Happy Banned Book Week Sarah Palin!
As the librarian community gears up for another week of bringing attention to book censorship, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin might not be so excited. Reports that she attempted to remove homosexual themed literature from the public library in Wasilla, Alaska while she was mayor in 1996, have now gained national attention. Although Palin never banned any book, she reportedly asked the library director how she would feel about removing certain titles from the shelves, namely a book called “Pastor, I am Gay” by Howard Bess. When San Franciscan Mike Petrelis heard of the controversy, he sent two gay themed children’s books to the Wasilla public library. Petrelis felt that Palin’s question about removing titles was equal to the crime of censorship. The books Petrelis sent to the Wasilla library have been received, but still need to go through a process where the library board decides what to do with them, either they will be added to the collection or they will be sold.
When does censorship begin? Is it as Mike Petrelis and the ALA assert at the mere question of removal, or when the material in question is actually prevented from reaching its audience? As the books named by the ALA as “banned” have only been challenged, and are still on shelves, I think we need to recognize that the professional community at the very least, make this determination at the questioning of the material. However, this does not prevent the librarian profession from doing a little of their own censoring when it comes to maintaining a collection. As the donated books go through what sounds to me like a screening process, I wonder what type of criteria the books are going to be judged against. Is not this process itself censorship?
How can we as professionals fight censorship? Is sending copies of titles concerned with hot button issues around the country the best way? I applaud Mike Petrelis for taking a step against censorship, but I doubt the effectiveness of his actions. The books he sent to the Wasilla library may never make it to the shelves. There must be other ways to take a stand.
It is also important to make the distinction of who is asking the questions about removal, in Palin’s case she was the mayor, a position of power over the librarian not just an everyday patron. As a librarian, I might feel more intimidated or pressured to remove a book if I was asked by someone with the power to fire me than if I was asked by the average patron. Palin did not remove or ask the librarian to remove any titles, but she came close. As future information professionals we need to ask ourselves how close is too close.
10 comments:
Since Palin is in a position where some people care about what she has to say, it can be construed as censorship. Although Palin never actually banned any books, it is similar to the ALA Banned Books Program—many of these books were never banned, merely challenged. Yet they enjoy an illicit legacy. Though there is no record of Palin naming any books as first for the pyre, the outcry is the same. In fact, a fake list has been circulating the internet. Challenging a book brings it under public scrutiny—especially if one of the parties is a community official up for reelection. Anne Kilkenny, who apparently attended a Wasilla city council meeting where the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, was asked if books could be banned, said:
"I was shocked. Mary Ellen sat up straight and said something along the line of, 'The books in the Wasilla Library collection were selected on the basis of national selection criteria for libraries of this size, and I would absolutely resist all efforts to ban books.'"
While I also think Petrelis is in the right frame of mind, the impact may be small. Perhaps he should widen his selections, since Palin never mentioned banning gay/lesbian books specifically. Or choose other libraries as well, since this is a widespread problem. I heard stories at orientation where pages were ripped out, or illustrations colored in. Communities across America should take a stand, and force their libraries to contain an extensive range of material.
Perhaps, as future information professionals, we should also change or criteria for book selection. Should a library put into circulation all books they receive (in good condition)? Any kind of criteria could be used as a smokescreen for censorship. Even deciding a book is too used could be a ruse. Maybe book selecting should be left up to more than one person. It’s not foolproof but at least one person doesn’t have all of the power.
Community leaders have an agenda. When Palin asked if books could be removed, I doubt she was wishing to hear books would never be censored or banned. The constituents who voted for her likely have similar views and would follow her lead, pressuring the librarian.
Here is the link for our original post: http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/23/local_news/doc48d8990632b66401661827.txt
The comments posted for the news story are interesting as well.
On face, Palin’s comment at the council meeting could be taken in context of a Mayor of a city who is looking at the viability of potential future censorship at the local library. In fact, her comments should be taken in that context.
