Porn in the West Bend Library
I attended a meeting this evening regarding the inappropriate pornographic material in the West Bend library.
I admit that I’ve been a bit tepid on this issue, but I’m off the fence now. Basically, there are a bunch of books in the 11-17 year-old section that have explicit passages about sexual acts. Until the meeting, I was uninformed as to how explicit they were. But frankly (if you are under 18, please click away now) I was a bit shocked to hear passages from these teen books referring to “sucking dick,” “anal sex,” and “how to give a great hand job.” Don’t get me wrong… I’m not a prude and I am not personally offended by these subjects, but I certainly don’t think they are appropriate for a 14-year-old to be reading about on their own.
Against my better judgment, I got up and spoke a bit. I was unscripted, so I’m sure I sounded like a complete idiot, but that isn’t anything unusual. My basic point was that they aren’t talking about banning anything. They are only talking about reclassifying the books for adults. I completely support that.
So is it only reclassifying books now, or are they still on the dubious ex-gay, equal representation, anti-LGBT booklist on the website (but the Christian booklist is okay) stuff?
Did anyone ever have a problem with reclassifying the books? I sure don’t. But I never got the sense that many people did. All the hubbub, at least online, seemed to be surrounded by the fact that the proponents of this issue couldn’t/wouldn’t separate the “explicit content” part of their argument from the “homosexuality is aberrant and wrong” part of their argument.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 26, 2009 at 2342 hrs
Bob Bonenfant posted two separate interviews on WBKV (http://www.wbkvam.com) (one proponent, one opponent).
Frankly, both sides sound nutty. The reclassification proponent wants to add a bunch of religious information to the youth section. It makes them sound like they have an ulterior motive, which takes away part of their credibility. The opponent feels that moving books about anal sex, masturbation, and intercourse to the adult section is “a violation of the kids’ First Amendment rights.” She’s emphatic about it, even though the kids would still be able to access those books without supervision (they’d just have to know where to find them).
They are very good interviews - both about an hour long.
Posted by Fuzz on March 27, 2009 at 0403 hrs
They should be “reclassified” to a privately owned adult book store. I’m not sure I’d want my tax dollars supporting it in its current location.
Posted by Phel on March 27, 2009 at 0655 hrs
If I sounded nutty, I apologize. I am against reclassifying the books because in my eyes, this is a form of censorship. Moving them to the adult section in an effort to hinder others’ access to it (even if it doesn’t actually limit the access, since minors still can check out adult materials, the proposed move is certainly motivated by that desire to make them less accessible to kids) IS censorship. I am so disheartened that so many parents are willing to give up their rights as parents to determine what is or is not appropriate for their children.
What happens if you give this right to determine what is appropriate, moral, etc. for your children away to another citizen or community group? What if this community group then decides they want to move other books to an adult section, and you don’t agree with them? Do you then get to reclaim your parental right to decide what your family should have free access to? Let us not forget that this issue did not begin with the issue of sexually explicit material; the complaint began about books within a gay/lesbian/transgender category, and it DID begin with attempts to completely ban/remove the books. When this did not work, the Maziarkas continually changed/revised their complaints in a struggle to give it validity (which in my opinion, it still completely lacks.)
They and others in the community may decide that the material is inappropriate for their children. They have every right. They do not have the right to decide this for everyone else. That is my argument. I am not saying this material is appropriate for my kids, or for your kids, or for kids of a certain age. I am saying I am not giving up my right to determine what reading material is right for me (and for my family) to anyone.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 0802 hrs
I don’t understand how it is “censorship” if everyone still has full access to the material - they simply have to go to the appropriate section and read it.
In the WBKV interview, you stumbled when the issue of movie ratings was brought up. There, a board determines what is appropriate for people of every age. Kids under 17 are not even allowed to go to an R-rated movie, whereas kids of all ages are still able to read any book in the library, no matter how explicit it may be, and no matter which section it is located in. Books about hand jobs do not belong in the youth section of the library, just as “Debbie Does Dallas” does not belong in the same section as “Dora the Explorer” at a video store.
That being said, I wish that a group of parents other than the Maziarkas’s would have brought this issue up. Their whole anti-LGBT bias has tainted their the bulk of their argument. I’m a parent, and I want my daughter to see both sides of the issues, EVENTUALLY. I just want her to see the issues on our terms, not when she stumbles upon them next to a Judy Blume book in the library. Had a group of parents who were not so opposed to different lifestyles brought this up, I think the issue would have been more clean cut.
And while I do think that the both of you are “nutty,” I do fully respect your tenacity. It is a very interesting debate.
Posted by Fuzz on March 27, 2009 at 0859 hrs
Heh,
Fuzz mentions Judy Blume—author of some of the most challenged books in history, until J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series came along. I know I read her book “Forever,” which contains sexual content, before I turned 14, as I’m sure most women my age did.
Was it appropriate? Probably not, but kids had the book anyway. Did it turn anyone into a raging sexaholic? Quite the opposite! Parental expectations go a long way in forming opinions about others, fictional characters or otherwise. If parents clearly don’t approve of a certain behavior, the kids know that and often don’t approve either.
If a book features teen characters and situations, it should be in the teen section. That said, we all know what teens get into, and it’s not that different from when we were their age. If your kids are younger but can read books beyond their age/grade level, that’s when you should really monitor what they read. Need help? Most libraries now have book synopses and reviews as part of their online catalogs, or (gasp!) ask the librarian. Or flip the book open—chances are it will open easily to the explicit parts if there are any. And as Wendy mentioned on an earlier thread, talking about teen fiction is a good way to approach uncomfortable subjects.
All that being said, could concerned parents lobby for some sort of ratings/warning label? Sure, and if the library really wants to serve the community, it should listen. But don’t be surprised if anything marked “explicit” becomes even more popular.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1032 hrs
11 to 17 year old kids go to the library? Who knew.
I thought they got all their edjucashun on YouTube?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1118 hrs
Lots of hot air about nothing. Every kid I know saw and read stuff they weren’t supposed to see before the 4th grade. Someone got a hold of a magazine or video from a parent/uncle/older sibling brought it to school or someone’s house to show their friends. Someone found a book in a library or five finger discounted it from a store and passed it around. Getting a hold of the material is never the problem. The problem is how the kids handle it, which always reflects how their parents raise them and deal with these issues.
If you are incapable of explaining to your child what a hand job, or anal sex is, or feel uncomfortable talking about a dirty word, get over it and do your freaking job as a parent.
I’ve learned first hand that once your child is over 2 they are capable, and likely, to ask you about anything. If you don’t want them engaging in any of the above or countless other acts and want them to grow up safe and responsible TALK to them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1120 hrs
Lefty,
I would agree with you that it is a lot of hot air IF parents would talk to their kids. Since many don’t I think there is an important distinction for a kid between seeing explicit material they know is wrong behind the backs of all authority, and the youth section that all authority figures tell you that you should go to.
I think you are straining the definition of good parenting if you are wont to stop by the Library to take away and examine a book your kid is openly reading in the youth section. If he were hidden away in the photography section…IF we are happy with rating movies to have a standard of modesty or morals or anything else, consistency is a good thing.
