005. (We're behind the UK :eek: .) You can imagine the percentage of these that are reasonable to put in a library. I'll go with the recommendations of professionals following pre-established rules about what to select just about every time.

My library has a handful of books on atheism and a gigantic stack of books supporting religion, mostly by default. Given the percentage of atheists here, and the number of books on both subjects, this seems very reasonable to me.

[dangermom]

Librarians really are very big on stocking books from all sides of an issue. Library school students routinely discuss hot-button subjects like Holocaust denial and their place in a collection. So if you look in any medium-sized public library, you'll find a couple of books on almost any viewpoint. It's just limited by shelf space, budget concerns, and patron demand--it's more important to have enough copies of, say, Machiavelli's Prince (a classic that students routinely ask for) than it is to have 5 books on a niche subject.

So, this librarian says no, this is not book banning. The proper procedure to get your library to purchase a book for the collection is not to donate the book; it is to submit a purchase request, which is even easier than going out and buying it yourself, and free to boot. Donations are primarily sold to supplement the budget; relatively few especially good books will be taken from the donation pile for the shelf. (Since I work for a very impoverished library, I know a lot about it...)

Look in your local library system's catalog. Are the 'classic' books on the Rapture and ID there? How 'bout crazy UFO titles like Chariots of the Gods? Yep, probably they are there.

[ZenBeam]

I understand the Palin reference with respect to the library director incident. It just sounds like Shodan is making an uncalled for dig at Ludovic for what is a neutral explanation of why a librarian wouldn't just squeal "Oooh! a book!" and run to put it on the shelf whenever someone donates one.

I still don't understand that.

[Measure for Measure]

Dangermom, InvisibleWombat: I've started a thread in GQ: General Questions For Librarians (emphasis: book selection) (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10276017#post10276017)

[Justin_Bailey]

Maybe libraries should have a "hate-fueled word vomit" section.

It wouldn't work. Ann Coulter books are cataloged in several different areas.

[eleanorigby]

I thought that donated books placed on shelves for circulation can become an issue for the library --I mean a financial issue. Something about accepting gifts and tax liability? :confused: I'm sorry I don't have my collection development notes with me--and since I haven't yet used any of my new librarian skillz, I can't speak with authority, but I do remember my prof saying that most libraries want to avoid donated books as much as they can... I am more than happy to be wrong about this--it's been over a year since I took that class and my retention is not that great.

It was my understanding that the book sales were a way of raising money for the the library while acting as a venue to sell off books pulled from circ and donations made by community members. Even popular books are treated this way--Harry Potter or the latest Stephen King etc. (I refer to libraries lucky enough to be well supported and in populous areas. I don't know what happens to donated books in a tiny town in a remote area).

It would seem that this ploy is a fine example of the much deplored "gotcha" type. Funny how the conservative side only denigrates this sort of thing when it's used against them. (and I don't think it has been in this case, really--they want to cry victim without understanding the context.)

I would also like to challenge those conservatives who cry foul here (in the article) to approach the Ref desk or the Circ desk and ask for assistance in obtaining any of those items. No doubt the library has a way to access this info for the patron, even if it is not on their own shelves.

Kind of a tempest in a teapot, once this is looked at more closely.

[Lamia]

So it does not count when a government employee decides what to exclude from the library?That's a very interesting choice of phrasing. The librarian in question was making a decision as to which books would be selected for inclusion in the library. Anything not selected for inclusion must thus be excluded, but if I may be forgiven the potentially offensive analogy, this is book banning in the sense that using a condom is having an abortion.

Book banning is only when the parts of the community wants a book excluded.

Please, explain further.If we're talking specifically about book banning with regard to American libraries, then book banning is when a book that already belongs to the library is removed due to objections about the content of that book.

I'll quote the ALA Banned Books Week Basics (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/bannedbooksweek/backgroundb/background.cfm) page here:

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. Emphasis mine.

Because I foresee some nitpicking over the word "restrict" in the quote above, this refers to making a rule about who is allowed to check out a book. For instance, saying that only people over 18 may check out the book, or only kids with notes from their parents.

[samclem]

I bothers me to no end that there is no way to edit the title and use the appropriate indefinite article. The title originally read "An Amusing Prink." Then I changed the second word to "Cunning" for comedic effect, but failed to change the first word.

Every time I try to get fancy I am hoist by my own petard.

Of course their's a way to change it after the fact. Notify a mod. I just changed it. You're welcome.

*It was grating on me so I had to. :)

[dangermom]

I would also like to challenge those conservatives who cry foul here (in the article) to approach the Ref desk or the Circ desk and ask for assistance in obtaining any of those items. No doubt the library has a way to access this info for the patron, even if it is not on their own shelves.

