Tirades and why I'd join a cabal.

Where has the last year gone? I haven't written due to limited time and brain power, but now I have a little of both (graduation T-minus one class!), and I've been paying more attention to intellectual freedom issues. Especially since I've been starting tirades when I hear about challenged books. My little blog seems safer than alienating random strangers.

Recently, there was some controversy at Comedy Central when an episode of South Park was banned. Not surprisingly, Matt and Trey then aired an episode about censorship. The kids of South Park were told that Catcher in the Rye was controversial. So of course they all read it ASAP. When they were so disappointed that it didn't meet their standards of controversial, it made me giggle. Basic human psychology at play. Catcher in the Rye should be banned, BTW don't think about pink elephants. All of the sudden, I'm googling pink elephants while placing a book hold. Tada! While some might think the episode is just a message about freedom of speech (yay!) it actually made me think more about reading as a social activity.

At Game Couch, Aramis shares a story of a random teen patron recently coming to look for (surprise, surprise) Catcher in the Rye. Wonder where he got that idea? As they were looking for the book, he also checked out Dante's Inferno because he played a videogame of the same name. LOL, I imagine a cabel of tenth-grade English teachers rubbing their hands together, chortling as they ship boxes of the game to unsuspecting teenagers. This example illustrates my point that people, especially readers (and apparently gamers), want to join the literary conversation. What's so great about Catcher in the Rye? Is Inferno as cool as the videogame*?

So, what's the point? Reading is not a solitary activity. Sure, there are those books that seem like they were written just for me, books so profound to my life that it is almost like they were sent from a higher power. Yes, I am talking about Harry Potter. :) The other 99.9% of the time, books are entertaining, thought-provoking, or infuriating (wave to Ann Coulter!). Yes, books are awesome. They are fun to read, but it is so much better when you get to talk about them! Not interpret or study, but just have a conversation about what you liked or disliked, related with or disassociated from. Reading can't be considered a solitary hobby. Books are meant to be shared and discussed. If you have a good network, books become their own best marketing tool. An interesting book is the original grassroots campaign, where word-of-mouth is the advertisement and a large part of the product. So, thank you South Park for mentioning Catcher in the Rye, because now your demographic is wondering what all the fuss is about.

* Have no idea whether said videogame is cool or not, because I have never mastered eye/hand coordination. So sad.

PS. No, I don't think Ann Coulter's books should be banned either. But ask me about Mimi Roth when I'm not wearing my librarian hat.

PPS. "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs," was just okay, but the Towelie Intervention episode "Crippled Summer," was hilarious! I < heart > Towelie!




References

Aramis. (2010, May 11). Video games score one for literacy. [Web log comment]. Retrieved from http://www.gamecouch.com/2010/05/video-games-score-one-for-literacy/

Parker, T. (Writer and Director). (2010). The tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs. South Park. Culver City, Calif.: South Park Studios.

Apologies

We have all decided that free speech equals a free democracy, right? What is interesting is that although free speech is protected in many different forms, protecting ratings or profit of someone who angers the majority is not. I mentioned in my last post that I keep up with issues related to size discrimination from several sites, including the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) and the media watchdog site from the National Eating Disorder Association (NEDA). For an example, see NEDA's latest letters to Apple concerning a recent ad campaign. Just because a person has the right to their opinion, it doesn't mean that they will continue to voice it when concerned, vocal citizens/customers let them know they don't approve.

The reason I mention this is because this kind of action often encourages debate and discussion. For instance at a size-acceptance/feminist/liberal/civil rights blog I follow, Kate Harding's Shapely Prose, I found information about the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD). Their "Call to Action" was due to a radio host's comments that implied LGBTQ teens should be physically punished and "beat down," by society. You can read GLAAD's full response here. At first, the radio hosts refused to respond, stating it was just a joke. Until their ratings started to slip. That's right, when their fans told them it was unacceptable, then they really apologized, and started a respectful discussion on both sides. That radio host, Apple, David Letterman, Oprah - they have a right to make comments, endorse products, and spout off about their latest fad, BUT their fans and consumers have the right to stop listening, stop buying, and send complaints. Having that dialogue and having the right to give feedback, is what makes intellectual freedom so great.

"A Sarah." (2009, June 5). Quick hit: GLAAD call to action. Message posted to Kate Harding's Shapely Prose. Retreived from http://kateharding.net/2009/06/05/quick-hit-glaad-call-to-action/

Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. (2009). Call to action. Retrieved from http://www.glaad.org/Page.aspx?pid=730

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. (2009). Get involved. Retrieved from http://www.naafaonline.com/dev2/get_involved/index.html

National Eating Disorders Association. (2009). Media watchdog program: Recent action. Retrieved from http://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/p.asp?WebPage_ID=300

Rob, Arnie & Dawn in the morning. (2009). Transgender response. Retrieved from http://www.robarnieanddawn.com/newsite/index.html

Oprah's crazy guests

Newsweek had an interesting article on Oprah this week, titled, "Why health advice on 'Oprah' could make you sick," that lists all the quacks and charlatans that she has had on her show, including:

Suzanne Somers who takes over sixty vitamins a day and injects estrogen into her vagina.

