West Bend, WI is quite the hotbed of library collection challenges! In an article by ABC News, in the past year, the West Bend Community Memorial Library has had to deal with some very public challenges to its collection. The first challenge of note was from Ginny and Jim Maziarka, founders of the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries group. The Maziarkas wanted what they deemed to be sexually explicit/pornographic books to be removed from the Young Adult section of the library, re-labeled, and placed in a restricted area requiring parental consent to view them. The Maziarkas lost their challenge.
The latest challenge by Robert Braun and 3 other individuals, calls for the burning of "Baby Be-Bop," by Francesca Lia Block. Yes, you read that right. He wants the right to burn the book publicly, in an effort to deter the future addition of any offensive materials in the library. Mr. Braun's suit also demands $120,000 in "damages" stemming from simply having the book in the library.
I haven’t read the book. However, after reading several articles about its challenge by Mr. Braun, it’s on my list of must-reads. "Baby Be-Bop", according to Publisher’s Weekly, is a “haunting, lyrical tale of love, faith and self-acceptance”. The book follows a young man’s “coming out” and his quest for self-acceptance and love. After reading over 50 reviews of this book on Amazon.com, I have no doubt that it would be a valuable read for all teens, especially those struggling with their own sexuality.
My first reaction to reading about Mr. Braun’s challenge was to think he has way too much time on his hands. My second reaction was that he has the right to his opinion, but why should his opinion (or anyone else’s) dictate what books remain on library shelves? And really, to demand to have the book burned in front of the library?
I believe Mr. Braun has every right to want the book to be removed and he has the right to express his opinion. However, if this were a valid challenge would he really be asking for $120,000 in “damages”? Exactly what damage is caused by having a book in a library? Can a book grab you and force you to read it? Silly, yes, but no sillier than Mr. Braun’s claim that he deserves $120k for “being exposed” to this book. I’m very much of the “If you don’t like it, don’t read it” ilk. I believe I am responsible for the books my children and I check out of the library. As we’ve discussed in the past few weeks, it is not the library’s job to dictate what a community should read, but rather, it’s the library’s job to provide access to materials.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
First of all, I am glad that the Maziarkas lost their challenge to have a separate section of books that are “sexually explicit” so that parental consent is required to view them. I do not think librarians need to be policing their materials. Furthermore, the library is supposed to be a safe place and if you have to go to a separate section of the library to get books that other people deem as inappropriate, how is that safe? If a teen goes to look at one of these books, every single person in the library will know what they are looking at. I think this betrays all of the values we hold as librarians.
As for Robert Braun and his attempt to sue the library for having “Baby-Be-Bop”, I think he is kind of ridiculous. How does a 74 year old man even come across a book like this in the first place? Is he just looking for something to harp on? I feel sad that he does this in the name of Christianity because I feel he is misrepresenting the faith. Lynn, I agree with you that the $120,000 he is asking for in damages is silly. I do not see how receiving that money will solve any of his problems except maybe fund some therapy sessions for him.
I agree with both of the above--$120,000 is insane. But what I will say, and I've probably said it before, but I think the real issue with kids/teens and books that are inappropriate boils down to parenting. Parents need to be engaged in what they're children are reading! If a child is a good reader, he will undoubtedly end up reading something of a higher reading level and also high maturity level. If the maturity level is too high, a parent should either: a) spend the time & energy it takes to find more appropriate books or b) spend some time with their child talking about what he just read. I think too often parents want to blame the literature for their shortcomings.
I don’t think that every book is appropriate for every child, but no one else has the right to tell a parent or child that. Intellectual freedom in a lot of ways means the freedom to choose, and if a parent chooses to not let THEIR child read something is one thing; to not let someone else’s child read something is completely different.
Keep the book, don’t pay the man.
