Hey, no insults in GD! 
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.
here 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.
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.
What is the difference between the Rockettes and a circus?
A circus is an array of cunning stunts! 
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?
So the politics of the citizen matters in this case? WHy?
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.
By the way Wikipedia 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.
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.
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.
Dangermom, InvisibleWombat: I’ve started a thread in GQ: General Questions For Librarians (emphasis: book selection)
It wouldn’t work. Ann Coulter books are cataloged in several different areas.
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? 
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.
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.
*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:
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.
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.
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?
Hmm, let me think. Um…
Librarians.
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.
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?