Dr. Christiane Northrup who uses tarot cards to help diagnose her patients.

Dr. Karyn Grossman who touted the one-hour face lift!, without bothering to mention the serious side effects and complications to the procedure.

The article has a few more "experts" that Oprah has given air time to, but failed to mention my least-favorite quack, Dr. Phil. "You don't need a porcupine to put some pep in your step!" That lovely token is from the Dr. Phil quote generator, and honestly sounds just like the random, nonspecific, and nonsensical stuff that he says. You just went there too, didn't you? LOL.

I know that everyone should have the right to air out their latest crackpot idea or opinion, but for Oprah to give them credence really frustrates me, because people believe her and her opinion. Often she doesn't feel the need to include science or empirical evidence, or heck even a warning. Dr. Oz supports the show by saying that people should not take Oprah's experts advice without consulting a doctor, but some people really don't have any sense. It's unfortunate but true. This is a case that everyone (even celebrities) should have the freedom to say what they want, but it still frustrates me when people get hurt or sick because of it. I am really glad that Newsweek wrote this article, so people might think about Oprah and her claims a little more critically.

What do you think?

Kosova, W. & Wingert, P. (2009, June 9). Why health advice on 'Oprah' could make you sick. Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

MangyDog. (2009). Dr. Phil quote generator. Retrieved from http://www.genfun.net/drphil.htm

Obama is kind of awesome.

Hey guys! Just reading the transcript of the Obama/Cairo speech, and I am so impressed with his eloquence and intellegence. In one part he calls the denying of the Holocaust "ignorant" and "hateful." It makes me think of some posts that we have previously had about the right to express ideas, and what defines censorship. Should Holocaust deniers hold shelf space when many people have proven their views to be wrong? I have actually thought a lot about this, and I have come to somewhat of a conclusion. Although we are entrusted with providing all sorts of ideas, we are also required to verify that they are factual. For instance, neo-nazi and other hate groups are based on blatant un-truths. I remember an assignment I had for an undergraduate class to evaluate websites. One was martinlutherking.org. Sounds like it could be authentic. When you go there, though, it claims that Rosa Parks was a prostitue, "according to" Time magazine, and MLK was hosting an orgy in his hotel the night before he was shot (per the website, Newsweek broke that "story"). Both "facts" were referenced, but are also blatant lies. When you look at the webmaster, you can see that the site is hosted by "Stormfront," and clicking on that link takes you to a neo-nazi website. That assignment was a very powerful lesson to not take everything at face value, especially if it is different from conventional wisdom. Consider the source and check references. Just because other people have different opinions, it doesn't mean that they are truthful or correct. Librarians still need to make sure the information that is in the collection is accurate.

On the other hand, books are even more tricky. Another classmate mentioned a book by a historian, David Irving, titled Hitler's War. If he was actually a reputable historian and his research was valid, I think materials like that would have a place; however, I was thinking about this in context of what President Obama had said and did a little digging. Other historians have since proved that his research included blantant misrepresentations and gross exaggerations. Other historians who have seen his work have declared him a denier and unearthed his ties to anti-semetic groups. I guess I had to simmer over this, to try to articulate my thoughts on censorship versus inaccuracy. As for Mein Kampf, however, I do think it has a place in the context of the discussion, where people can read Hitler's own words and form their own opinions about his intentions. Thank you for letting me veer a little off course. Back to why Obama is my favorite President ...

This is a very small portion of his speech, but it was really thoughtful in the context of this class:

"I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere ... governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them (emphasis mine).

And I'm cheering! Woohoo, way to remember what this country is all about! Go President! The whole speech is about understanding and respecting other people's religious and cultural identities. I love it that it is in context with humanity as a whole, that decisions on the part of one people affect the globe, for example, genocide in Darfur or nuclear testing in Iran. Tolerance and respect are the only ways to end senseless violence, or as he calls, "a stain on our collective conscience." Ok, so Obama is so much more eloquent than I can ever be, but I really respect him and his principles, so I had to talk about it today.

PS. West Bend, WI voted to keep books on the shelves, so the firing move didn't pay off. Plus there was a pro-intellectual freedom group formed in response, called West Bend Parents for Free Speech, so there's even more of a silver lining (Behm, 2009). Glad it worked out.

Behm, D. (2009, June 2). Library board rejects restrictions. JSOnline. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/46772872.html

Obama, B.H. (2009, June 5). Obama Egypt speech. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/04/obama-egypt-speech-video_n_211216.html

Stormfront. (2009). Martin Luther King, Jr.: A true historical examination. Stormfront. Retrieved from http://www.martinlutherking.org/

If banning a book doesn't work ...