The fact that things like this still happen today is crazy to me although I know that Mr. Braun is just one of many looking to control the content of a public library.I certainly agree with Lynn in that "if you don't like it, don't read it." There are plent of books that do not fit my personal taste but suite others. This doesn't mean that the book should be removed from the library because I don't like it. Who knows there could come a day when I might need to read a book that I dislike for research purposes and if I protested against the book being on the shelf how would I then gain easy access to it?The idea that Mr. Braun feels he should get any money for being exposed to a book with content he disapproves of is beyond me.Also as Laura mentioned moving books with "touchy" content to a seperate section of the library violates privacy in itself. It goes back to the old video store policy where all questionable content was behind a curtain or door labled 18 and up. Do they still do that? Anyway following suite would violate important library privacy values.
While I acknowledge that Mr. Braun has every right to voice his complaint about a book he finds inappropriate, the idea of destroying a book just to get his way is a bit extreme. I am not terribly fond of Danielle Steele novels but I do not think entitles me to start a bonfire with them in my library’s parking lot. Anyone can burn a book, but the issues it pertains to remain. I like the point that the directors son makes in the article about youth accessibility to sexually explicit materials on the internet. It is not just there either. Children and teens are exposed to issues similar to the ones Mr. Braun is so adamantly prtoesting against simply by waking up every morning and going to school. Part of me tends to believe that the book is a product of the culture in which we live, not the other way around, so what will burning it accomplish, other than to further depreciate the value of the written word?
And the $120,000 the city would have to come up if Mr. Braun wins the suit will take away funding from city services, like the library. In theory, a suit brought against the library for a single book could effectively cause the city to close it down. Then Mr. Braun would not have to worry about any offensive materials passing into the hands of his peers or his grandchildren.
I am a big believer in letting all things out into the open. Hiding, burning, denying, covering up -- usually has the opposite effect. In this case, the publicity probably meant more people read the book than would have if the complainers had not brought it such attention. Ever tried to stop your teenager from doing something they really wanted to do? It just went underground. And instead of talking to your teen about such behavior, they did whatever it was in secret and perhaps caused themselves more harm than if you had dealt with whatever it was openly. Same with books, opinions, expressions, etc. Let people say what they want to say.
Also, homosexuality and other lifestyles exist no matter anyone's opinion on it. I currently have an 8 year old gender confused student. Kiyannah is a female, but she relates to the boys, wants to be with the boys, and tells everyone she is a boy. No one taught her to do this. Whenever I talk to her I forget she isn't a boy. Things will start to get harder for her when nature catches up and she starts to look like a girl. Do I want my sweet Kiyannah to enter a world where people think stories about people like her ought to be burned? When you put it into a human context, I think things change. It would help her in her future if her classmates and acquaintances read stories like "Baby-Be-Bop" and have a better understanding of what she is facing.
However, even those who challenge such books have a right to speak out with their opinions. That is what makes America great. Both sides should and must feel free to speak. And in such openness it is to be hoped that both sides will learn something and wisdom will win.
Deary Me! Where do I start? Christian Civil Liberties - isn't this oxymoronic? Because I'd like to know exactly how this book is anti-Christian. I haven't read it - perhaps it portrays some very negative Christian stereotypes. Braun is offended on the basis that the book uses "the N word" and because of the repetitive use of the word 'faggot'. Lots of books are challenged for these reasons. The article states that he finds the homosexual content particularly offensive, but then it says that that it's the word 'faggot' that he has a problem with. So which is it, the language or the homosexuality? This is unclear from the article. I dare say that children will come across these words in the context of everyday life - perhaps it is very appropriate that their grandparents, who apparently have lots of time, sit down with their grandkids and explain why the use of these terms is offensive. I mean, what better opportunity to get your point across? So much better than sticking your head in the sand and pretending these things don't exist, or demanding resignation from the mayor.
Its ridiculous that people think everyone should do things the way they want it done. Just because I disagree with a book or think it is morally corrupt doesn't mean I go around spouting my mouth off about burning a book. Libraries are not meant to be morality filters for their patrons, that's why God gave humans the ability to THINK FOR THEMSELVES. Society is a melting pot of ideals, beliefs, and ways of life; it would be nigh impossible to pigeon-hole everyone into one mode of thinking. We need diversity in our books, even books that we don't necessarily agree with, because chances are there is at least one and more likely more that do want to read them.
