It doesn’t happen with small town mayors.
Cite?
Regards,
Shodan
Ironicaly they’d likely ban a Nazi book
Thanks, Miller!
In the time that I’ve been gone I earned my Master’s in library science and began my career as a professional librarian, so this thread seemed like an auspicious choice for my return to GD. 
Bricker, as a lawyer you must have some understanding of what it’s like to be a member of an oft-misunderstood profession. A librarian isn’t just a glorified Barnes & Noble cashier. Librarians are members of a profession with certain ethical standards. You can see the Code of Ethics of the American Library Association online here. I’ll quote a couple of relevant passages:
The librarian in your proposed scenario would not be acting in accordance with these principles. She would be a disgrace to the profession. A library can’t hold on to every book forever, but a book should never be tossed because a single librarian decided all on her own that it must be offensive to community members.
If the book were offending so many people there would have been complaints about it, and if it were of no interest to readers the circulation records would reflect this. The librarian’s “belief” about community opinions or interests shouldn’t come into it once the book is on the shelves. Even if it were a demonstrable fact that many community members were offended by the book, a good librarian would “resist all efforts to censor library resources”.
That said, I don’t see why the mayor’s opinion on the matter should carry any more weight than that of other community member. I’ve never heard of a town where the librarian reported directly to the mayor. The librarian typically reports to a library board, the members of which may be either elected or appointed depending on local practice. If the mayor doesn’t approve of the librarian’s collection management decisions, he should take it up with the board.
Really though, your scenario is just a big straw man. In real life, Mary Ellen Emmons behaved in accordance with the ethics of her profession. The librarian in your fantasy scenario betrayed these ethics. What about these two situations is supposed to be similar? No one here has said “anything a librarian ever does must automatically be right”. The closest anyone has come to that is pointing out that Emmons, a popular librarian who had seven years experience at Wasilla Public, presumably knew more about managing the collection than the newly-elected mayor, a woman with no library background at all.
What are you suggesting, that library books be selected by popular vote? You’d have a library with nothing but the latest bestsellers then. Practically any system would be better than that, possibly even purchasing books at random.
The question of who should make the call as to which books to purchase isn’t that difficult to answer. The best person for the job is one who received special graduate level training in the management of library collections, and who was after all due consideration hired to perform such duties for the library in question. In this case, that would be Mary Ellen Emmons.
Okay. I agree. But then, would you agree that when a community seeks to hire one of these experts, do they have the right to hire one that reflects their tastes?
That’s easy.
No.
No, I do not agree that a librarian’s personal tastes or beliefs should be a factor in hiring.
Public librarians aren’t hired by “a community” anyway. It’s not an elected position. Librarians are generally hired by the library director and/or the library board, people whose tastes do not necessarily reflect that of the community at large.
Not that this should make much difference. A public librarian’s duty is to provide the community with a balanced mix of quality information on a variety of subjects. The purpose of public libraries is not to simply serve as a free source of pleasant, inoffensive reading material.
Yes. Hire a professional to decide what books are stocked, and what books aren’t, and leave the politics out of it entirely.
It’s not a political position. “Library Director” is an official title given to the head of the library. As kids, we would have called this person the “Head Librarian.” When in fact, their title was “Director.”
There is even a Civil Service position titled “Library Director”.
“balanced mix”, that’d the rub, isn’t it? Who decides what is “balanced”. Surely Librarian Bill O’Reilly and Librarian Keith Olberman would have different ideas about that, wouldn’t they. Tell me, if should a conservative community be forced to accept Olberman’s definition? Should a liberal community be forced to accept O’Reilly’s? Or should each be able to chose the one they prefer. Keep in mind, they are both professional Librarians.
Thanks you for your contribution.
But is that really possible? See my reply to Lamia, above.
Yes, it’s really possible. It’s done every day.
What happens if judge Bill O’Reilly or judge Keith Olberman discriminate in court against people of one political view or another? Easy - you kick them out, and a liberal doing it is just as bad as a conservative doing it.
My town is not exactly a hotbed of Christianity or creationism, but our library has both books supporting creationism and books supporting evolution - and that is just as it should be. It has right wing books and left wing books. It has books on all kinds of religions and on atheism. Why is this so difficult to understand? I think the creationist books are bullshit, but I’d be up in arms at any librarian or anyone who tried to remove them. I trust you feel the same about books that don’t support your position.
After all, we’re talking libraries here, and we expect a higher standard of ethics than in the Bush Justice Department.
ignore this, I’m just trying to subscribe to the thread
That’s how it might work in a majority dictatorship where freedom of speech and thought depends on the whim of the majority. In America, there should be a strong bias to include the books citizens request, whether liberal or conservative, and a strong bias against excluding any book, whether liberal or conservative. It just baffles me that anyone could think there is a legitimate reason for banning a book. If it offends you, don’t check it out. If you think it spreads dangerous ideas, too bad. We prosecute dangerous acts in America, not dangerous ideas. I don’t care whether it’s Ann Coulter or the Anarchist Cookbook.
Thread tools -> Subscribe to this thread. No need to reply 
Look, do you actually have a position here or are you just arguing for the fun of it? In your last post you suggested that librarians shouldn’t even be hired unless they “reflect [the community’s] tastes”. That’s essentially the opposite of providing a balanced mix. But now you’re suddenly concerned that librarians can’t do the very thing you didn’t want them to do just hours before.
Well, let me assure you that, during the process of obtaining their Master’s degree in library science, librarians are well trained in how to develop a balanced collection. Any librarian is going to be better equipped to handle this task than “the community” at large.
Neither of those men are librarians. I suppose we could have a jolly time imagining what it would be like if Bill O’Reilly, Hugh Hefner, Mister Rogers, or Vlad the Impaler were librarians, but that’s not a debate. It’s just making things up.
A librarian’s personal political views should not be a factor in the hiring process. It would be inappropriate for a candidate to even be questioned on his or her political views.
I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the case at hand. There isn’t any evidence that Mary Ellen Emmons’s political views were interfering with her work as a librarian, merely that Palin didn’t feel she personally had Emmons’s support. (It is very troubling to me that Palin considered this grounds for dismissal, as a library director’s job is to run the library, not be a cheerleader for the mayor.) Palin didn’t accuse Emmons of running a biased library, and it appears that she didn’t even have specific titles in mind when she asked about how to have a book pulled. None of the available facts indicate that Palin was in any way concerned that Emmons had failed in her duty to provide a balanced mix of quality information on a variety of subjects.
Even if Wasilla Public had been full of books that reflected only one political perspective, the solution to this problem would not be to toss them all out but rather to buy more books that represented other views.
Here’s a dose of reality: don’t you think they have better things to worry about than counting all the “liberal books” and all the “conservative books” and fretting over if one list is longer than the other? I’d guess that most libraries (we’re not talking the Bookmobile) have room for plenty of titles on both ends of the spectrum.