I would rather have all responsibility for raising a child to be with the parents, but our society has already done the abrogating. Until Society decides to raise the issue of returning the power of parenting to parents, we are stuck with this sort of problem and ‘Hand jobs so simple a child can do it!’ should be considered adult material not placed in the ‘How to’ of the youth section.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1329 hrs
Fuzz:
The American Library Association has adopted an “Intellectual Freedom Glossary.” (Certain groups, including the Maziarkas, may believe that the ALA has a broad, sweeping subjective influence over libraries; I do not concur and have NOT come across an ALA policy that I believe is unsound. I believe the ALA policies and other policies made by the WI Library Association and hundreds of libraries across the US make sense and support the US Constitution/Bill of Rights.) The glossary’s definition of censorship is “a change in the access status of material made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes when the intent is to restrict access. I firmly believe that moving these materials would be done with the intent on limiting/restricting access. Yes, the minors still have access to them, as they do with all materials in a public library, but you are reclassifying/relocating them (and therefore restricting the access) with the intention of making them more difficult to find by the age group for which they are intended.
Perhaps I did stumble about the issue of movie ratings, but that is because I am not a lawyer, employee of the library (and therefore unschooled on all of their policies), employee of a movie theater or video store. I have since found out (and shared this information with radio host Bob Bonenfant, and proposed he could share it with listeners) that the Motion Picture Association of America rating system is strictly voluntary and not legally binding. Theaters, video retailers, etc. can choose to participate or not, and can create their own policies for enforcing the ratings system. For example, a local video store has a policy that parents can grant access for their minor children to borrow/rent videos. Once this access is granted, it applies to all videos, regardless of their rating. Employees of the business could certainly try to encourage kids from not renting materials that were R-rated, but it is my understanding that they are not required (or even legally allowed) to prevent it. Regardless of that debate, comparing a privately owned company to a public library is ridiculous. Certainly a retailer is going to institute practices that will benefit the company, both financially and by way of reinforcing or improving its reputation. A video store may keep parents happy (and coming back time and again, and continuing to spend money there) by abiding by an MPAA ratings system and having restrictions in place. A public library should not have such restrictions or be in any way responsible for instituting a rating or warning label system. As I pointed out in my interview, if this is what Maziarka or other supporters of this idea want to happen, this is something that should be proposed to publishers, not libraries.
Not such a nut now, am I?
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 1341 hrs
Not such a nut now, am I?
I am not convinced of that.
A public library should not have such restrictions or be in any way responsible for instituting a rating or warning label system.
So a public institution should have no restrictions or warning labels or any processes in place to control what unaccompanied children do there? As fuzz said, it may be interesting, but that is nuts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1351 hrs
So the Scooter Libby, Lynn Cheney and Bill O’Reilly soft-core fantasy novels aren’t available through the WB Library?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1406 hrs
Tuerqas:
A rating system or labeling system or other process would NOT control what unaccompanied children do at the library. For example, a book labeling system would only benefit a parent that was present at the library with the child, who could say “sorry, that has a ABC label and we don’t check those out.” If a minor has a library card (and a minor can only get a card with parental/guardian approval, unless they are emancipated), they can check out anything they want as far as books go, whether they are in the youth section or adult section. Even if a book had a warning label, the library could not prevent the minor from checking the materials out. (The West Bend library has a video policy similar to Blockbuster; a parent can grant permission for the minor to check out videos on their account/card, but once they do, it applies to any videos that are in the collection, regardless of rating.)
The only party that can prevent a child from checking out material from the public library is the parent, and they can do so by:
1) not allowing the child to get a library card
2) keeping the child’s library card in their possession
3) visiting the library with their child; not leaving them unattended in the libraryFrom the West Bend library’s unattended children policy:
“Children 7 and younger must have a parent or caregiver in the immediate vicinity of and in eye contact with the child. The assigned caregiver must be responsible and must have emergency contact information regarding the child.· If a child under age 7 is found to be unattended or is involved in inappropriate or disruptive behavior, library employees will try to find the parent or caregiver and explain the library’s policy. If the parent or caregiver can’t be found, or if the child is found unattended or engaged in disruptive behavior again, the police will be called.
· Children older than 7 are welcome to use the library appropriately on their own. Their parents, however, are still responsible for the actions of their children. Children of this age range who use inappropriate or disruptive behavior may be asked to leave the library. If a child of this age is not able to use the library appropriately or is not able to leave the library without an adult, that child should not be left in the library
alone.· All children should have the name and telephone number of someone who can assist them in an emergency.
· Teenagers are considered as adult library patrons. Nonetheless, their parents or guardians are still legally responsible for their behavior. Therefore, they should have emergency contact information available.”
Why should the library be responsible for policing the community’s children? Parents are the only ones responsible for that.
And if I am a nut, I wonder what you say about all the Maziarka supporters who are willing to give up their right as a citizen and parent to determine what is or what isn’t appropriate for their child.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 1418 hrs
Um, Maria.. I thought we agreed to play fair.
We did not say that “parents should give up their rights as citizens and parents to determine what is or what isn’t appropriate for their children.”
We are asking the library to empower parents, help parents to identify these materials. They will still be at the library and, quite honestly, you know as well as I do that kids will still be able to check them out. They just won’t be in their FACE.
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 1439 hrs
Ginny,
We did agree to play fair, and I also asked you not to misquote me.
I never said that you said that parents “should give up their right…” I said some of your supporters (those that called while I was interviewed on WBKV, for example) are seemingly willing to relinquish their right to determine what is appropriate for their children to read/have access to. I did not mean that last comment to indicate that ALL of your supporters necessarily are willing to give up this right, but apparently some of them (again, some of the callers) are. When someone says “what is wrong with moving/reclassifying these materials” they indicate that this power will be given to someone, whether it is library staff, the board, or a community group. When a parent relinquishes this right, they cannot reclaim it. That is what I meant.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 1505 hrs
:zzdeadhorse:
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 1509 hrs
Ginny, you’ve already identified some of the fiction books with sexual content. Doubtless you could find booklists or articles containing other titles and share those with other concerned parents. Voila! You’re all alerted to what books say what, and can guide your children accordingly, and you no longer need go to the trouble of trying to get the library to instill a warning label, or even move the books from the teen section. Isn’t that a simpler, more efficient solution to getting what you want?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1639 hrs
I would rather have all responsibility for raising a child to be with the parents, but our society has already done the abrogating. Until Society decides to raise the issue of returning the power of parenting to parents, we are stuck with this sort of problem and ‘Hand jobs so simple a child can do it!’ should be considered adult material not placed in the ‘How to’ of the youth section.
I agree. I support peoples right to smoke but I don’t think we should put cigarettes in the toy section. YES I KNOW kids are going to do it anyway, but just the same. Why someone is hanging on to the arguement of free speech by having books like that in the childrens section is beyond me.
If all it takes to give a little more discretion to the parents not random chance of a kid coming across the book in the childrens section is moving it to a different section fine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1640 hrs
MH
“I am so disheartened that so many parents are willing to give up their rights as parents to determine what is or is not appropriate for their children.
What happens if you give this right to determine what is appropriate, moral, etc. for your children away to another citizen or community group?”I wonder how you feel about government backed abortion groups that are circumventing parental consent laws for teen abortions. There’s no “willing to give up” what’s already taken away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1752 hrs
I’m troubled by Maria’s comment:
“Moving them to the adult section in an effort to hinder others’ access to it…”
Who are the “others” that can’t gain access if the books are put in the adult section? Everyone can gain access if they walk over to the adult section. Right?