To install a 'restricted section" is just asking for trouble. Teenagers, mainly boys, would love to be able to sneak in there and see what sorts of naughty things the library, and therefore their parents, are trying to hide from them. We don't need restricted sections we need better sex ed. The US is one of the few developed countries that still giggles when someone mentions the word 'sex'. Parents make it such a taboo subject that they even object to it be discussed in school. As parents, though I have yet to become one myself, we need to kick our own butts for not being responsible and grown up enough to realize a stammering five minute rendition of "The birds and the bees" just isn't going to cut. Don't tell the library to change its policy just because you are too prudish or too unwilling to discuss sex with your children so they are not as curious.
What is the deal with WI this week? I love it! Back to the article- I am not surprised about the situation, unfortunately. I wish that our society was not one where the author of the book needed to defend her work and felt the need to state that she respects Christianity! I certainly would have had something much stronger to say in response to this man. My opinion echoes the above responses, no library should "police" materials. I think this is yet another example of people mis-understanding the purpose of public libraries to some degree, possibly in reaction to libraries having private citizens arrested for not paying their fines? When I finished reading the article, my first thoughts were on how to improve the image of libraries and cultivate a better understanding/relationship between the institution and communities, in order to avoid situations like this and the many others where books are challenged. I don't have a concrete answer at the moment, but I'm working on it.
I am interested in how these two groups of individuals would teach things like sex/sexuality/and being "abnormal". I assume in their view that it should never happen (sex and not being straight) and am appalled at this. The library is for ALL individuals no just for some. So because it is for all this means that all books of all subjects should be allowed to view and read if needed/wanted. It scares me how much ignorance runs rampant in this country (as well as others) and unfortunately I will have to deal with these people in my career. These groups look silly because they are. The library should not even deal with issues like these as they take away why we are there-(insert personal definition of librarian here). Libraries should continue to do what they are doing and the extremist groups should create their own private libraries so that they can be choose what is in their collections.
The last time I checked, Jesus sat with the saints AND the sinners, and he embraced everyone, warts and all, as they say. Mr. Braun, then, appears to be sorely misinformed on what it means to be a true Christian.
I am bothered by two things in this article. One, the fact that of the three people attempting to sue the library, only one, Mr. Braun, lives in the library's district, and two, of those three people, only one of them even holds a library card--Mr. Braun. So really, the other people involved in the suit, IMO, really have no right to say what should or should not be contained in Mr. Braun's library. Furthermore, if Mr. Braun does not like his library's collection, there are plenty of other libraries that he can utilize, I'm sure. In fact, I have three other neighboring libraries to me that would actually be closer for me to visit than the ROPL. So, if Mr. Braun used another library, it might even be more convenient for him. :)
Another issue that bothers me about this, though not as much as WHO is doing the suing, is the fact that they are asking for $120,000 in damages. What exactly was damaged? Did he actually read the book and then decide he was damaged? How did he come across this book? Are you telling me that a 74-year old man has never heard either the "N-word" or "faggot"? Did he sue those other entities for a large amount of money? Let's see...I'm pretty sure I can find something in my library that's offensive...does that mean I should get $120,000 because I'm now damaged? That logic doesn't even make sense.
And a public book burning? Does he really believe that this will bring the kind of attention he wants? I sort of think that it would bring only negative attention and protestors rather than support for his cause. I have a hard time imagining this happening in the city parking lot next to the ROPL...Royal Oak is pretty openly gay-friendly, for lack of a better term. I have to think that if he tried to publicly burn this book here, in downtown Royal Oak, he had some 'splainin' to do, as Ricky Ricardo used to say.
This article was ridiculous. I agree with everyone that Mr. Braun is completely out of line and there really is no merit behind any of the 'problems' he had because of the book. I've read some literature that I thought was offensive, do I deserve $120,000?
Jackie made a great point. One of her students is sexually confused. If she feels like she has no one to talk to, maybe this book or books like this would be of comfort and help to her. Banishing literature or hiding it in a restricted section won't do any good. Isn't it better than children and teenagers get information from books because some of the US is so prude and close minded that they can't get the info any where else?
I agree with the 'if you don't like it, don't read it' idea. These crazy people need to find something better to do with their time than to challenge books that they are too close minded to appreciate.
Post a Comment