First, the libraries in question probably do have something on the topic on their shelves. But yes, of course we have a way--we have InterLibrary Loan! ILL is usually free (not at every library, though), and is a system whereby you may obtain almost any book in the US--though it may take some time, and probably not a really valuable, rare book, and maybe not a mass market paperback. You may even get magazine and newspaper articles, rolls of microfilm, all sorts of wonderful things--for free, all through ILL and the efforts of your friendly neighborhood librarians. Not only that, we want you to use ILL, because it's good for our statistics!

(I do it all the time and I'm currently reading an old book on the development of religion through Neolithic to classical times. Probably half the information is hopelessly out of date. Sometimes I request a book and it comes from out of state, like Iowa or somewhere--seriously, you can get anything, I've gotten an old 50's book--in Danish--of cross-stitch patterns, a newspaper article from 1910, British mysteries no one reads any more...)

*sigh* Aren't libraries wonderful?

[Llama Llogophile]

Who does and who should decide what goes on the shelves? Librarians in tennis shoes or taxpayers in NRA caps?

Hmm, let me think. Um...

Librarians.

[Paul in Qatar]

Do not the NRA wing-nuts pay taxes? (Remember to remind the policeman "I pay your salary! When he stops you.)

This prank raises some (moderately) interesting issues.

[ZenBeam]

If we're talking specifically about book banning with regard to American libraries, then book banning is when a book that already belongs to the library is removed due to objections about the content of that book.

I'll quote the ALA Banned Books Week Basics page here:


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.Lamia, I'm a little surprised that the ALA definition is (or seems to be) limited to the removal of books because of their content, and does not also include preventing the acquisition of books due to their content. Is there really such a distinction? If so, why?

[eleanorigby]

I keep reading the title as A Stunning Cunt

[/IA]



Thing is about libraries: the stuff the wingnuts et al want to read is probably there or in the system somewhere. Hell, some libraries (I've heard tell) keep Playboy etc behind the desk, for the asking. It's (the ultra conservative stuff, the Left Behind stuff, the L Ron Howard stuff, the girlie mags) is not made a big deal of. If you want it, you can get it. This doesn't sit well with those type of people who are not content with access, but want approval or accolades for their preferences.

I think many, many books should not even have been published (and I'm not even talking about controversial stuff--I'm talking about stuff like The Babysitter's Club and most romance novels)--but if and when I actually get to use my MLIS, it will not be my job to mold patrons' taste: it will be my job to provide access to the patrons' for the material they desire. If I am fortunate enough to become an adult Reader's Advisor, I may then offer to guide (via suggestion only) certain books to those patrons who ask my opinion. Other than that, I'm not supposed to judge. So, come on in. Ask me for the book, [I]Homosexuality is Ruining Our Children*or whatever--
I will attempt to find it in our system and get it for you. My low opinion of your ridiculous bigotry and ignorance will remain my secret.

And keep in mind that not all librarians are liberal, progressive people. We had a HUGE controversy in class one day re a book that explains sexuality to young children, It's Perfectly Normal. Oh, the outrage that such a book would be placed in the children's or youth section of the library! The debate was heated, long and at times, bitter.

Also, libraries have banned books (although this is usually one librarian acting out his or her pet issue--The Phantom Tollbooth was "banned' in Colorado in the 1970s because the head librarian in Boulder considered it a "bad fantasy", whatever that means. It was primary school teachers who got that overturned.) That said, such things are very isolated occurrences and do not happen with decent collection dev policy and challenge policies.


*I made that title up. I'm sure it's not far off of some real titles.

[Lamia]

This prank raises some (moderately) interesting issues.Not really. I don't see how it would be of even moderate interest to anyone who'd previously given any thought to why or how books wound up in the library.

It isn't even a new idea, aside from trying to tie it to Banned Books Week. One of my professors in library school said that when she was working for the Chicago public library system (in the '80s I think) she'd had to deal repeatedly with a man who donated Holocaust denial books and then would get angry that they weren't added to the collection. But libraries are not homeless shelters for books and are not and never have been under any obligation to add donated items to the collection.

If this group had mounted a challenge against "anti-abortion, anti-Gay rights, anti-evolution", etc., books already in the library and then, if this resulted in an actual ban, turned around and said "Oh you naughty libraries, banning books you don't agree with!" then that might have been somewhat clever. But had such a plan been attempted it almost certainly would have failed because the books wouldn't have been banned. They'd have said "Ban those horrid pro-life books!", the librarians would have said "No", and then they'd have had to go find some other way to pretend that they were being oppressed.