I’d rather have a public library children’s section PROTECT the kids by not having gay smut in their section. For those parents that want the right for their children to access such things, it is real simple. The can exercise their freedom to choose by walking their children over the adult section. No one is taking any choices away. I think all these concerned parents are simply asking is that you not keep this stuff front and center in the children’s area, but maybe I don’t understand the issue.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1805 hrs
The glossary’s definition of censorship is “a change in the access status of material made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes when the intent is to restrict access.
It is well established that access isn’t restricted in the other section. In fact, it’s UNrestricted - and that’s fine with me.
And if I am a nut, I wonder what you say about all the Maziarka supporters who are willing to give up their right as a citizen and parent to determine what is or what isn’t appropriate for their child.
For the record, I called both you and the Maziarkas “nuts.”
Parents fully have the right to determine what is appropriate by safely saying, “you can read anything in the kids section, just stay out of the mommy and daddy section.” That’s why there are sections to begin with - to separate topics.
It’s not “censorship” to put books on law in the legal section and books on history in the history section, right? So why is it “censorship,” in your eyes, to put books about blow jobs in the grown-ups’ section and books about princesses and puppies in the kids’ section?
Posted by Fuzz on March 27, 2009 at 1920 hrs
I attended the meeting last night and wondered how this got to be a GAY issue. Then I took the time to look back at the WISSUP blog to the first post regarding this issue. Now I know - that is how it all started. There was no mention of pornography until the 3rd or 4th post. Unless my memory is wrong, the owners of the blog were very involved in the fight against the recent WB School harassment policy as well - where the inclusion of the sexual orientation was in question. Two issues - yes, under lying motive - you bet. We teach our children to love all people, regardless of their color, religion, and yes sexual orientation. We hope that when they have questions, they come to us regardless of the topic. But if they can’t for some reason - there are resources at the library to answer their questions. I am not saying I am thrilled with the pictures I saw last night - but I do not want ANYONE to tell me what is best for my children. I am afraid if this is done, there will no way to stop this from happening again.
Also - I read the book Forever too when I was 12 - it was a very popular book among my girlfriends. And no I am not scarred because of it.
Ginny - please don’t say you speak for everyone - there are plenty of people out here who think you are wrong. If you feel the need to save your children from the world - please feel free. Mine are fine and I will decide what is best for them and teach them my way. If I feel the library is an unsafe place - we will not go. But for now - we love it there and will continue to frequent it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 1933 hrs
I am afraid if this is done, there will no way to stop this from happening again.
What does that even mean?
but I do not want ANYONE to tell me what is best for my children.
You don’t have to. Allow them to go into the adult section. Why should MY kids be subjected to adult topics in the kids’ section simply because you choose to let your kids read it? The group that is against moving the books is doing just as much to tell the proponents side what is best for their kids.
Some of these books have topics so graphic that I could not even read them on the air - I’d get a $300,000 fine. Yet they’re in the KIDS section of the library.
And, just to be clear, I don’t care if the sexual topics are hetero- or homosexual in nature - I just don’t want them in the same section that my daughter frequents.
Posted by Fuzz on March 27, 2009 at 1954 hrs
I am a teen librarian so here’s a comment from a library perspective. I have also posted on GM’s blog quite a few times, and have been keeping up with the issue since the beginning.
First of all, the question of materials being reclassified. The reason these books are in the teen section is because part of a library’s mission when serving kids and teens is to support their developmental needs, and teens are at a stage in life where they naturally have a high level of curiosity and need for information about sexual decisions, sexual health, and the consequences of sex. Puberty is confusing, kids are embarrassed to talk to adults, and yes, some teens have sex. Teens who are personally dealing with these issues can benefit from these materials being readily available.
The argument that the books are still accessible if they are in the adult section does not hold water for one simple and even mundane reason: most teens don’t use the library catalog. They go to the teen section, browse, pick up what they want and don’t usually go any further. Heck, most adults do the same thing in the adult section. If these books are not in the teen section of the library, are not visible, and teens don’t even know they are there, who are the materials helping? In theory, access is not blocked, but in practice, these books will never reach their intended audience. The books are not written for adults nor would they appeal to adults. Moving them to the adult section makes no sense from a library standpoint.
And argh! I am so sick of seeing this material being compared to Hustler or Debbie Does Dallas. Some materials are legally defined as pornography - materials that are not for teens and that teens could never buy if they were at a bookstore. HOWEVER, these challenged materials are not defined as porn, nor would their purchase by minors be restricted. That is an argument designed to fan the flames of this situation; it has nothing to do with reality.
What an individual finds personally pornographic is a different issue, and the subjective nature of the term ‘pornographic’ is what will ultimately sink this effort. If the library reclassifies these materials en masse, where does it end? In the future, will the librarian have to read every single teen book that comes in and somehow make sure it couldn’t possibly offend anyone’s sensibilities? That is impossible and any policy to that effect would be completely unenforceable. It is a dangerous precedent for the board to set.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 2025 hrs
“The argument that the books are still accessible if they are in the adult section does not hold water for one simple and even mundane reason: most teens don’t use the library catalog”
So much for the “high level of curiosity” claim.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 2140 hrs
Yeah, and I also said “most adults do the same thing in the adult section.” Browsing is just a convenient way to find things for most people - it’s not good or bad, it just seems to be the preferred method for people of ALL ages.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 2149 hrs
“Ginny - please don’t say you speak for everyone” - misinformed. I never said we did speak for “everyone.”
“but I do not want ANYONE to tell me what is best for my children.” Nor do I. Agreed.
“And, just to be clear, I don’t care if the sexual topics are hetero- or homosexual in nature - I just don’t want them in the same section that my daughter frequents.”
Um, yeah. Our point exactly.
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2159 hrs
Kristy, can you please explain this statement?
“Two issues - yes, under lying motive - you bet.”
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2201 hrs
This is very disturbing.
People are arguing over whether or not KIDS should have access to reading materials (fiction, nonfiction, doesn’t matter) with graphic sexual words and pictures explaining guy/girl sex (and not in a medical kind of way, either), girl/girl sex, guy/guy sex, three-way sex, blow jobs, hand jobs, fingering, masturbation, sex toys, ejaculatory excretions on cornflakes….
Can someone explain why they would object to having these types of materials placed in an adult section of a library where they are not in CHILDREN’S FACES?’
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2206 hrs
Fuzz:
See Libby’s post. She explains the reclassification issue well.
“It’s not “censorship” to put books on law in the legal section and books on history in the history section, right?” - Fuzz
But if you remove the books from the law section simply because YOU (or another party) think they shouldn’t be there, isn’t THAT censorship? If you remove a book that is universally considered to be for a YOUNG ADULT audience (by book classification systems, book catalogers, libraries and book stores) simply because you don’t approve of the content and your intent is to make it less accessible to that age range (and make no mistake, that is the goal here) it is censorship.
“The group that is against moving the books is doing just as much to tell the proponents side what is best for their kids.” Wrong-o! I’m against moving the books, and I am not telling the proponent’s side what is best for their kids, or for anyone’s kids. The proponent’s side and all parents always have the right to decide what is or is not appropriate for their family, and they do this by selecting (or avoiding) books.
I am not saying (nor have I ever said) that these books are appropriate for my own kids, either. I have said that I believe these books ARE for the age range specified, young adults; certainly they may not be appropriate or beneficial to all young adults, but they are appropriate and beneficial for some of them. And they may not be appropriate or beneficial at this point in time or at this particular/current age, but they could be in the future. This can be said for just about any book in the library. It would be nice if we could segregate every book store or library by more precise age levels…..here are the books for 11 year olds, here are the ones for 12 year olds, etc., but that is not a realistic expectation.
