A few times in the course of our lectures and content, we have referred to organized attempts by groups to ban books in school and public libraries. Some of you reported on these groups in Assignment 2. These groups will target books on their websites, post the contact information of decision-makers, and ask their members to write.
What if there were an organized attempt to "un-ban" a book, using the same methods?
Case in point, The Bermudez Triangle by Maureen Johnson. The book was removed from a high school library in Oklahoma for homosexual situations. ASIF (Authors Supporting Intellectual Freedom) and the video-bloggers Hank and John Green (friends of Johnson) asked their viewers to write and call the decision-makers in the process. It did not take long for the email boxes to fill. Take a look at Hank and John's response to this challenge on their site, http://www.brotherhood2.com/. The date you want to see is May 2.
In the Green's video blog, they call their fellow participants in the campaign to "decrease world suck", "Nerdfighters."
Angelina Benedetti
Friday, May 11, 2007
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Taking Heart in the Face of IF Compromises
Here's the situation. We've got a class of--what are we now, 22??--students, who are becoming intellectual freedom experts. It is clear to me that many are absolutely passionate about this subject, and are going to be really strong advocates for patron rights to read and explore freely in their libraries. I feel so proud to have participated in this process, because I really do believe that we need to keep this principle in mind in absolutely every aspect of our work in libraries. And I think we have allowed ourselves, as a profession, to become somewhat complacent on the issue. There are things that I question--for instance, allowing holds to be accessed in very public areas, with enough of a name to be recognizable, in many cases. I question the fact that some libraries have gone beyond CIPA-compliance, and actually prohibit adults from being able to disable filters, even though the Supreme Court made it clear that such access should be a possibility for those 17 and older. I question the notion that filters actually provide meaningful protections for children, particularly given how many very young children I see on a daily basis, coming into the library without any sort of parental supervision. There are so many ways to provide meaningful guidance, and filtering is only a means of censorship--not guidance.
Here's the situation. We have all these students who will be graduating from library school soon, and who are our next IF advocates. How do I break it to them that there are political and economic realities that will trump everything else? Changes in technology and library trends will also affect decisions that will have an impact on intellectual freedom. The confidentiality that patrons once enjoyed by having their holds kept behind the desk was trumped by the reality that the service was so popular that libraries could no longer store all of these materials in back rooms, and as libraries across the nation went to self-checkout, keeping holds in the front area seemed the only solution...and putting them out by name seemed the easiest for patrons. There are political and economic realities around CIPA--some libraries have been threatened with refusals to pass levies or bonds if libraries didn't filter all computers at all times. When libraries are facing public scrutiny, such as during bond or levy elections, we can't help but ask ourselves what is for the greater good--preserving intellectual freedom in its purest form, or bending a little, keeping ourselves out of controversy, so that libraries can receive the funding they need to keep buying patron materials?
What I'm trying to say here is that there is no library (that I have seen) that would pass the IF-purity test. I really doubt that there is a library in the United States that follows the Library Bill of Rights and all of its interpretations to the absolute letter, without ever compromising on an issue here or there. This is what I want to say to the students in the IF class...there will be times that you'll be disappointed in a decision that is made, and you'll be responsible for supporting those decisions once they are made, regardless of your opinions. What I really hope you'll take from this class, besides an understanding of the issue in all its complexity, is the importance of asking the questions, and raising the concerns that need to be raised. Because even when decisions don't go as you would hope, and even when you have to help make decisions that don't pass the 100% IF-purity test, if you keep asking the question and allowing the discussion to take place, then you're keeping the issue alive. And I believe so strongly that keeping intellectual freedom alive in libraries is crucial, not only for the access of our patrons, but to democracy and freedom in this country.
Here's the situation. We have all these students who will be graduating from library school soon, and who are our next IF advocates. How do I break it to them that there are political and economic realities that will trump everything else? Changes in technology and library trends will also affect decisions that will have an impact on intellectual freedom. The confidentiality that patrons once enjoyed by having their holds kept behind the desk was trumped by the reality that the service was so popular that libraries could no longer store all of these materials in back rooms, and as libraries across the nation went to self-checkout, keeping holds in the front area seemed the only solution...and putting them out by name seemed the easiest for patrons. There are political and economic realities around CIPA--some libraries have been threatened with refusals to pass levies or bonds if libraries didn't filter all computers at all times. When libraries are facing public scrutiny, such as during bond or levy elections, we can't help but ask ourselves what is for the greater good--preserving intellectual freedom in its purest form, or bending a little, keeping ourselves out of controversy, so that libraries can receive the funding they need to keep buying patron materials?