Lamia, I'm a little surprised that the ALA definition is (or seems to be) limited to the removal of books because of their content, and does not also include preventing the acquisition of books due to their content. Is there really such a distinction? If so, why?Well, I'd think it's at least partially because the word "banned" normally refers to an official action. If some rogue librarian is refusing to purchase certain kinds of books then that's not a ban. Nor is it a ban if "concerned citizens" start stealing or vandalizing books they find objectionable to prevent other people from reading them (something that has been known to happen). These are forms of censorship, but "ban" isn't the most appropriate term for them.

But perhaps more importantly, the ALA Code of Ethics (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm) covers this sort of thing. Some relevant passages:


1. We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.
2. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.
<snip>
6. We do not advance private interests at the expense of library users, colleagues, or our employing institutions.
7. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

[Miller]

Still, it does make you think. Who does and who should decide what goes on the shelves? Librarians in tennis shoes or taxpayers in NRA caps? Perhaps we could have a rotating executive that decides matters of fiction .... Well that would get out of hand.

Still, it makes you think.

What's wrong with having librarians (regardless of their footwear) choose what is or is not shelved in libraries? The deceptive "prank" described in your OP does not provide any evidence that libraries are ignoring particular viewpoints. It just demonstrates that the group who pulled it off is ignorant about how libraries actually work. Either that, or they're hoping that the people who hear about their stunt will be ignorant enough that they can score some dishonest political points. Either way, there's not much that's actually thought provoking going on here, beyond some very basic education in how to run a public library.

[Mr. Slant]

By the way Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_published_per_country_per_year) notes that 172,000 books were published in the US in 2005. (We're behind the UK :eek: .) You can imagine the percentage of these that are reasonable to put in a library. I'll go with the recommendations of professionals following pre-established rules about what to select just about every time.

My library has a handful of books on atheism and a gigantic stack of books supporting religion, mostly by default. Given the percentage of atheists here, and the number of books on both subjects, this seems very reasonable to me.

Note that Amazon ranks books that it has sold by time since last sale. If you search for "0875980007" on said site you'll note a sales rank of #7,076,482, which number will continue to rise unless it sells again.
Amazon certainly doesn't have all books in catalog , and they've acknowledged that over half their book catalog entries aren't included in the count due to having never, ever, sold on the site. Books that have never sold are ranked "Zero".
Thus, you've got 30 million titles out there, and a public library usually won't accomodate more than 100,000 titles. [1]

[1] http://www.galbithink.org/libraries/circulation.htm

[tnetennba]

It's a big GOTCHA! and of course the kind of rubes who feel relentlessly oppressed will say GOTCHA! and then be too busy Snoopy dancing to really ask the right questions, like, were the books from reputable publishers? Were they vetted because of quality, or because of bias? Seems like a good way to find out is to simply ask the librarians, if you were inclined to do so.

[tnetennba]

Most of the time, when I donate books to a local library, they wind up in the next book sale.

Exactly. What this experiment lacks is a control group.

But of course that smacks of science, which is like Kryptonite to right wingers.

[gonzomax]

Cunning stunt... I can not get the smart midgets and a girls basketball team out of my mind when I read it. Just me I guess.

[Ignatz]

[irrelevant aside]I keep reading the title as A Stunning Cunt <snip>.

Cunning stunt... I can not get the smart midgets and a girls basketball team out of my mind when I read it. Just me I guess.

That's why I thought this thread was about Sarah Palin. I immediately thought of that term when she came out of the permafrost, like The Thing.

[Justin_Bailey]

Do not the NRA wing-nuts pay taxes? (Remember to remind the policeman "I pay your salary! When he stops you.)

What difference does that make. Paying taxes does not give anyone a license to dictate what a library does and does not buy.

Lamia, I'm a little surprised that the ALA definition is (or seems to be) limited to the removal of books because of their content, and does not also include preventing the acquisition of books due to their content. Is there really such a distinction? If so, why?

There is a distinction because what a librarian chooses to buy or not buy is part of their job. As has been pointed out in this thread, you can't buy everything and just because someone wants it doesn't mean the librarian has to buy it.

[ZenBeam]

Well, I'd think it's at least partially because the word "banned" normally refers to an official action. If some rogue librarian is refusing to purchase certain kinds of books then that's not a ban. Nor is it a ban if "concerned citizens" start stealing or vandalizing books they find objectionable to prevent other people from reading them (something that has been known to happen). These are forms of censorship, but "ban" isn't the most appropriate term for them.

But perhaps more importantly, the ALA Code of Ethics (http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm) covers this sort of thing. Some relevant passages:

There is a distinction because what a librarian chooses to buy or not buy is part of their job. As has been pointed out in this thread, you can't buy everything and just because someone wants it doesn't mean the librarian has to buy it.

Neither of you seemed to understand my question, so I will try again.