“So why is it “censorship,” in your eyes, to put books about blow jobs in the grown-ups’ section”
Fuzz, these are not books about blow jobs. I don’t have a list of the 50 or so books Ginny Maziarka is, I believe, currently objecting to. I do know that at least two of the books are works of young adult fiction. These are the two books for which they frequently cited passages. I have not read these books, so I am not going to pretend to know the storyline, but I believe they are just like any works of fiction…..they have plots, characters, scenes that propel the storyline, etc. They are certainly not how-to manuals about how to perform sexual acts. I believe it is unfair to read/list a collection of passages (each containing descriptions of sexual scenes, some of them more intense than others) one after another. These scenes and descriptions are taken out of context. It would be the same thing as me taking a post from someone here and re-arranging the words or sentences to turn the message into something totally new and creating a misrepresentation of the original work/post.
Kristy-very well put.
Libby-I’ve read some of your exchanges on Ginny’s blog post, and it is great to see your wisdom here.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 2217 hrs
“Can someone explain why they would object to having these types of materials placed in an adult section of a library where they are not in CHILDREN’S FACES?’”
Ginny, this brings a question I have posed to you before…..you say you want the books moved because they are pornography, but in essence, what you are saying by wanting to simply reclassify them is that pornography in the library IS ok, as long as it is in the adult section??
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 2221 hrs
Sam and Steve Austin:
Sam, whatever views I have on the topic of abortion have no relevance to this issue.
Steve: “Who are the “others” that can’t gain access if the books are put in the adult section? Everyone can gain access if they walk over to the adult section. Right?” Again, moving the books would be an attempt to block the material and make it less accessible (since it cannot be made entirely inaccessible in the public library) to the group for which the material is intended and widely (within the world of books) considered age-appropriate. Again, age/grade level changes when the intent is to restrict access IS censorship.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 27, 2009 at 2230 hrs
“Ginny, this brings a question I have posed to you before…..you say you want the books moved because they are pornography, but in essence, what you are saying by wanting to simply reclassify them is that pornography in the library IS ok, as long as it is in the adult section??”
THIS IS INSANE. Of COURSE I do not think it is “ok”, but it is the LIBRARY and the law is the law. GEEZ!
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2242 hrs
Maria. This is old. Agree to disagree. You just don’t understand the request.
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2243 hrs
MH
I comment was to circumventing parental rights, not the abortion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 2324 hrs
As to “it is the LIBRARY and the law is the law,” I am aware of several WI statutes quoted on your blog, and what you chose to quote is not actually representative of the law.
You quote at http://wissup.blogspot.com/2009/03/aclu-we-are-not-afraid.html : 948.11 Exposing a child to harmful material or harmful descriptions or narrations
If you go further into that law, you will find that libraries and schools are exempt from that statute, and it was found that “The exemption from prosecution of libraries, educational institutions, and their employees and directors does not violate equal protection rights.”
You quote: 948.055 “Causing a child to view or listen to sexual
activity.”This statute clearly says “sexual activity,” and goes on to specify “sexually explicit conduct,” which is not the same as saying written accounts of sexual activity. This has nothing to do with written materials at all.
You quote: 948.05 “Sexual exploitation of a child .... “
The statute begins with “(a) Employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of recording or displaying in any way the conduct.
(b) Records or displays in any way a child engaged in sexually
explicit conduct.” and then goes on into the section you quote more at length on the blog. It is CLEARLY referring to coercing children into sexual acts, i.e. child molestation, or recording and distributing those acts. Again, this has nothing to do with written materials or libraries at all.I am not a lawyer, but I really feel like your statements about the library breaking child protection laws are very misleading and inaccurate. People can read for themselves at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0948.pdf.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 27, 2009 at 2337 hrs
I am well aware that the library is the prima donna of exemption from WI law. As a matter of fact, the library is quite the “untouchable” icon.
The statutes you stated (and I am actually glad you drew attention to them here) show just how close the library comes to the danger zone, but still gets away with it.
Libby, you can’t seriously affirm that materials that contain the numerous sex acts I mentioned above (not rewriting them here) are acceptable materials for YOUTH? PUHLEASE. What library are you from?
Posted by GAMazy on March 27, 2009 at 2343 hrs
Well, whether you agree with them or not, the library is not breaking any laws.
As for the materials, I believe I have made it clear that I have no problem with them being available in a collection meant for teens. I work with teens (junior high and high school) everyday and I am familiar with this type of material and how it can be controversial. But, the teens section is for them, not their parents, and I want them to feel that the library is somewhere they can go and not feel like their lives and emotions are being judged.
Look, we just fundamentally come at this issue from two different points of view. I feel like someone should be representing a viewpoint that is not from parents who agree with you, and not from parents who disagree with you either, but the viewpoint of someone who works in a library and is there to serve a specific population. I am really trying hard to give you an idea of where the library is coming from and why they oppose this action.
A children’s section of the library (I’ll just use my library’s age ranges as an example) might have chapter books for grades 1 to 6, but that doesn’t mean that every book within that collection is appropriate, content-wise, for a first grader. Similarly, not every book in a teen section that is serving grades 7-12 is going to be appropriate for everyone in seventh grade.
I’ve said it before, teens do have the ability to make smart choices. I see it everyday. In my library, the books that are geared more for junior high are the ones that junior high age teens are reading. The characters are their age and dealing with similar situations. Mostly, they leave behind ones that have sexual situations that they just aren’t interested in reading about or dealing with at that point in their life. Fast forward a few years, and maybe they are sexually active or thinking about having sex, and those same teens want and need the books they used to reject. We simply can’t have a teen section that caters only to the youngest teen readers.
As to your question, I work at a small public library, but I am not allowed to give its name. You know how it is, “the opinions of Libby do not necessarily reflect those of the library itself.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 0035 hrs
Ginny:
“Agree to disagree. You just don’t understand the request.”
Why is it that almost any time someone disagrees with you or objects to your attempts to have these books moved, it is because they don’t understand the request?
As I stated during my interview with Bob, the request has continually changed…..surely you can admit that. In my eyes, you admit it in the Daily News Thursday 3/26 when the reporter says that one of the main purposes of your Thursday night meeting was to clarify what you are asking for. To me, that indicates your complaint needs clarification because it is unclear, and it is unclear because it is constantly changing. First it is about a supposedly “pro-homosexual” category within the YA section, and imbalance within the subject. And it is about the website’s listing of titles in this category. And you ask for the removal (and yes, in your blog you say you did ask for a BAN on the books) of a few titles. Then the complaint changes and it is about sexual content, and new/revised lists of books are submitted. Is it any wonder someone would not understand the request?
I think I do understand. I know your current focus is the idea that these books are inappropriate for young adults because of their sexual content. You seem to believe these books have no value or artistic merit, not just for you but for anyone. I do not agree. As I have said, I do not say that these books are appropriate for a certain age, or a certain child (including my own) or that anyone should have to read them. I think they do have value for some in the young adult age range, and I do not consider them to be pornography.
Sam: OK, if the issue is giving up parental rights (or them being taken away), why can’t anyone address my question:
If you allow a group (whether it be library staff or a board of directors, or a community group) to have the power 1) decide for the community what is and what isn’t appropriate for another group and 2) move that material to make it less accessible to that group, what precedent does that set? If I relinquish my right as a parent to make the decision about what is appropriate for MY child now, how can I reclaim it? If I give this power away to a group I may agree with now, what happens when that group goes after material I don’t find objectionable? Do I get to change my mind and say, sorry, I want that power back now?