Try canning the council! That is what is happening in West Bend, Wisconsin (Whelan, 2009). The four members were fired and the City-Council will not rescind the decision. The reasoning is that they were "taking too long" to make a decision for a reconsideration case; however, this was just a transparent political move to keep those qualified board members from voting to keep the books on the shelves. Now they are planning to vote in four new members. Are censors getting more clever, or what?

If the traditional reconsideration process doesn't work, the censors need to get political to force their hand. This is an interesting situation, because librarians, the library director, and the community are all in support of keeping these books on the shelves, but two people, backed by censorship associations, are fighting dirty. And for the good news ... their list of challenged materials is growing. 82 at last count. It makes me wonder what good it does to support IF and be good at my job, when small pond politics can circumvent it? Right now, the Library Director is expressing disappointment at the council, and this situation is just unfolding. It looks like it is going to get ugly.

If the Library Board is responsible for making the decision to not censor, why is the Board not made up of librarians and other advocates for IF? Or should I say, why are the advocates for Intellectual Freedom so easily removed? In the case of West Bend, the Board Members are appointed by the Mayor! (West Bend Library, 2009). There is a serious breakdown of trust here, and proves that professional ethics should be a requirement for anyone working for a library, not just the librarians. They should have to sign an agreement that states they understand the principles set out through ALA, and agree to uphold them. I've worked at a hospital for years, and what is interesting is that, no, I was not a doctor or nurse, but you can bet your buttons that I understood that I HAD to comply with confidentiality policies. If they are representing the library and the direction that library is headed, the board members should support the tenets of the profession. Instead they seem to be undermining it. Honestly, I don't know what it takes to become a part of a Board of Trustees in West Bend, Wisconsin, but they are still responsible for upholding ethical practices. This isn't Enron, people! It will be really interesting to see how this library saga plays out.

West Bend Community Memorial Library. (2009). West Bend Library Board Members. Retrieved from http://www.west-bendlibrary.org/board

Whelan, D.L. (2009). West Bend City Council fails to reinstate library board members. School Library Journal. Retrieved from http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6659458.html

PABBIS

I just went to the PABBIS website, and was surprised that I found it really helpful. I know its intentions are to assist in help banning books, but the best defense is a good offense. I mean that it helps knowing EXACTLY what the person finds offensive, why, and how I can meet those arguments. The list of questions to ask about a book (is it age appropriate, does the book achieve educational objectives?) are also quite good. I can format my pro-argument in response to those criticisms. What I found rather ridiculous (even though it fits with their "mission") is having to affirm that I am eighteen to enter the site, just like alcohol websites. God forbid a teenager looks on the sight and gets ideas! I mean, (sarcasm)clicking a button that you are eighteen is really effective, so I am glad that they have that security measure in place(/sarcasm). OK, so obviously my bleeding-heart liberal self thinks the idea behind the site is wrong, but I am actually also really glad it is up, because forewarned is forearmed.

Gray matter

After reading this week about the different “branches” of intellectual freedom, it gave me a better understanding of the issue as a whole, as well as how the different components relate to one another. What is most interesting about intellectual freedom is that it is rarely a black or white issue. Although we all probably are staunch supporters of the freedom to read, is there a place where we draw the line? Do personal morals ever supersede professional ethics? Even more interesting, can advocacy for a cause coincide with neutrality?

In several cases, it seems that there are no answers, just compromise and case-by-case judgments. The policies set by the ALA are intended as staunch guidelines for librarians to promote intellectual freedom, but in practice there are always difficulties. I like that just as librarians have the responsibility to advocate for the right to read, the ALA also supports the right for books to be challenged by others who have a difference of opinion (maybe this is one area where advocacy and neutrality can come to terms with each other). I think that is what makes intellectual freedom so fascinating, because it is not a matter of finding a “right” answer, but instead thinking about things from various perspectives.

In addition, the ALA recognizes that there are bad or dangerous ideas, but that they are also an opportunity for people to form the right or good idea for themselves. I have struggled to clarify my feelings about this, and they have explained it so eloquently. In some ways the freedom to read reminds me of psychology motivation research, and why people behave in the ways that they do. A book may outline a “bad” idea (don’t try this at home!), explain the process, and tell the reader how to access the materials, but a book cannot make the choice to implement it.

Also, has anyone ever seen the movie V for Vendetta? The not-so-subtle warnings about the consequences of not protecting intellectual freedom and the Bill of Rights made me think of that movie.

Last but not least, I went to some of the recommended ALA sites and found that Judith F. Krug actually passed away last month. Her commitment to IF shone through in her writing, and the tributes to her are inspiring.

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/rememberingjudith.cfm