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

CIPA

I signed up for my discussion topic, CIPA, with some trepidation. I know a bare minimum about the topic, just that libraries utilizing government subsidies are required to use internet filters and the ALA is against this. There is a great deal of debate from both sides, and I didn't know how it still affects libraries today. I have found some great articles, including "CIPA: A brief history," by Brendan P. Menuay, that has helped me understand the law, the lawsuit, and the appeal that went to the Supreme Court. It is one of those complex issues that rests firmly in the gray zone, where patrons should have access to information, but at the same time, kids need to be protected from harmful images. I am still trying to decide if filtering is truly censoring. The reason I wonder is because while a patron has the right to search for information within a book, does that patron have the right to have it playing on a screen where children are present? I think the concept of filtering is anathema to intellectual freedom, but the reality is the filters are necessary to providing safe, quality service in a public forum. What I am still looking for now is how many libraries are actually opting against using E-rate discounts for internet access to avoid being under the CIPA laws.

Lets see...

Hello, and welcome to my first blog post in about a year!

I finished up classes early this semester, so I am digging in early, looks like a bunch of us are doing the same. I think I will get a lot out of this class, and I look forward to talking/discussing/debating some of these issues.

What's your favorite banned book? Mine is Where the Wild Things Are by Maurice Sendak, and if you want to see a movie trailer that makes you squeal with glee, go HERE.