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 28, 2009 at 0904 hrs
I’ve been quietly following this issue. And to be quite honest, I am horrified. This issue is an absolute NO BRAINER! Yes, we have rights to free access of certain materials- not deemed illegal porn- in the USA. And yes, we still as parents have rights to make our own decisions concerning our kids- so far. But doesn’t the safety and the protection of children- even just ONE CHILD- trump the rights we have to FREE ACCESS TO MATERIALS! This is not an even playing field. Children are our society’s most vulnerable. Shouldn’t we stop at nothing to protect them?
The problem lies in the fact that people parent differently. I do not want my children reading about the topics found in these books- ie what I deem sexually explicit. (Heck, I don’t even want to read this stuff!) But some parents don’t care if their children read it. Nobody is lawfully trying to restrict the ability to CHECK OUT these books. But having these books in the YA section suggests that these books are safe reading for young people, that they are condoned by the library. Yes, parents should be ultimately responsible for what their children check out BUT have you read EVERY book your children have checked out from the library???? Do you even KNOW every book they have checked out?
And Libby, you make our point for moving the books to a different section. “The argument that the books are still accessible if they are in the adult section does not hold water for one simple and even mundane reason: most teens don’t use the library catalog. They go to the teen section, browse, pick up what they want and don’t usually go any further. ” So you can basically “STEER” what will get checked out. So if these books are placed in eyesight of young people, they will get checked out. THat is what you are saying, right? Just like if you chose instead to put Pride and Prejudice in an accesible spot or Huck Finn or Shakespeare. Then, maybe the literacy level of the young people in our society would improve instead of continually spirally downward.
And who chooses the books that are on display and are easily accessible? NOT THE PARENTS! Isn’t it the library’s JOB to teach kids to use the card catalog? I mean, it’s computerized! Not like the card catalog I learned how to use. My son is 11 and always uses the computer to find books that he wants. How else would he find them? Should he be dependent on the library to find the books he should read? That is just ridiculous!
I apologize for sounding angry but I am. This is a common sense issue about protecting the rights of our children NOT to see things that are inappropriate. Should children also watch live footage of murder or assault? These things are also facts of life. But there is no need for children to be exposed to them before they are ready.
Ginny~ thank you for what you are doing. There are people in other communities in the state that are praising you for it!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 0920 hrs
Maria, I’m still struggling with this sentence:
“If I relinquish my right as a parent to make the decision about what is appropriate for MY child now, how can I reclaim it? “
I just fail to see how this issue entails parents losing parental rights. If the parent wants their kids to access these books, they can check them out for their kids. Their kids themselves if curious enough can simply walk over to the adult section and check them out. If these kids are as smart as you and Libby claim, they’ll easily find them in the adult section.
All the library would be doing is protecting parents of younger children who would like to have their children explore the children’s section and not have this stuff in their faces. Unless of course you have an agenda to promote the content of these books to the children. Which is what we all know is the real issue here.
A library is similar to a retail store. There are prime areas of shelf space where you put the items management wants to sell. Areas where more people will see the merchandise more readily. Areas where certain demographic groups tend to shop. That is what is going on here.
This is not a book burning mob. The people objecting aren’t even asking for the library to get rid of the books. They are simply asking them to be relocated. Unless of course management of Wal-Mart (i.e. your library) feels that the condoms should be prominently placed for sale in the toy aisle to suit some agenda.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1004 hrs
It might not be a book-burning mob, per se, but it started as a gay-hating mob, and I think that’s where the whole problem arose in addressing this issue. The witch hunt aspect of where this started from leads reasonable people to question the motives of those who are now trying to change course and make this a discussion about explicit content. Those motives are what complicates the issue the most.
I believe that most people would be fine with the library labeling a book for explicit content (for the sake of consistency I’d make sure the rule applied to all books and not just those in the youth section). But I also think most people would find that sufficient, without attempting to relocate certain books to less traveled parts of the library. That isn’t censorship but it’s about as logical as taking all the Dr. Seuss books and moving them into the adult section. If it’s a book for teen audiences, then it belongs in the section of the library that is designed for use by teens.
Had this issue been brought forward by people who weren’t paranoid about homosexuality being portrayed as anything less than the devil’s work, this would’ve been handled already. It’s their own ideological agenda that screwed everything up.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 28, 2009 at 1119 hrs
My position on homosexuality is not a secret and I don’t claim that it is, obviously.
When we first addressed the book issues, the fact that we had set apart a list of book recommendations according to who KIDS have SEX with (and yes, they ARE HAVING SEX IN THESE BOOKS) was disturbing. To be FAIR, we continued researching the YA Zone and broadened the complaint (FROM THE VERY FIRST STEP) to include BOTH homosexual AND heterosexual books with the explicit nature we are discussing.
Ban? Yes. We would like them “banned”, “removed”, “ousted” from the YA Zone. You bet. Get them where they belong…and OUT OF THE KIDS FACES.
Posted by GAMazy on March 28, 2009 at 1154 hrs
Mtnmamaof4, I am not saying that teens do not know how to use the catalog, just that for the most part, they don’t and neither do adults. If they are researching material for homework, yes, they use it, and of course we are always willing to teach someone how to use it. Providing access to books that are for teens in the teen section of the library isn’t “steering” their interests. It’s reflecting the interests they already have. Again, no one is forcing teens to check these books out! If it’s too much for one, they’ll pick it up and put it right back down, but maybe it’s exactly what another teen needs.
Also, it’s just not right to suggest that because the library has books about sex in the YA Zone, they couldn’t possibly have classics, too. The two things are not mutually exclusive! The West Bend library DOES in fact have Pride and Prejudice and Huck Finn in the Young Adult Area, as well as the Night trilogy by Elie Wiesel, To Kill a Mockingbord, The Picture of Dorian Gray, Great Expectations, and I’m sure plenty of other classics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1155 hrs
mtnmama: “Yes, we have rights to free access of certain materials- not deemed illegal porn- in the USA. And yes, we still as parents have rights to make our own decisions concerning our kids- so far. But doesn’t the safety and the protection of children- even just ONE CHILD- trump the rights we have to FREE ACCESS TO MATERIALS!” These materials have not been deemed illegal porn, and they will not be. In fact, pornography is not even a legally defined term; what one person considers to be pornography is not going to necessarily agree with another person’s definition Materials that are deemed “obscene” are not protected by free speech, but for something to be legally defined as obscene, it has to have no artistic, educational, literary, political, or scientific value. You, Ginny and others may have the opinion that these books fall into that category, but others (and I think the majority) would disagree. Again, most of the books on Ginny’s lists are works of FICTION. They are not how-to books, or books that have nothing but descriptions of sex. They are stories, and yes, they have characters that may engage in sexual activity, but I would imagine (and I have not read the books in their entirety, so I am not going to pretend I can provide stats on this) that the sexual scenes represent a small percentage of the complete novel(s.)
Let’s not forget the parents always have the right to censor what THEIR OWN children have access to. As I have pointed out previously, they can elect not to let their child have their own library card, or they can keep that child’s library card in their position to monitor selections. They can visit the library with their child and research, if they are in question about it, material they feel is inappropriate for their family. This moving the books or labeling the books idea only helps children that are visiting the library unattended, anyway, or relies on the child to abide by the parent’s rules. If a child is on his own, he can look at or check out whatever he wants. Censorship doesn’t replace good parenting.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 28, 2009 at 1212 hrs
So, Maria, are you saying that not even ONE book appears to be pornographic to you? They all are acceptable? And by the way, the book publishers and authors have already censored the materials for you as a parent by staking their claim that they are targeted for this age group. Think about it. Who wins?