Lamia gave the ALA definition of book banning:
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.(bolding mine) That definition speaks only about removing books from a library. It does not seem to include a similar situation where materials are prevented from ever being acquired by a library in the first place, again "based upon the objections of a person or group". Is there really such a distinction made in the definition of banning between removing material and preventing the acquisition of material?

[Justin_Bailey]

That definition speaks only about removing books from a library. It does not seem to include a similar situation where materials are prevented from ever being acquired by a library in the first place, again "based upon the objections of a person or group". Is there really such a distinction made in the definition of banning between removing material and preventing the acquisition of material?

I will go out on a limb and say that only a handful of libraries have ever not purchased something solely because of the objections of a group.

Allow me to give an example that I've had to deal with in my own acquisition duties:

A documentary titled Fuck (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0486585/) came out on DVD in 2007. I wanted to buy it for the collection (and my own curiosity on the development of words), but decided against it because I didn't think it would be worth the (possible) trouble. After discussing it with my manager, she agreed with me.

Did I "ban" it? No, because no one asked me not to purchase it, I just thought the library's limited budget would be better used on something else.

[Lamia]

Neither of you seemed to understand my question, so I will try again.

Lamia gave the ALA definition of book banning:Please note that this is just how the term is explained on the Banned Books Week site, it's not part of the Library Law or anything. It is, however, the only such definition I could find on the ALA site.


(bolding mine) That definition speaks only about removing books from a library. It does not seem to include a similar situation where materials are prevented from ever being acquired by a library in the first place, again "based upon the objections of a person or group". Is there really such a distinction made in the definition of banning between removing material and preventing the acquisition of material?Are you asking about a situation where a group might say "We don't want the library to buy any more books about [whatever]" and the library complies?

Again, I'd say that the word "ban" is normally applied to official policies. If the library made an official decision that, say, pro-life books or books about homosexuality would not be added to the collection then yes, I think it would be fair to call that a ban.

If some biased or easily pressured librarian simply stopped ordering these types of materials then that would not be a ban because it wouldn't be based on a formal policy. The librarian would be acting improperly and would be in violation of the ALA Code of Ethics, but not every unethical collection-related decision is a "ban".

I don't know if this analogy is helpful, but where I work there's a rule against bringing alcohol into the building. If you looked in our break room fridge you wouldn't see any booze in there. One might say that alcohol is "banned" at my workplace, even though it's not the case that there was once alcohol there that was then removed. Alcohol has always been forbidden there. But if you looked in my fridge at home you wouldn't see any booze in there either. Is alcohol "banned" in my house? No, I just haven't bought any. It's not a rule or anything, it's just not something I've chosen to spend my money on.

There's a big difference between "preventing the acquisition of material" and simply not buying something. Libraries have limited space and limited budgets, and part of a librarian's responsibility is use these limited resources in a manner appropriate for that library's patrons. Books don't have a "right" to be in the library, and there are any number of valid reasons why a librarian might choose not to purchase a particular title.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Lamia gave the ALA definition of book banning:
(bolding mine) That definition speaks only about removing books from a library. It does not seem to include a similar situation where materials are prevented from ever being acquired by a library in the first place, again "based upon the objections of a person or group". Is there really such a distinction made in the definition of banning between removing material and preventing the acquisition of material?Part of the distinction (probably the greatest part) is simplicity. Every single time a librarian places an order for one book, a hundred more are not ordered. Are they all "banned"? No. Libraries must choose what stock their community wants to read, and the line between "we didn't order it because nobody will want to read it" and "we didn't order it because grumpy old Jeff will complain" can be a very fuzzy line indeed.

On the other hand, when a book is removed from stock because of pressure from someone outside the library, that's a very black-and-white situation. Note the italics. Librarians remove books from circulation all the time. They may be removed because nobody reads them, because the book is in bad condition (that one might or might not be replaced), because the information is obsolete, because the library just got a new edition, or a variety of other reasons. Those are all different from external pressure.

[Paul in Qatar]

Why is so gruesome for the people who pay for the library to ask for this or that be in (or taken out of) the library? Of course it is a slippery slope, but as (the Dilbert Guy) points out darn near everything is a slippery slope if carried to excess.

Why is the librarian (or the policeman, the doctor, or the public at large) always right?

[eleanorigby]

The librarian, the doctor and the policeman have had years of education and or training or both to make them knowledgeable in their fields. The public at large may or may not have enough working knowledge to make informed decisions regarding pertinent issues.

Library boards are made up of "the public at large" for the most part, and most libraries try to get people who reflect their community's demographics.

I wouldn't say that the doctor, the librarian or the cop are ALWAYS right--but they have better chance of being right most of the time due to their education etc.


Why is the engineer or the stock analyst always right? Thing is, they're not, but we have to trust them anyway, unless we want to dedicate our lives to learning as much as they do...

