WV_Woman: I heartily support any parent’s efforts to keep their kids from reading unsuitable material. (I also support the efforts of the kids to read the unsuitable material, but that’s another story.) But this is a matter of the library controlling the access, not the parents. I don’t think it’s the library’s place to act in loco parentis. Ever.
I don’t think this is book banning, but it is not okay, either. It is better than not having the book at all, however. I like tom~'s idea of having a prominent list of “permission only” books. A ready-made reading list!
Or perhaps another option would be to have “regular” library cards and “restricted” library cards. Kids would automatically be issued the regular card. If a parent wishes to restrict his/her kids access, then he/she must contact the school with the request for the restricted card. That way, the burden would be on those that wanted the restrictions.
Or the best option yet is the one doreen suggests: the parents can just forbid the kids to read the books that they find unsuitable. Parents doing parenting! Imagine that.
However, did you know that in most states, your kid could go to the local public library and check out, oh, let’s say the Kama Sutra, and not only will they LET your child check it out, you have absolutely NO right to know about it? Parents are not allowed in most states to look at their kid’s borrowing record.
Your 13 year old kid could also go look at porn on the library’s computers and they won’t do anything about it.
Censorship is when the gov’t says you can’t read or publish a book. If Wal-Mart decides not to sell a certain book or to remove an issue of The Enquirer off the shelves, that is not censorship.
In this case, it is the parents who have the control of the situation. The library is not saying Johnny can’t read this book, they’re saying they want to make sure Johnny’s parents don’t have a problem with it. Asking permission of parents is not censorship.
What would be an issue is if Johnny’s parents said that little Suzy from across the street can’t read the books. They wouldn’t get far, but that’s infringing on someone else’s rights.
Now, if Johnny had the permission slip and the library still said no, (other than the books being checked out elsewhere) well…
You (may) have no right to demand that the library inform you. (and I expect that depends on whether you had to agree to be responsible for books checked out on the card, as I did for my children’s first library card, and if the record cotinues to exist after the book is returned). However, you, as a parent, have every right to inspect whatever books your child brings into your home, whether borrowed from the library , bought at a bookstore or borrowed from a friend.
It is also not true, of course. I’m sure that you could find some library in the U.S. where a kid could check out the Kama Sutra, but in the overwhelming number of libraries (among the few that actually even have the book) it would be forbidden to kids. The issue of parents reviewing the borrowing lists of their children is less clear; a lot of libraries permit it, some encourage it, others prevent it. I have never seen evidence of a state law prohibiting access to a child’s records although there have been a few attempts to require that parents be provided access. (I do note that most of the libraries I’ve seen where parents cannot review the records of their children are college libraries where the children are, presumably, legal adults.)
I do not object to a parent having control over a child’s reading material; I just see no reason for the library to be involved. I do not believe, for example, that parents are prohibted from seeing what their children check out. Again, it could happen somewhere, but most local libraries will deal with parents as parents and let them review the check-out lists of their children.
Regarding the internet access: most libraries do take an interest in what children view. The ALA actually encourages direct parental supervision as one means of controlling access. The idea that kids are out there cruising the porn sites while librarians deliberately ignore them is nonsense.
This is complete hogwash. Besides that, your typical 13 year old (hell, your typical 30 year old for that matter) isn’t going to go around shamelessly looking at porn in full view of the public.
The parents that want Harry Potter behind the counter aren’t trying to protect their own children from Harry Potter; they’re trying to protect everyone’s children from Harry Potter. That’s why (to them) a system where you can restrict just your own child from getting to the book is not acceptable to them, and why the “compromise” that Arkansas reached is not a compromise; it gave the Forces of Darkness exactly what they wanted.
Actually, my worst nightmare involved Heather Graham, Jessica Alba, and vanilla pudding. Actually, that wasn’t a nightmare at all…
Actually, my nightmare consists of the day when someone else can affect my ability to raise my children in the way I see fit. While I have never been interested in reading the Harry Potter books (they seemed too typically fantastic to me), I would whole heartedly support any child reading these books. Think about it, good guy beats the bad guy, and there are plenty of things in the book to inspire the child’s imaginiation.
Now, suppose a kid read these books and, God forbid, developed a life-long love for fantasy/sci-fi books. Not only would they learn all kinds of new words, but the mind of this child would be more open to other possiblilities than anyone can possibly imagine. Oh, no! Somebody ban these books! Or at the very least put them behind the counter! Out of sight, out of mind, right?
BTW, I have to wonder how many of the parents who don’t want their children to read these books have actually read it themselves. Did they just listen to Jerry Falwell and believe that Satan had written the book from the blood of the innocents? Doubt it.
Parents are not entirely precluded from looking at their child’s circulation records. If little Johnny has rung up $200 in overdue fines on the Kama Sutra, little Johnny’s parents get the bill and they will be able to see what the bill is for. Also more and more libraries let people check their circulation records online. So, if Mom and Pop hold on to little Johnny’s library card, they should be able to see what he is reading.
As a working public librarian, I would also say that 99% of all pornography viewed on public Internet terminals is by adults. Minors are usually addicted to chat rooms and game sites.
So, just why is the library supposed to act as the sole authority of what a child can and cannot check out. Some parents want their kids to read Harry Potter, others don’t. Is the library (as an institution) always supposed to defer to the parents who want the most restrictive view?
doreen, you make a great point. There is a huge difference between limiting childrens’ access to adult material and limiting access to material intended for children.