Posted by GAMazy on March 28, 2009 at 1223 hrs
Random thought:
I wonder what would happen if we took a couple pages out of “Deal With It” and inserted it into Ranger Rick or Highlights for Children?
Posted by GAMazy on March 28, 2009 at 1225 hrs
Come on GM, play fair. You know that those magazines are for young children, in what, first to third grade? No one is saying that the books on your list should be in the young children’s section of the library. And of course materials out of context will be judged more harshly! Without context, how can someone actually have an accurate idea of the work in question?
I believe that “Deal with It” is the book that you seem to have the most problem with. MAYBE, if you challenged just that book and brought it to the board with a suggestion that it be moved, you might have had some sympathy for your cause from the library administration, and may have even succeeded in having it moved to the adult section. But by bringing a list of books that are mostly fiction, books that you have not read in their entirety (again, your idea of them is out of context), puts the board in the awkward position of having to judge the books as a group, and as a GROUP, they are appropriate for teens. Teens, NOT young children, we can all agree on that, I think.
You want people to see this from your perspective, but seem unwilling to consider the library’s perspective.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1247 hrs
I have to say, that as someone who came into this debate on a previous string ill-informed and said some stupid things, this has been a very impressive discourse. I object to the guy who calls Ginny and Maria “nutty”. They are, in my observation, role models of civic responsibility. How much time have these folks devoted to continuing a debate that can indeed become tiresome and difficult to follow? They care enough about mundane public entities like library boards to speak with passion and intellect on this topic in spite of (or perhaps because of) some in the community who’d like to label them as whacky or freaks or what have you.
To be sure, folks concerned about this debate will find themselves aligning their views with one or the other. That’s why people like Ginny and Maria eventually take on the mantle of leaders.
The public entity has that difficult/dull/mundane task of creating policy in light of this discourse. This is not an easy task. But with proponents as articulate and responsible as these two women on either side of the debate (and many of the other folks commenting here fit that description), at least the board has clear information with which to move forward.
Posted by Mike on March 28, 2009 at 1259 hrs
“books that you have not read in their entirety”
Whoa! That’s pretty bold, Libby! Know what? You are absolutely incorrect. And I can tell you this..I wish I hadn’t taken the time. I have now read MANY of the books in entirety and my stance remains unchanged. Even ONE PAGE of explicit, pornographic, and, as Mark Belling called it “raunchy” descriptions of sex acts is too much to be classified as “young adult.”
Play fair? OK. Perhaps not Ranger Rick…. But you get the gist. Quit dissecting.
Posted by GAMazy on March 28, 2009 at 1317 hrs
Since when is an 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, even 16-year old considered a “Young Adult”? Seriously.
Why would it be so difficult to have a “Pre/Early Teen” section for the 10-16 crowd and then the Young Adult section for the 16-20 group?
My oldest is 9. Thanks for the warnings here. She will NOT be frequenting ANY public library if these topics are deemed appropriate for this age group.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1335 hrs
It’s not dissecting to respond to a comment. I apologize if you have now read more of the works, but I hope you can admit that when you originally made this challenge, you had not read any of them. You even say on your blog that it the"complaint was a general complaint, not an individual book complaint,” which led me to believe that you hadn’t read the books in question. If that was wrong, I’m sorry, I can only go by what I read. Given, that post was about the original complaint about the LGBT books, and not the current complaint based on sexual content.
I know I am probably one of the wordier commenters but it comes from being a librarian, I think. When I am speaking to patrons I have to make sure to be as clear as possible and that probably makes me a little more lengthy in my comments. Just a hazard of the job, I guess.
What is the status of your request now? I know the library canceled their meeting on Thursday, but are they going with your original request, will you be starting over, or does the board maintain that your request was withdrawn/changed? Have you filed a new, well, in my library it’s called a “request for reconsideration” form. I’m not sure what it’s called at West Bend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1343 hrs
JJ, “Young Adult” is simply publishing terminology. It generally refers to midddle and high schoolers. And actually some libraries do have a specific collection for middle school and one for high school, but on overwhelming majority of libraries simply don’t have the space for it. Plus, there is a lot of crossover when we’re splitting hairs between grade 8/9, which makes it even more difficult to split a young adult collection in two like that.
When talking to parents or adults I prefer to use the term “teen” to “young adult” because I agree, the term “young adult” does not mean in the library world what it means to people in general and it can be confusing. But in the library world, the two terms are interchangeable. Every profession has their jargon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1353 hrs
So you can basically “STEER” what will get checked out. vs. Providing access to books that are for teens in the teen section of the library isn’t “steering” their interests.
I believe these two statements illustrate the crux of the issue, although there are a lot of tangential arguments going on here. Wasn’t the library web page where this all started? There IS a big difference between having books available (providing access) and promoting them (having them featured on a web page or in a display).
When the library decides to go beyond its basic function of cataloging and storing materials - by categorizing and featuring certain works - it is stepping into an area where critique is warranted. And, this discussion should be community-based - the state or national library associations shouldn’t be used as a crutch - because mores are different in each community.
The reason this became such a hot issue is that the Maziarkas brought attention to something that was not commonly known. I think most people just assumed that the community library was a reasonably safe place for their kids to go - but found yet another place where the “culture war” is being waged and parents have to be vigilant. As Maria said, “what one person considers to be pornography is not going to necessarily agree with another person’s definition”. Those of us who do see some of this as “over the line” found out that the library (with the ALA and liberal supporters behind them) will continue to push that line.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1409 hrs
Two things~
1. I never said that the books in question constituted illegal porn. However, there are different definitions of what is legal for minors and for adults, and these definitions are subject to the opinion of the community AT LARGE. Surely you don’t disagree with that. (Although, I’m sure we disagree on which side has the majority.)
2. Never said the WB library didn’t have classics. I grew up in WB. And I remember how we had to search to find them.
I know how the libraries work. (My mother worked in the library.) Libby writes, “Providing access to books that are for teens in the teen section of the library isn’t “steering” their interests. It’s reflecting the interests they already have.” Who decides what interests teens? Aren’t teens’ interests just as varied and individualized as adults? Library boards definitely steer people to books just by picking and choosing which books they “allow” their library to carry.If the books are STILL in the library and able to be checked out, it is NOT censorship. How could it be?
If library boards really cared about what people wanted to check out, they would need to approve A LOT more books. Surely someone in the community is interested in underwater basketweaving…. And if library board really cared about providing a service to people in the community, they would care equally about all members of the community. And not just the ones that THEY want to service. That is why some on this board suggest that we should just stop going to the library if we don’t like it. Then they could have it all to themselves and the library would continue to cater to their needs and desires. In essence, it would become a private library.
The public library should be a free service to all in the community. What exactly is the purpose of the PUBLIC library? Officially?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1422 hrs
“Have you filed a new, well, in my library it’s called a “request for reconsideration” form. I’m not sure what it’s called at West Bend. “
All of that is posted on my blog and will not be reiterated here. I’d have to pay Owen for blog space.
As for what it is called in West Bend? We don’t know, either. The form is inadequate.
Posted by GAMazy on March 28, 2009 at 1433 hrs
“The public library should be a free service to all in the community. What exactly is the purpose of the PUBLIC library? Officially?”