But also, for every John Doe who wants X book off the shelves, there is a Don Roe who wants it there. IOW, you can't please the all the people all the time.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Why is so gruesome for the people who pay for the library to ask for this or that be in (or taken out of) the library? Of course it is a slippery slope, but as (the Dilbert Guy) points out darn near everything is a slippery slope if carried to excess.It isn't. People ask to have things added all the time. The difference is this:

Asking to have a book added is all about you wanting to read the book. It's a positive thing, because others might want to read the book when you finish with it.

Asking (or, more typically, demanding) to have a book removed is all about you wanting to restrict what other people can read. It's a negative thing.

In both cases, somebody has to be the arbiter, and that is precisely what a librarian is hired to do. Is the librarian always right? Of course not. That's why there are oversight procedures built right in. If you disagree with the librarian, go to the library board. If you disagree with them, go to the city council.

[Voyager]

Why is so gruesome for the people who pay for the library to ask for this or that be in (or taken out of) the library? Of course it is a slippery slope, but as (the Dilbert Guy) points out darn near everything is a slippery slope if carried to excess.

Assuming that an item in the library was acquired according to the rules, what would you consider a situation where it is proper for people to ask for it to be removed?

[Lamia]

Why is so gruesome for the people who pay for the library to ask for this or that be in (or taken out of) the library?There's nothing at all objectionable about a patron requesting that a book be added to the collection. It happens all the time, and I don't think anyone here has suggested that there's anything wrong with it. However, the fact that one person wants the library to purchase a book is not in and of itself sufficient reason to do so. Many people request that a book be purchased because it's a book they really like and already own, so their request alone doesn't even guarantee that the book will be checked out one time.

If a requested book meets the criteria in the library's collection policy then it should certainly be considered, but the librarian isn't obligated to actually purchase it just because one patron thinks it's a good idea.

Requesting that a book be removed from the collection is an entirely different matter, and it is a suggestion likely to offend most librarians. It's like asking a cop to arrest a law-abiding person who you personally dislike, or asking a doctor to intentionally infect one of your enemies with a disease. When people are asked to violate the core ethical standards of their profession then they tend to get a wee bit upset about it.

Incidentally, that's a pretty funny line about "people who pay for the library". Libraries get a lot less tax funding than you might think. A lot of librarians spend a lot of time seeking out grant money to help pay for their libraries.

Why is the librarian (or the policeman, the doctor, or the public at large) always right?Why is the person who wants to ban books always right? There are a very, very few situations where I might agree that a book should be removed from a library collection, but as a general rule of thumb I'm pretty comfortable with the idea that anyone who wants to ban books is wrong and anyone who opposes them is right.

[ZenBeam]

Please note that this is just how the term is explained on the Banned Books Week site, it's not part of the Library Law or anything. It is, however, the only such definition I could find on the ALA site.

Are you asking about a situation where a group might say "We don't want the library to buy any more books about [whatever]" and the library complies?

Again, I'd say that the word "ban" is normally applied to official policies. If the library made an official decision that, say, pro-life books or books about homosexuality would not be added to the collection then yes, I think it would be fair to call that a ban.Yeah, that's what I was wondering. So it sounds like there isn't really a distinction, in spite of how it's worded.

By the way (not just for you) I realize there's a difference between a book not being bought because it's banned, and a book just not being bought. Also, that there's a difference between a book being removed from the shelf because it's banned, and it being removed because it's not being used any more (or some other valid reason). I was just curious about the wording regarding banning.

[Paul in Qatar]

Of course we have allowed ourselves to go off on a tangent about wording. There seems little practical difference between a book that is never stocked and one that is pulled from the shelves.

Further there seems little practical difference between the idea that the librarian knows best to the idea the policeman, or the judge or the doctor knows best.

On the other hand, the idea that "The People" of a community can force a book onto the shelves leads us to the conclusion that the mob can also insist on books being taken from the collection. Down this path lies mob rule.

I find all this quite reminiscent of any number of battles between the outraged citizens and the school board over darn near anything. Certainly professionals ought to be allowed to do their jobs, but just a surely the taxpayers ought to have their voices heard.

[Justin_Bailey]

I find all this quite reminiscent of any number of battles between the outraged citizens and the school board over darn near anything. Certainly professionals ought to be allowed to do their jobs, but just a surely the taxpayers ought to have their voices heard.

Taxpayers voices are always heard, we just don't always do what they ask.

My library has a giant stack of suggestion cards by by the circulation desk that people can fill out. After making the suggestion the public has no more say in the matter, at that point, it's solely up to the librarian's discretion.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Of course we have allowed ourselves to go off on a tangent about wording. There seems little practical difference between a book that is never stocked and one that is pulled from the shelves.Either I'm missing your point, or you're missing mine. I feel that there's a very big difference. In one case, a librarian is looking at catalogs containing tens of thousands of new books, and winnowing it down to the hundreds that the library will acquire--and then repeating the process every month or every quarter. In the other case, somebody is looking at the existing stock, which someone already decided was worthing putting on the shelves and trying to have it pulled. Why? So that somebody else can't read it.

