Not to argue against your position, but I am fairly sure his point was that that developing a balanced collection may not be the most straightforward thing. If it were, then we wouldn’t have a jolly time imagining any of these people as librarians, because they’d still all pick balanced collections after their training.
I thought it was an interesting point. :shrug:
It’s not working on this thread. Still some glitches to work out, apparently.
While libraries do carry books on both sides of the political spectrum, I’d say that you’d be hard pressed to find a library that didn’t at least skew more in one direction or the other.
You want to buy for your community and if your community skews more conservative or more liberal, that’s going to appear in the collection. The problem is when people try to apply the liberal/conservative ideal to fiction, where it doesn’t really belong. I’ve known liberals that read the Left Behind series and I know conservatives (a nun even!) who love the bloodiest murder mysteries.
Damn upgrade!!! I just wrote a rather intricate response to Cosmic Relief and it disappeared for eternity when I hit submit. (And the bolding function is not working, either. Nor smilies.)
I don’t feel like typing the whole thing over again. But the point is that a library collection is the result of choices. While I agree that the default should be to be as inclusive and balanced as possible, should a particular collection reflect the choices of a Librarian or of the community? Should three small communities—one 90% black, one 90% white, and one 90% hispanic—all have the exact same collections? I think not. I think the collection should—and, in reality, does—reflect the tastes of the community it serves? Should a library in SF’s Castro have the same collection as one in Plano, TX? I think not. And if a Librarian hired by the people in the Castro was not responsive to the community desires, they would be doing nothing wrong by replacing her. or him.
Some see this as a tyranny of the majority. I think “tyranny” goes way to far, but I say it beats a tyranny of a minority. I don’t see why a particular community should be forced to have a collection of books that does not reflect that community.
The problem with that is that the people that will be outraged over the fact that their ideals are not reflected in the collection are never part of the “community” and are instead working towards their own goals.
I saw this just the other day when a man complained that we have too many cookbooks and not enough theater and acting books. He ignored the fact that we are a mid-size suburban library where a variety of cookbooks is an asset and that the large downtown library has a huge collection of acting books, so we do not have to invest in a collection that would rarely circulate.
Don’t confuse the man with facts! You’ll make it difficult to continue propping up the senseless argument! What kind of a monster are you?
It is interesting but I think the counterpoint is librarians, via their Masters’ degree program, are specifically trained to leave their personal views at the door and endeavor to build a balanced collection regardless of their own views. I think professionalism can easily trump all but the most die hard zealot in pursuit of their duties. They understand that a state of having libraries swing left or right at the whims of whichever politics a given librarian holds is a sorry state of affairs and the correct stance is a largely balanced book collection.
Hmm. I would think that a library should be different from a bookstore. Bookstores reflect the community. It’s how they stay profitable. Libraries may, to some extent, reflect a community, but it is not how I would characterized a balanced collection. If anything, reflecting a particular community would be one way I might characterized a biased collection.
Yeah, that’s not how it works. You want your community to come in and use the library, so you have to fill it with what they want.
Of course, this shouldn’t stop a good librarian from also filling it with items people should be exposing themselves to.
Catering to individuals is not really the point. It’s serving the community at large. If 90% wanted more books on acting than cooking, shouldn’t your library provide that? If not, why? And if you for some strange reason were personally anti-acting books, wouldn’t the community be within their rights to replace you with another Librarian who didn’t share your bias? And had a bias that was more in line with their own?
This was the part of my post that said “libraries may, to some extent, reflect a community…” A library wouldn’t be that awesome if it didn’t serve the community at all.
I’m a little confused as to what your position is here. On the one hand you seem to say that libraries can, indeed, “to some extent, reflect a community”. On the other hand you seem to be saying that a “biased” collection is a bad thing. But the former IS the latter, isn’t it?
Let’s compare apples and apples. Take three libraries in different parts of the country. The communities they serve are identical in population. The libraries themselves are identical in size and the number of books they can hold, according to you (if I’m understanding you correctly), they should all have identical collections, right? And the collection in South Miami cannot have more books on the Latin-American experience or Cuba than the library in Harlem which cannot have more books on the African-American experience than the library in lily white New Canaan, CT.
Did you not understand my post? That’s exactly what I said. One individual was angry about our lack of acting books and the overabundance of cooking books. But the community (meaning many many people) likes the cooking books and encourages us to buy more.
So what exactly are you arguing for?
And if you don’t? Is the community then within their rights to replace you with a Librarian who would be more responsive?
I agree completely.
I’m not really arguing against you. Sorry if it came off that way. Just using your unique position to explore the point.
Ah, a contribution of your usual caliber. Now why don’t you expand on it by stating what argument, specifically, you are referring to. And why, it is “senseless”.
The question is moot as other things would into play long before the community asked for the librarian’s ouster. If no one is using the library, circulation and vistor stats go down. When circulation and visitor stats go down, the local government often ponies up fewer dollars to the budget. This of course leads to even less people visiting the library and then the librarian would probably be let go for poor performance after a library board evaluation.
Unless of course the community takes to the items chosen by the librarian, at which point their job would be quite safe.
That’s a strawman, though. Nobody is saying all libraries have to have identical collections. In reality they’re limited by what is available, what people donate, what the library can afford. What I said, and I believe the other anti-ban posters are saying, is that the community should be free to add what they wish but should not be allowed to exclude books.
As long as responsive doesn’t mean banning the books that some don’t like, that’s fine. If you’re a conservative in SF Castro then you should be entitled to add some Ann Coulter trash to the collection, and nobody should try to stop you.
There’s nothing at all tyrannical about being inclusive in a library. If you don’t like my sort of book, then nobody’s forcing you to read it. If you don’t want your children reading it, then do not let them in the library unaccompanied… exercise your parenting responsibility. But you can’t prevent the librarian from stocking books that I donate, because I live in the community. You don’t get the right to force me to drive to another city or state to use a public library just because of your prejudices. It’s a PUBLIC library, not a conservative or liberal library.
This was NOT a Civil Service Position, nor was it a Librarian. She was a Political appointee who served at the will of the Mayor. You need to keep up with the thread and read the new info. Admittedly, info was sparse to start. She was the head of the dept that overlooked Library, museum, etc.
Getting back to the Op. we have now discovered the person in question was not a Librarian, she was a dept head, a poltical appointee who served at the will of the mayor.