This line of questioning at the council meeting that night facilitated an illustration of Palin, the Politician. I find it very hard to believe that Palin, a person who claims to be heavily involved in the community and with the P.T.A., asked that question out of true ignorance of library policy. Her involvement in community activities brings her into contact with the diverse peoples and personalities of the community; including (I would hope with her brood) the local library. In addition, giving benefit of the doubt in this situation implies that Palin is not even close to being prepared to be a leader in any government role. I just don’t find it possible that Palin would have not already have known already what the library policy was regarding this matter. This statement smacks of a "trial balloon".
I believe that the librarian needs kudos because she provided a textbook response. Perfect!
I feel that the “Frontiersman” seeks to marginalize Mike Petrelis in the opening portion of the article by framing him as “... a 49-year-old who files Freedom of Information requests for a living, …”. While perhaps fully true, this statement (and its location in the article) implies that Petrelis is only a mere “nuisance” and should not be taken very seriously. To me, Petrelis comes across as an activist and naturally capitalizing on an opportunity to facilitate the platform he believes in. Activists play an important role in all political parties and should be listened to in order to further along productive discourse on the topic, and not quickly dismissed. Finally, I also hope that the groups “Out of Alaska” and “Bent Alaska” do not waste any time on taking this opportunity to continue the discourse long after the election is over. America is a very diverse place and that fact must continue to be recognized and reflected in our public libraries.
My Wiki bio was on Everett Moore who did a great deal for freedom of information. He quoted Justice William O. Douglas’ description of censorship as forcing “the public to live up to the censor’s code of morality.” (from Douglas’ pamphlet, Freedom of the Mind)
Maybe people are so concerned with protecting their own “code of morality” they may not realize it is censorship and in direct opposition to everything the 1st amendment stands for… Many of our political leaders hold law or political science degrees and realize this. Palin does have a BS in Journalism and I would imagine that would familiarize one with the Constitution, especially the 1st amendment.
It’s probably irksome enough that a parent will protest a book but it is a chilling idea that someone in power could hint that a book be removed. It may not bode well for your position and job security as that particular librarian. Sure, many would come to your defense (ALA, etc.) but who knows what could happen? In our readings ALA did not defend Zoia Horn’s position to not act as an FBI informant. You may find yourself entwined in a “librarygate”.
It is Palin’s right to disagree but that doesn’t mean a person should be able to control the information available. We are a Democratic society not a totalitarian state. The library should have a variety of information for everyone and it should not be limited to the current governments religious, moral or whatever standings on the issues at the time.
Our leaders should read the first amendment before suggesting ideas like this.
We as Librarians are representing and serving people from different ethnicities, cultures and education. These people are raised on social values that differ from a group to another. Some books that might be challenging in some culture are not in other cultures. How libraries and librarians should balance between the culture of a group they serve and the intellectual freedom is the fundamental question.
The answer in my opinion is that there will always be challenging books, since we as humans inherit the ethics of our ancestors, we are the continuation of an existent society, that we represent and UPDATE its values. Librarians cannot be Gods, but they can find the way to the most convenient decision in controversial issues for both the society they serve and their mission in promoting intellectual freedom. We cannot be 100% objective since our background always has an effect, directly or indirectly, on our decisions, for example, the author of this article has an indirect purpose in choosing Sarah Palin to discuss censorship on books. Librarians also have backgrounds, for this reason, I think that controversial books evaluation should not be made by librarians only, a social committee should gather discuss and issue ethical policies without harming the ALA intellectual freedom act.
Concerning kids’ books, the decision is harder. Children’s personality is shaped by the education they acquire, therefore providing low quality or biased books for kids will affect their lives. Parents and teachers committee should be involved together with librarians in a committee to evaluate children publications before they are shelved in the children section of the library.
Although, librarians have an essential responsibility in giving access to every book without discrimination, but they don’t have the right to promote some books for the only reason that they are banned or censored.
Librarians should always promote good books either they are banned, censored, challenged or not.