I don’t know if you’d call it the “purpose” exactly, but here is the library’s mission statement if you’re interested: “The West Bend Community Memorial Library will help to provide library and information services to meet the personal, educational and professional needs of the public. The library will extend services to all residents of Washington County, in cooperation with governmental units. Emphasis is placed on providing current, high interest materials in a variety of formats, and timely, accurate and useful information…. ”
Speaking from a librarian’s perspective, these materials deal with the personal needs of the public and are current, high interest materials.
“Who decides what interests teens?” I know that there is a lot of paranoia (not from you mtnmama), about the ALA and library boards being the ones who decide what gets put into a library collection. That couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s librarians who decide. Professionals who work with teens day in and day out, who speak to teens to find out what they want, who analyze the statistics of their collection to find out which books circulate the most or least. I promise, librarians do not make collection decisions based on thin air; a lot of work and research goes into a collection that has materials for the variety of ages, interests, and maturity levels of teens.
“Aren’t teens’ interests just as varied and individualized as adults?” That’s exactly my point - teens are individuals. Every book in the teen section isn’t meant for every teen, but that doesn’t mean that the books shouldn’t be there at all.
Does anyone know the number of books in the West Bend library’s teen collection? I would be interested in knowing the proportion of books that are being contested vs. the total number of books in the section. Just like basket weaving or whatever, if a smaller number of people are interested, the library will have a smaller number of titles to meet those interests. A library collection is a dynamic thing and it’s impossible to please everyone, but I promise you, we are doing our best out here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1452 hrs
Steve:
“Maria, I’m still struggling with this sentence:
“If I relinquish my right as a parent to make the decision about what is appropriate for MY child now, how can I reclaim it? “
I just fail to see how this issue entails parents losing parental rights. If the parent wants their kids to access these books, they can check them out for their kids.”
I don’t mean the parents are giving up the right to check out these books from the library. What I do mean is this (and forgive me for taking the liberty of using you as an example of a parent that approves of these books being moved to the adult section:
You allow a community group (or library board, or staff) to hold the power to decide a YA book in the YA section is inappropriate for young adults, and it is moved to the adult section. You agree with this practice. Then, another book is challenged, perhaps re: the same issue (sexual descriptions) or a totally new one (religion, or politics, for example.) You don’t agree with that book being moved. Do you then get to take back that power (to decide when/where books are moved) because you don’t agree with it? No, you have already given it away.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 28, 2009 at 1811 hrs
Ginny:
“So, Maria, are you saying that not even ONE book appears to be pornographic to you? They all are acceptable? And by the way, the book publishers and authors have already censored the materials for you as a parent by staking their claim that they are targeted for this age group. Think about it. Who wins?”
None of the passages I have read (from Perks and Geog Club) are pornography to me. Haven’t read the complete books or seen what other books you object to (other than snippets of GURL), so I can’t pass judgment on those. Yes, they are acceptable for the age range, which again spans 11-17. Do I want 11 year olds to read the explicit passages? No. Do I want my 8 and 10 year olds to read them? No. But there is certainly other material in the library I don’t want them to read (don’t want them reading Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, either.) Sure, I realize these titles are not in YA; bad example maybe. OK, I am tired of them reading Pokemon all the time and I don’t really approve of the RL Stine books, so I steer them toward other material when I visit the library with them.
Who wins, by keeping these books in the YA section? The many teens that will read them and enjoy them, either because they identify with the characters because of similar experience or life challenges or they simply enjoy the story. Who loses, if they are moved? The teens that could benefit from reading them and don’t, because they don’t know they exist (because they have been removed from their age/reading level area), or because the books now have a stigma attached to them because of this whole debate.
Ginny, I also object to you constantly referring to the “Out of the Closet” category as a list of recommendations. It says nothing about recommendations, it is merely a list of books and brief summaries of their plots. There is a separate link that lists some YA recommendations from the ALA, yes, but for the most part the site includes booklists, not recommendations or endorsements. By having a list of Bestsellers, the library is not necessarily endorsing them, right?
The WB Library form is called the “Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials.”
Mike, thanks for the compliments and for weighing in. A virtual cup of coffee or the non-alcoholic virtual beverage of your choice to you.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 28, 2009 at 1830 hrs
Libby~ Thanks for telling me who picks out the material for the library! Guess I’m taking cookies to our local library staff on Monday! (We have a great library! And I appreciate all that the librarians do here and everywhere- despite how I feel about this specific issue!)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 28, 2009 at 1928 hrs
Maria, frankly I’m not that worried about this being a precedent that would cause further issues down the road.
This is about sexually graphic material being in a section designed for readers 11-17.
This country has always believed that it is in the interest of the greater good to shield questionable sexual materials from minors. Many children, especially those ages 11-15 aren’t ready for materials like this.
There are no absolutes in our society. Just areas where communities reasonably draw the line. Generations of West Bend kids have gone through that library and turned out just fine without needing to have gay sexual content or any graphic sexual content books put on prominent display.
What you are doing now is actually going to keep parents from bringing their children to the library in the future as many will hear about this and decide the library doesn’t fit community values. For every child that might hypothetically be deprived from seeing these materials should you simply put them in the adult section, you’ll lose two children who won’t be allowed there or whose parents will simply write off the library as a worthless place.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 0029 hrs
Nicely stated, Steve.
Posted by GAMazy on March 29, 2009 at 0837 hrs
Steve:
“What you are doing now is actually going to keep parents from bringing their children to the library in the future as many will hear about this and decide the library doesn’t fit community values.”
What have I done, other than speak out in support of the library as a public institution that does not serve a specific morality and in support of these materials being kept where they are, giving parents the ultimate authority in deciding what reading material in the public library is appropriate for their child. I don’t believe this should keep parents from bringing their children to the library; to the contrary, I think it will encourage parents to become more active in helping to select reading material for their children. And as someone who is very involved in my own children’s lives as active readers, I hope that is what comes to be.
As far as community values, I believe and hope that the majority of this community in which I live does not have values or take actions that are meant to target or vilify a specific group. (Sure this whole debate is currently wrapped up in discussions of “pornography” and material “inappropriate for 11 year olds”, but let us not forget that it began with a challenge of a specific category only, Out of the Closet. On the Maziarkas’ own Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials form, they indicated the works they were challenging were “propaganda.” Not that they were sexually explicit.)
And discussion of this issue has not yet presented a true view of the community’s values. Sure, Ginny may have 500+ supporters. She may have gotten 120 people sign her petition at her meeting on Thursday night. My question to those people would be do they know how this whole issue started? Were they also against the idea of completely banning these books (and yes, the Maziarkas did ask for that) and removing or renaming the Gay/Lesbian/Transgender category? And making this category on the website (again, which is nothing but a listing of the books and summaries of the plots, not recommendations or endorsements, and does not include any of the material/passages they object to) restricted or password protected? Do they know that the Maziarkas only brought the sexually explicit complaint into the discussion later, and, at least to my knowledge, have limited their complaint to books from the Out of the Closet (and now sexual education) category? Have they gone after books for teens with strictly heterosexual relationships because they are explicit, too? I distinctly remember reading a book in the Sweet Valley High series when I was a young adult that included passages some might consider sexually explicit or inappropriate for 11 year olds. Have the Maziarkas looked into mainstream series books, or only the ones with gay/lesbian themes or situations?
