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, *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–Th*e 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.
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.
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 covers this sort of thing. Some relevant passages:
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.
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]
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.
What difference does that make. Paying taxes does not give anyone a license to dictate what a library does and does not buy.
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:
(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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.