What I'm trying to say here is that there is no library (that I have seen) that would pass the IF-purity test. I really doubt that there is a library in the United States that follows the Library Bill of Rights and all of its interpretations to the absolute letter, without ever compromising on an issue here or there. This is what I want to say to the students in the IF class...there will be times that you'll be disappointed in a decision that is made, and you'll be responsible for supporting those decisions once they are made, regardless of your opinions. What I really hope you'll take from this class, besides an understanding of the issue in all its complexity, is the importance of asking the questions, and raising the concerns that need to be raised. Because even when decisions don't go as you would hope, and even when you have to help make decisions that don't pass the 100% IF-purity test, if you keep asking the question and allowing the discussion to take place, then you're keeping the issue alive. And I believe so strongly that keeping intellectual freedom alive in libraries is crucial, not only for the access of our patrons, but to democracy and freedom in this country.
Friday, May 4, 2007
An Interesting Twist on IF Challenges
I've been meaning to share news about a program at our WLA conference a couple of weeks ago, in the Tri-Cities in Washington. It was a program that I coordinated as part of the WLA Intellectual Freedom interest group, about first-hand experiences with challenges, called "Stories from the Frontlines." In that program, one of our speakers, the director of Fort Vancouver Regional Library System, Bruce Ziegman, shared the story of FVRL's long struggle (about 9 years) with the issue of Internet access and filtering. I admired Bruce for coming to this program and sharing the story, because I think he and the library system received flack from both the public and library communities during this period, and it remains a controversial subject. Here's the story in a nutshell, and my own reaction to the situation.
FVRL offered both filtered and unfiltered access for a number of years, having filtered computers available in the childrens' areas, as many libraries do, but no restrictions on the others, including who could use the computers. Then along came CIPA, which affected libraries everywhere. An interesting note here is that Candace Morgan was Associate Director for FVRL at the time that CIPA was first passed by Congress, and as a long-time Intellectual Freedom guru, she testified in the Supreme Court case on CIPA. Initially after CIPA was upheld by the Supreme Court, FVRL became CIPA compliant, offering adults the choice to have filters disabled. But that was not enough for some of the more vocal members of the community. In early 2006, the FVRL Board voted to take measures to limit Internet access beyond CIPA compliance--so that even adults no longer had the choice to have filters disabled in the public library computers.
Bruce raised an interesting point during the program, by asking the question, "who does the library belong to"--to the staff, to the board, or to the public? The obvious answer, we can all agree, is that the library belongs to the members of the community. But I would come to a very different conclusion based on this answer. Bruce seemed to imply that because the library belongs to the people, the library had to respond to the vocal members of the community--and they may have even been a majority, although I don't know whether that's the case. My take on this is different. Because the library belongs to the community, then all members of the community should have a choice of what they get from it. I think it's a very dangerous thing to allow the most vocal people, even if they are a majority, to deny the rights of others.
Sitting in the room were the director and assistant director for North Central Regional Library System, and it was interesting during the Q-and-A period to hear from them. NCRL is currently facing a very different kind of challenge. NCRL takes a similar approach to FVRL, by denying all patrons the ability to disable filters on their public computers. In the case of NCRL, however, several patrons are now challenging the library system with a lawsuit, asserting that the library is engaging in unlawful censorship and denying their right to access lawful material. This will be a fascinating case to watch, and presents an interesting twist on intellectual freedom challenge, since in this case the patrons are challenging the library's role as censor.
FVRL offered both filtered and unfiltered access for a number of years, having filtered computers available in the childrens' areas, as many libraries do, but no restrictions on the others, including who could use the computers. Then along came CIPA, which affected libraries everywhere. An interesting note here is that Candace Morgan was Associate Director for FVRL at the time that CIPA was first passed by Congress, and as a long-time Intellectual Freedom guru, she testified in the Supreme Court case on CIPA. Initially after CIPA was upheld by the Supreme Court, FVRL became CIPA compliant, offering adults the choice to have filters disabled. But that was not enough for some of the more vocal members of the community. In early 2006, the FVRL Board voted to take measures to limit Internet access beyond CIPA compliance--so that even adults no longer had the choice to have filters disabled in the public library computers.