Further there seems little practical difference between the idea that the librarian knows best to the idea the policeman, or the judge or the doctor knows best.

On the other hand, the idea that "The People" of a community can force a book onto the shelves leads us to the conclusion that the mob can also insist on books being taken from the collection. Down this path lies mob rule.A librarian's job is to put as many books as possible on the shelves that people want to read. It's not mob rule for the librarian to respond to suggestions from the public, and it's not authoritarian for the librarian to attempt to anticipate those requests and buy the books that people will probably want to check out.

Requesting a book for a library = adding stock so that someone else can read it.

Requesting a ban = removing stock so that someone else can't read it.

The former is expanding our freedoms and options. The latter is infringing them.

[Paul in Qatar]

So adding a book (for free!) would be such a good deal no librarian would turn it down? Unless of course they were into silencing some points of view.

[Justin_Bailey]

So adding a book (for free!) would be such a good deal no librarian would turn it down? Unless of course they were into silencing some points of view.

Space constraints (and every library has space constraints) force the librarians to be choosy over which books are added and which books are sold after they are donated. What library needs a dozen new copies of Jurassic Park every year?

Plus, a lot of stuff that's donated is in horrible shape and wouldn't survive having labels slapped on it in processing, let alone the rigors of circulation.

I think you're looking to be outraged when logic should tell you your demands are unreasonable.

[Kimstu]

So adding a book (for free!) would be such a good deal no librarian would turn it down?

Is shelf space free and unlimited? No. In a library of finite size, every book that goes onto a shelf means less space for other books. And every half-hour spent cataloguing and labeling a newly acquired book means less time to devote to other library tasks.

So a librarian would have to be a fool to believe that just because somebody handed them a free book, it's necessarily a good idea for them to catalogue and shelve it.

Hell, even thrift shops, which are purely charity organizations dependent on donated goods to turn a penny, don't just automatically accept and add to their stock every single shmatte or tchotchke that somebody gives them. They have to exercise some judgement about what sort of things make the most sense for them to stock, given that they don't have unlimited time and space to accomodate everything.

[gonzomax]

When the most powerful politician in the city asks about banning books ,it is not just a question. There is a message being sent.

[dangermom]

So adding a book (for free!) would be such a good deal no librarian would turn it down? Unless of course they were into silencing some points of view.
Not quite. There's no such thing as adding a book for free, since it has to be processed and put into the system, which takes labor. Also, library shelf space is not infinite, and it's up to the librarian to decide what books merit the space they take up. If I handed a bunch of old ripped-up Gor paperbacks to a librarian (for free!), the books would not merit the time, money, and shelf space they would take up.

A library collection has to be a bunch of things:
--Reasonably updated, but retaining many older books of worth/historical interest.
--Balanced, covering a million different topics fairly but without over-emphasizing topics (if you let your Sylvia Browne books outnumber your books on art history, you have a problem, though that would never actually happen because astrology books always get stolen).
--Plenty of books on topics of local interest.
--Responsive to patron interests and requests, within reason.

Now, the proper way for a patron to request any book to be added to the collection is to request it, which is free and easy to do. Most library systems with enough money to do so will buy just about anything that a patron requests, within reason. (They probably won't buy your vanity-press novel, or random older novels, etc.)

Donating a book to the library and expecting it to show up on the shelves is simply unrealistic. That's not what donations are for. Donations are, primarily, for libraries to sell in order to buy new books they've actually chosen. So donating a book on any topic is not a good way to get that book in the system; you are much more likely to see the book appear if you fill out a request. There is no reason for a librarian to go through the giant pile of donated books, putting anything in reasonable condition into the collection. The library may well put a few selected titles on the shelves if their book budget is small enough, but it's not a collection development tool at all.

When a librarian is looking at controversial topics to stock, she's going to be looking to purchase the best, most respected, or most popular books in the genre, not whatever comes into the donation pile. You want a few well-selected titles that will cover the ground completely and competently from different points of view. The donation table is simply not the source from which you look to create that.

We've explained this so many times now, I don't understand why the same question keeps getting asked.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

So a librarian would have to be a fool to believe that just because somebody handed them a free book, it's necessarily a good idea for them to catalogue and shelve it.Just to reinforce this point, I own a bookstore with a used book room, and I turn down at least half of the stuff I'm offered for free.