I agree with Ashley that it would be more intimidating for a person who holds power than a random patron to suggest that books be removed from the library. Although it is easy to say that we could stand up to that kind of pressure, I think that it is much more difficult in reality.
I also think it’s easy for us to look back on the FCPL librarian’s actions (from last week) and judge them; however, I wonder how I would react if the FBI came to me and demanded something. I would like to think that, as professionals, we could all stand up to people in positions of power – the FBI, the mayor, anyone trying to limit our professional rights and freedoms.
Regardless of who is asking, I believe that it is the duty of the librarian to make sure that books are not being banned from the shelves or censored before they ever reach the shelves. Again, I feel that’s easier said than done, but it remains a vital role of the librarian.
What an interesting election year this is. Unfortunately this story was distorted and exagerated with the fake list from someone who let their political enthusiasm get away from them. Once this list was discovered to be fabricated it was essentially killed in the mainstream media and too little of it has been heard of since.
This is a shame because the event stood by itself to illuminate the beliefs of a woman who people are not really familiar with and who stands to be placed second in command of this country. The fact that she approached the librarian from a postition of authority, and not before that, seems a little creepy. Perhaps that was not the atmosphere of the conversation at all but it simply does not look good from any angle. Surely she has many supporters behind her but for a politician who is trying to portray herself as a reformer and moderate this event has done little to reflect that.
I've personally always been a fan of Banned Books week and I even proudly wear an “I read banned books” necklace and bracelet. I'm saddened by the fact that some people, librarians included, question the merit of Banned Books week. Sure, almost all of the books on the list aren't actually 'banned' but the whole point of this week, or what I take from it, is that without people standing up for great literature these books could have very easily been banned and not just questioned.
Palin's influence on the librarian of this town as the mayor, as many people have already mentioned, is very disturbing. It is scary to think that people of power inject their religious beliefs into policy that is backed by their high political ranking in a community, but unfortunately is present in almost all aspects of politics. These beliefs become even more threatening when they are used in a way to limit our freedoms. The ability to go to a library and be presented with a wide array of topics, ones that are mundane and ones that are more controversial, that inspire a person or a community to connect with a familiar subject or be exposed to something that they are unaware of.
Banning in general obviously places a limit the diversity of the net cast out to communities. I recently read an article that talked about the book, "And Tango Makes Three" which is about a penguin with two dads. This book caused quite a controversy being labeled '2007's most challenged book' by the Los Angeles Times and is being included in this year's Banned Books Week. It is definitely unfair that such a negative light has been cast on this book. What is that saying to the child who does have a family situation that resembles that of the book, that so many people are against it, or that he/she may not be able to go to their public library and find a book that depicts a family situation that they can relate to because of the way the beliefs of certain groups/authority figures have worked their way into library policy.
I can sympathize with those who question the merit of Banned Books week. I think many who question the merits are not pro-censorship, but rather are disappointed with the finger pointing. The discussion of why the Freedom to Read is a good thing can be lost with the "Take that censors!" attitude.
OK, I was going to try to get the last word this time, but I just want to post 2 things. The first is important, the second is trivia.
First, know what your own personal stance is, and know what your library's policy is from the get-go. I agree the Wasilla librarian was on point--and her ability to give a perfectly elucidated response meant Palin has to back down eventually. May we all be so cool under pressure. But an ordinary citizen may be upset and have personal and reasonable reasons for challenging a book. It's good to avoid being defensive so that you can explain the policy with a clear head and sympathetic heart--and still refuse to remove the book. (You may find other solutions that don't violate the Library Bill of Rights or Freedom to Read, or your own conscience, but help your community member feel it is his or her library too.)
The trivia is that it was an open secret that Palin wanted to ban Bess's book Pastor, I am Gay. Here's one story:
http://www.queerty.com/reporter-palin-attempted-gay-book-ban-20080910/
I don't think it makes a difference to anyone's argument here, but you can file it away for future reference.
Post a Comment