Bruce raised an interesting point during the program, by asking the question, "who does the library belong to"--to the staff, to the board, or to the public? The obvious answer, we can all agree, is that the library belongs to the members of the community. But I would come to a very different conclusion based on this answer. Bruce seemed to imply that because the library belongs to the people, the library had to respond to the vocal members of the community--and they may have even been a majority, although I don't know whether that's the case. My take on this is different. Because the library belongs to the community, then all members of the community should have a choice of what they get from it. I think it's a very dangerous thing to allow the most vocal people, even if they are a majority, to deny the rights of others.
Sitting in the room were the director and assistant director for North Central Regional Library System, and it was interesting during the Q-and-A period to hear from them. NCRL is currently facing a very different kind of challenge. NCRL takes a similar approach to FVRL, by denying all patrons the ability to disable filters on their public computers. In the case of NCRL, however, several patrons are now challenging the library system with a lawsuit, asserting that the library is engaging in unlawful censorship and denying their right to access lawful material. This will be a fascinating case to watch, and presents an interesting twist on intellectual freedom challenge, since in this case the patrons are challenging the library's role as censor.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Qualifier!
Hello, all.
I re-read my last post and feel the need to do a little qualifying. And, as a bonus, tag on a question or two for your consideration.
The qualification? I should have said that Imus' firing made it a rough week for him, not a rough week for me.
I did not find it pleasant to hear, over and over again, what it is that he said (because it was, to my hearing, ugly and demeaning and entirely lacking in sense) but that did not make my week rough.
It is just that Mr. Imus' firing opens some interesting questions about the limits of publicly-acceptable speech. Where I might personally find his words objectionable, I might still be called-upon to provide access to them (and words like them) in the library setting.
Here is that question for your consideration:
Is firing someone a more or less acceptable response to objectionable speech than prosecuting them?
Follow-up question:
Which action is more likely to result in such speech not being repeated?
As for Vonnegut's death? That was hard on me. I loved his writing.
AB
I re-read my last post and feel the need to do a little qualifying. And, as a bonus, tag on a question or two for your consideration.
The qualification? I should have said that Imus' firing made it a rough week for him, not a rough week for me.
I did not find it pleasant to hear, over and over again, what it is that he said (because it was, to my hearing, ugly and demeaning and entirely lacking in sense) but that did not make my week rough.
It is just that Mr. Imus' firing opens some interesting questions about the limits of publicly-acceptable speech. Where I might personally find his words objectionable, I might still be called-upon to provide access to them (and words like them) in the library setting.
Here is that question for your consideration:
Is firing someone a more or less acceptable response to objectionable speech than prosecuting them?
Follow-up question:
Which action is more likely to result in such speech not being repeated?
As for Vonnegut's death? That was hard on me. I loved his writing.
AB
Rough Week
It was a rough week.
However one might characterize the comments Don Imus made about the Rutgers basketball team, he did actually lose his job for exercising his right to free speech. While what he said was not qualitatively different than things he had said in the past, this time his employer felt he had gone too far. This same sort of humor had in past earned Mr. Imus a devoted following and a lot of money. So what happened?
As morally outraged as I felt hearing Imus' comments, it is the reaction to them that has me worried.
I could not help but feel that "chilling effect" in my blood when I read the statement from CBS President Les Moonves, defending Imus' firing as a necessary blow against "a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people." A chill because while I cannot listen to Imus' program for long, I am a fan of a few other programs many people find objectionable: South Park, Bill Maher, Howard Stern (when I am in the right mood), and most-recently, Borat.
Time Magazine did a reasonably-fine job asking "Who Can Say What?" The article is online and worth your time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609490,00.html
It was also a rough week for those of us who read and loved the work of Kurt Vonnegut. His Slaughterhouse Five is among the 100 Most Challenged Books of 1990-2001, as reported by ALA. I read the book in high school because it was on so many best lists and because it had a reputation for being edgy. When I read it, I did not get the edge so much as that overwhelming feeling of despair, shared by so many readers before me and since.
Onward to post your Week 4 lectures.