If that doesn't make sense to you, think about it like this: You give me a copy of "I'm Okay, You're Okay" that your mom bought in the 70s. I already have 14 copies. I sell one of those every four years. If I accept your book, it's likely to sit here for over 50 years before I finally sell it for fifty cents. My shelf space needs to make me a LOT more than a penny a year per book to make a profit. So even though you're offering me something for free that I can sell for real money someday, it's not worth it and I'll turn it down. I'd rather pay a buck for a Patterson book I'll sell for three bucks next month than take "I'm Okay, You're Okay" and let it rot on the shelf.

[dangermom]

Perhaps it would help you to understand that most libraries get a lot of donations--we take hundreds of books every week, and we're a medium-small library. Librarians do not go through donations--that's a job that volunteers do (usually volunteers are the ones running the book sales and anything to do with donations). In our library--not in all--the volunteers take books they think the library might want and set them aside for the librarians to check through. So librarians don't see the majority of donated books at all.

[Bryan Ekers]

How difficult is it to establish a public library, anyway? Can I rent or buy a building, fill it with books, and call it a library?

If so, I don't see the censorship angle, here, any more than it's "censorship" for PBS to choose not to air pro-wrestling.

As an afterthought, rather than donating right-wing books and crowing when they don't get shelf space, what if the right-wingers had requested the library stock particular right-wing books and then crow when (assuming if) the requests get ignored or rejected, claiming their interests are not being served in favour of librul left-wingy stuff?

Too complicated?

[Sampiro]

Most libraries accept donations, but generally only on the understanding that they are free to add them to the collection or dispose of them as they see fit. If you add it to the collection, you have to catalogue it and find space on the shelves for it. (And shelf space is not free). With public libraries, there is the added consideration that they don't want stuff on the shelves that never gets read, because it makes the users feel that the library is less relevant to their needs. (This probably ought to be a consideration for academic libraries, but they have more of a captive clientele).

Preach it brother. Add to this that most libraries, especially small ones, have a backlog in cataloging, and this is especially true if it's a not very popular book that doesn't already have a LoC or Dewey record available through the cataloging source (OCLC) that most libraries use (i.e. they can't just "copy and paste" and amend certain parts of the data as needed). Books can be and are sometimes fast tracked, but most wait in line, and as most smaller libraries don't have a full time cataloger (the librarian who does cataloging [which is a specialty] may also do everything from part-time reference to watching the circulation desk) it's not uncommon for it to take weeks or months for an item to get to the shelf.

It's not a matter of censorship. If the books had been bestsellers by Stephen King or treatises by the Planned Parenthood it's doubtful they'd have reached the shelf any sooner if at all. WHAT goes on the shelf is a major decision at all libraries. You want to have some free space, but not much, and there comes a point at which nothing can go on the shelves without something coming off. So here's a book on "Abortion is Sinful"- what do you take off to make room for it? Do you already have anti-abortion books? If so, how often do they circulate and do you need another? Etc.

In other words it's an artificial excuse for chest thumping. I'm pretty far to the left and I routinely order any new books by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and other pundits I loathe because I know they'll be requested and I think most librarians worth their salt are the same.

[Justin_Bailey]

In other words it's an artificial excuse for chest thumping. I'm pretty far to the left and I routinely order any new books by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and other pundits I loathe because I know they'll be requested and I think most librarians worth their salt are the same.

Exactly. Mainstream righty authors are already well represented in any decent library. And asking for (or donating) fringe stuff makes the request easy to ignore because it's, by definition, stuff on the fringe.

The same is true for lefty stuff.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

How difficult is it to establish a public library, anyway? Can I rent or buy a building, fill it with books, and call it a library?Yes, you can. And you can make it public or private and stock it with anything you darned well please.

[Lamia]

So adding a book (for free!) would be such a good deal no librarian would turn it down?Uh, no. I don't see how you could possibly take that message from anything any librarian has posted here. Unless the donor is in possession of a rare and valuable book, it isn't a deal for the library at all.

The majority of public libraries do not need, or even particularly want, donated books to add to their collections. It's not like librarians don't know where to buy books, and the cost of a single book is usually a negligible expense*. The cover price may well be less than the cost of the labor that goes into cataloging, processing, and shelving the book.

If the donated book then sits there on the shelf unread, it's all been for nothing.

Unless of course they were into silencing some points of view.If libraries were required to shelve every single donated book, you'd have libraries filled to the bursting point with vintage Harlequins, Reader's Digest condensed novels, self-published sub-Vogon quality poetry, and multiple copies of the bestsellers of yesteryear. It is not the library's responsibility to provide a forum for every single book ever printed. A library that did not exercise some judgment in the selection process would be of very little use to anyone.