AB
However one might characterize the comments Don Imus made about the Rutgers basketball team, he did actually lose his job for exercising his right to free speech. While what he said was not qualitatively different than things he had said in the past, this time his employer felt he had gone too far. This same sort of humor had in past earned Mr. Imus a devoted following and a lot of money. So what happened?
As morally outraged as I felt hearing Imus' comments, it is the reaction to them that has me worried.
I could not help but feel that "chilling effect" in my blood when I read the statement from CBS President Les Moonves, defending Imus' firing as a necessary blow against "a culture that permits a certain level of objectionable expression that hurts and demeans a wide range of people." A chill because while I cannot listen to Imus' program for long, I am a fan of a few other programs many people find objectionable: South Park, Bill Maher, Howard Stern (when I am in the right mood), and most-recently, Borat.
Time Magazine did a reasonably-fine job asking "Who Can Say What?" The article is online and worth your time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1609490,00.html
It was also a rough week for those of us who read and loved the work of Kurt Vonnegut. His Slaughterhouse Five is among the 100 Most Challenged Books of 1990-2001, as reported by ALA. I read the book in high school because it was on so many best lists and because it had a reputation for being edgy. When I read it, I did not get the edge so much as that overwhelming feeling of despair, shared by so many readers before me and since.
Onward to post your Week 4 lectures.
AB
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Lessons from my First Intellectual Freedom Challenge
If you work in a public library long enough, at some point you are bound to be faced with an intellectual freedom challenge. I faced my first challenge within my first month of working in public libraries. I was fortunate to have joined a library system shortly after the community had passed a major bond, and I spent my first few weeks on the job unpacking boxes of shiny new books, CDs and magazines, and placing them in their designated order on new bare shelves. Those of us who worked in that library to prepare for opening day were like kids in a candy store, and it was difficult to resist taking armloads home with us at the end of each day.
On the day we opened our new library, crowds came streaming in all day, mostly all smiles. It was a great feeling. I think it was the second day after we opened that I received a phone call from a patron who asked me in a pointed way, "Is it true that you have Playboy within reach of children?" Prior to this job, I had worked mostly in private libraries--medical, newspaper and law firm libraries--and so I had never faced a challenge. I was used to dealing with all questions as reference or research related, and I ignored the tone in her voice and treated her question as if it were informational in nature. After verifying the location of Playboy Magazine, I returned to the phone and reported that "yes, depending on the height of the child, it was, for the most part, within reach of children." What a mistake! Instead of listening to the tone of her voice, instead of querying her to ask for her real concern, instead of inviting her in for a conversation or referring her to my manager who might have liked to have such a conversation, I answered her question and after hanging up the phone, went on to help the next patron in line.
A couple of weeks after we opened our doors, our library had planned an official Grand Opening celebration. Unfortunately, during that time, this woman had taken this issue to friends, acquaintances, and the media. In order to attend the Grand Opening celebration, library patrons had to pass through a picket line, with television cameras rolling. The group of picketers, and the woman who led this group, maintained that Playboy should be kept behind the counter where only adults could gain access. Such a practice would fly in the face of the ALA Library Bill of Rights, which the library had adopted as policy.
Our branch manager and library director talked with the staff to ensure that we understood the issue and the reasons that the library did not keep materials behind desks because of content viewpoint. The Library Board considered the issue and after much debate, decided that the library could not go down that road. This was a very difficult period--for library staff, for the Board and library administration, and for members of the community who had so looked forward to the opening of their new library. I remember making some comment to my branch manager about the woman who had stirred up this local controversy. I didn't understand her perspective, and while I don't remember exactly what I said, I made some disdainful remark about her and what she was doing. The branch manager took issue with me, and explained that she was a strong supporter of the library, and that he respected that she was taking a stand for what she believed in.
I learned a couple of things from this experience. First--I learned that while we in libraries are expected to defend access without judgment or censorship, our patrons have no reason to understand this issue. And that the great, beautiful irony of intellectual freedom is that when patrons challenge the right to access, they are exercising the very freedom that we are defending.