*At a small academic library it can be a different story. At my old job we regularly accepted donations of scholarly texts from professors, but these were books that cost $100-$300 each. They were also books donated by people who were experts in the field and had a good idea of what would actually be useful to the library. Even then we didn't take everything -- some donations clearly had nothing to do with the research field to which our collection was devoted.

[Sampiro]

Any other librarians ever get those packages from Scientology? They send us (small academic) boxes of newly printed books on Scientology and books by and about [from Scientologist authors] L. Ron Hubbard about once a year. These are brand new excellent condition books; we added a couple of copies of Dianetics to the library since there are occasionally reports on Scientology but the sci-fi novels and others usually get put on the free books cart and later tossed if not claimed.

[Sampiro]

*At a small academic library it can be a different story. At my old job we regularly accepted donations of scholarly texts from professors, but these were books that cost $100-$300 each. They were also books donated by people who were experts in the field and had a good idea of what would actually be useful to the library. Even then we didn't take everything -- some donations clearly had nothing to do with the research field to which our collection was devoted.

Professors can be a real pain in the ass with their donations as well. I've had professors over the years who wanted to donate boxes full of 20 year old textbooks, dogeared paperback copies of books already in the library, books that you can be pretty sure absolutely nobody anytime is ever going to check out ("ooh, a copy of Black Beauty in Chinese, thanks!") and they want to be recognized with everything from plaques to absurd tax deductions to just short of a small wing with a marble bust of the professor on a turntable. Also, lawyers- I've had some lawyers and their widows get downright rude when they want to donate old law books- "these things cost $12,000 and you're a non-profit organization!" (and they well might have cost $12,000 but we already have them and can't afford the shelf space- I'm sure you can find a law student who'd love to have them).

[Measure for Measure]

How much does it cost to store a book?

At an off-site facility, this 1997 study estimated the cost at $3.90 per volume for 10 years (http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/pub97/bodyb.html).

Making a half-assed calculation and assuming a rate of return of 5%, I figure the cost to endow a volume for 100 years at about $10. Consider that to be a lowest bound estimate: on-site storage would necessarily be substantially more expensive.

[emmaliminal]

How much does it cost to store a book?Interesting data point, but don't forget that if we're talking about libraries, the book has to be more than just stored: it has to be stamped, barcoded, labeled, inventoried, cataloged, possibly have its cover wrapped in plastic and have a loss-prevention sticker hidden in it somewhere, and shelved. In other words, it has to become part of a library collection, not just take up space, which involves labor, computer systems, and supplies. Then, once it's become part of the collection, you need librarians with library systems to help people find it, keep people from walking off with it, check it out, and check it back in -- more labor, more computers.

[Paul in Qatar]

Thank you all. You have to respect the Dope for the level of discussion, experience and information available.

[Justin_Bailey]

Any other librarians ever get those packages from Scientology? They send us (small academic) boxes of newly printed books on Scientology and books by and about [from Scientologist authors] L. Ron Hubbard about once a year. These are brand new excellent condition books; we added a couple of copies of Dianetics to the library since there are occasionally reports on Scientology but the sci-fi novels and others usually get put on the free books cart and later tossed if not claimed.

Oh god yes! They send us DVDs that talk about the glorious history of Scientology. I think I've gotten four different pacakges in the last two years. I chucked the discs and I saved the DVD cases because replacement cases are always good to have around.

"An Intimate Interview With Scientology Founder L Ron Hubbard"? Not so much.

[Lamia]

Professors can be a real pain in the ass with their donations as well.I've never had a professor be a jerk about it (although I'm still early in my career), but some of them were obviously just bringing us stuff that they wanted to get rid of. Like a book about obediance training for dogs -- maybe it was an excellent work on the subject, but not much use at the library of a water research center.

[gonzomax]

Whats the difference between a midget being electrocuted and Palin. One of them is a stunning runt ,the other is.....

[Lamia]

Any other librarians ever get those packages from Scientology? They send us (small academic) boxes of newly printed books on Scientology and books by and about [from Scientologist authors] L. Ron Hubbard about once a year.Anyone who still thinks that libraries should shelve any and all donations should consider this point. Librarians may not be "always right", but any librarian will have received training at the graduate level on selecting and evaluating materials. Librarians also have a professional ethical obligation to maintain a balanced collection that provides accurate information from and about a variety of viewpoints, an obligation that most librarians take very seriously.

Putting collection decisions into the hands of donors means that whatever special interest group has the most money or makes the most noise wins. If every library cheerfully accepted every book donated by the Church of Scientology, Christian Fundamentalists, and other groups with a clear interest in "witnessing" of one kind or another, the result would be more bias, not less. This is an especially troubling prospect because the people who really need public libraries are those who cannot easily afford to buy books on their own.

When it comes to what materials belong in the library, I'd trust the judgment of any librarian over that of, say, Jack T. Chick (http://www.chick.com).