I also learned that ignoring the issue will not make it go away--and that patrons who bring challenges to us need to be heard. We need not only to show that we're listening, but to show that we care, and that while we in public libraries will not (or should not) restrict access based on viewpoint or content, there are many things we can do to try and turn their experiences around and ensure that they are getting what they need from their library experience. I have often wondered what would have happened if I had really listened to this patron's concern on the phone. What if, instead of treating her concern as if it were an informational question only, I had offered to show her the many resources we were offering for children. What if I had thanked her for expressing her concern, praised her for including the library in her children's lives, and reassured her that the library had a children's section filled with materials selected specifically for children of various ages? I'll never know whether or not that would have prevented her from taking the issue to the level that she took it. But I am absolutely certain that a different reply would have made for a more pleasant and welcoming experience for this woman in her library.
On the day we opened our new library, crowds came streaming in all day, mostly all smiles. It was a great feeling. I think it was the second day after we opened that I received a phone call from a patron who asked me in a pointed way, "Is it true that you have Playboy within reach of children?" Prior to this job, I had worked mostly in private libraries--medical, newspaper and law firm libraries--and so I had never faced a challenge. I was used to dealing with all questions as reference or research related, and I ignored the tone in her voice and treated her question as if it were informational in nature. After verifying the location of Playboy Magazine, I returned to the phone and reported that "yes, depending on the height of the child, it was, for the most part, within reach of children." What a mistake! Instead of listening to the tone of her voice, instead of querying her to ask for her real concern, instead of inviting her in for a conversation or referring her to my manager who might have liked to have such a conversation, I answered her question and after hanging up the phone, went on to help the next patron in line.
A couple of weeks after we opened our doors, our library had planned an official Grand Opening celebration. Unfortunately, during that time, this woman had taken this issue to friends, acquaintances, and the media. In order to attend the Grand Opening celebration, library patrons had to pass through a picket line, with television cameras rolling. The group of picketers, and the woman who led this group, maintained that Playboy should be kept behind the counter where only adults could gain access. Such a practice would fly in the face of the ALA Library Bill of Rights, which the library had adopted as policy.
Our branch manager and library director talked with the staff to ensure that we understood the issue and the reasons that the library did not keep materials behind desks because of content viewpoint. The Library Board considered the issue and after much debate, decided that the library could not go down that road. This was a very difficult period--for library staff, for the Board and library administration, and for members of the community who had so looked forward to the opening of their new library. I remember making some comment to my branch manager about the woman who had stirred up this local controversy. I didn't understand her perspective, and while I don't remember exactly what I said, I made some disdainful remark about her and what she was doing. The branch manager took issue with me, and explained that she was a strong supporter of the library, and that he respected that she was taking a stand for what she believed in.
I learned a couple of things from this experience. First--I learned that while we in libraries are expected to defend access without judgment or censorship, our patrons have no reason to understand this issue. And that the great, beautiful irony of intellectual freedom is that when patrons challenge the right to access, they are exercising the very freedom that we are defending.
I also learned that ignoring the issue will not make it go away--and that patrons who bring challenges to us need to be heard. We need not only to show that we're listening, but to show that we care, and that while we in public libraries will not (or should not) restrict access based on viewpoint or content, there are many things we can do to try and turn their experiences around and ensure that they are getting what they need from their library experience. I have often wondered what would have happened if I had really listened to this patron's concern on the phone. What if, instead of treating her concern as if it were an informational question only, I had offered to show her the many resources we were offering for children. What if I had thanked her for expressing her concern, praised her for including the library in her children's lives, and reassured her that the library had a children's section filled with materials selected specifically for children of various ages? I'll never know whether or not that would have prevented her from taking the issue to the level that she took it. But I am absolutely certain that a different reply would have made for a more pleasant and welcoming experience for this woman in her library.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
If we are going to assign it...
...then we ought to blog too. This is where Catherine and I will post our own thoughts, feelings, and observations about Intellectual Freedom in the library world. This is not where we want you to look for important information about the course or its content. For that, check the course website.
The purpose of this blog/journal assignment is to think about Intellectual Freedom issues in a more informal way throughout the course. Feel like reading a Banned Book for fun? Want to comment on the latest school challenge? Did something on NPR get you thinking?
There is also one week where we will ask you to post your response to a case scenario in your blog. It won't be graded.
The purpose of this blog/journal assignment is to think about Intellectual Freedom issues in a more informal way throughout the course. Feel like reading a Banned Book for fun? Want to comment on the latest school challenge? Did something on NPR get you thinking?
There is also one week where we will ask you to post your response to a case scenario in your blog. It won't be graded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)