Ginny, I would like to see your blog include a current list of the books you are challenging. If it already exists somewhere in previous blog posts, please indicate it.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 29, 2009 at 1354 hrs
Maria -
It is completely irrelevant how this all started or your personal disagreement with the Maziarkas.
That doesn’t change the fact that the subject matter in question is absolutely inappropriate for children - and that is exactly what 11-17 year olds are. They are children.
If you, as a parent, think that your 11-year old should read a book with a graphic 3-way. Then you can go with him/her to the adult section to help them find it.
You have that choice. But these books should not be there for children as young as that to simply stumble across.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 1409 hrs
“And making this category on the website (again, which is nothing but a listing of the books and summaries of the plots, not recommendations or endorsements, and does not include any of the material/passages they object to) restricted or password protected? Do they know that the Maziarkas only brought the sexually explicit complaint into the discussion later, and, at least to my knowledge, have limited their complaint to books from the Out of the Closet (and now sexual education) category? Have they gone after books for teens with strictly heterosexual relationships because they are explicit, too? “
I am wondering if perhaps I should dedicate a web page that states the correct information over and over and over and over again until it is understood. Like I said, this is not only tiring, it is redundant.
We brought our “additional” list of books to the VERY FIRST meeting with Ms. Pekoll. It included both homosexual and heterosexual titles. By the way, “Deal With It” is mainly heterosexual, with “how to’s” for gay sex and three-way sex, and sex with toys. So that book, in and of itself, it hard to classify as hetero- or homosexual.
Since we are not challenging any books at this time, I am not starting all over again. That is not the issue. We have done as the library requested.
Maria, you keep trying to change the subject with banter such as:
“they have “continually” changed their complaint”
Good grief. Get it right. We added books to our complaint at the first meeting. Did I say that already? Ooops! This does not constitute “continually.” This was “an” addendum, and we stated it as such. Were we corrected? Told we needed to do additional paperwork? Guided as to what the library would like regarding the addition of books to the list originally presented? N.O. Of course not. As stated before, “... the library board’s attempts to unilaterally withdraw our appeal without our permission and duck the issue that has now garnered much public attention so as to maneuver the issue out of the public eye and scrutiny with delay and the use of more private meetings with staff.”
“They know what is in these books and they know they will be shamed by any public airing of it,”
So a librarian decides to create a web page with categories and book lists. Why? The only reason would be is to GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. Quit trying to make it look innocent. It is what it is. BOOK RECOMMENDATIONS. For crying out loud. That is blatantly obvious. You cannot convince me otherwise. But feel free to believe it is all RANDOM yourself. SOMEBODY had to choose the categories and SOMEBODY had to pick exactly which books got to be ON THE LIST.
You can disagree with our stance on homosexual books, and you can disagree that we don’t think porn in the kids section needs to stay. After all, that is what you are REALLY saying.
The topic of the day pertains to porn, not gayness. Get over it and get with the program. Your notion that books like “Deal With It” are acceptable and valuable reading materials for children is REPULSIVE.
Posted by GAMazy on March 29, 2009 at 1414 hrs
Libby, you stated, “It’s librarians who decide. Professionals who work with teens day in and day out, who speak to teens to find out what they want, who analyze the statistics of their collection to find out which books circulate the most or least.”
Our YA Zone librarian, Kristin Pekoll, admitted as much to us. She told us she decides what books to include in the YA Zone based on what kids tell her they want. Not parents, not taxpayers, but CHILDREN. Now, if that doesn’t give a nice broad area of authority to a librarian…. And how does one hold this librarian accountable to the above standards? By doing exactly what we are doing. Telling her we would like the porn reclassified and labeled so as to notify parents AND children to content, and to protect children from exposure to materials that contain graphic, sexual information that, if yanked out of the book and sold on the street, could not be purchased by any MINOR. So we add flower words and call it “educational, artistic” and such. Gag. I don’t buy it.
Considering our librarian is a “fan of homosexuals”, as her Facebook stated until I busted her on it, one cannot help but wonder what her true agenda is behind her selections. She exposed herself pretty openly, and I am sure she is regretting is now.
Just thinking out loud.
Posted by GAMazy on March 29, 2009 at 1425 hrs
“could not be purchased by any MINOR.”
Anecdotal evidence, please. Any evidence, really, that this isn’t just your biased interpretation of a state statute. I mean, it’s great when lay people sit around and pretend to be legal scholars. One of my favorite parts of my job in the Legislature was answering the phones and listening to the commonfolk of the district try to fashion themselves as legal minds. Hilarious stuff.
Once again, you have some decent facts here but instead you screw the pooch by making these sweeping, unfounded generalizations. I’m willing to bet that your local bookstore could sell to a kid any book that you’ve found objectionable in that library and that absolutely nothing would come of it legally. Prove me wrong, or perhaps you should stick to the facts (many of which are legitimate and well-reasoned) and not your ill-informed conjecture.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 29, 2009 at 1659 hrs
RS - quit playing word games. I was making a point about the absurdity of the issue. I am no lawyer. If I were, this would have been done already.
Posted by GAMazy on March 29, 2009 at 1748 hrs
Maria, since you want the library to serve no public morality (see post #63) would you be fine if I as a private citizen underwrote a subscription to Hustler magazine for the 11-17 year old section?
Personally, I know of many 11-17 year old boys who are struggling with sexual issues who might benefit from reading such a publication. And I’m sure parents who would object to the materials could simply monitor their children’s entire visit to the library so that their children would not be able to pick up those publications.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 1842 hrs
Personally, I know of many 11-17 year old boys who are struggling with sexual issues who might benefit from reading such a publication.
I am sure those would help work through those “giving the perfect hand job” sections.
Do those books have pop quizzes?
Truly a selfless act of public service, not unlike Ginny’s, Steve.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 29, 2009 at 1927 hrs
JJ: Yes, I think how this whole started is completely relevant. The fact that the complaint has changed and the fact that what they are asking for now is something totally different from what they first asked for says a lot. To me, it says they tried to eliminate (“pro-homosexual) material they did not approve of, and when they realized it wasn’t going to work, they altered their complaint to make it be about something else (sexual explicitness.)
Ginny:
“Maria, you keep trying to change the subject with banter such as: “they have “continually” changed their complaint” Good grief. Get it right. We added books to our complaint at the first meeting. Did I say that already? Ooops! This does not constitute “continually.””Your original reconsideration form date 2/12/09 says nothing about sexually explicit material. The letter I believe you submitted at the same time also says nothing about it, only about the imbalance issue re: material related to homosexuality and the request about the website using password protection. In public statements to the press, you often made contradictory statements. First you were going after a whole category, then you were going after only two books, first you wanted them banned, then you wanted them moved. So yes, in my eyes, the complaint continually changed.
“So a librarian decides to create a web page with categories and book lists. Why? The only reason would be is to GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS. Quit trying to make it look innocent.” You said no one could change your mind on this issue, but I suggest that you and everyone else should visit the library’s website. Click on YA Zone, and select the “Booklists” link. This is where you find a breakdown of categories, including Out of the Closet. Read the summaries. For each title, is it anything other than a synopsis of the book? No. Does it say the books are recommended? No. A booklist is merely that, a list of books, compiled to help readers find similarly-themed material. Simply a tool to help readers find what they are looking for. Libraries and book stores use booklists all the time. Some booklists may be compiled from recommendations from other sources, but that is not the case with the YA subject booklists on the WB Library site. (They may have separate recommendations elsewhere.)
“She told us she decides what books to include in the YA Zone based on what kids tell her they want. Not parents, not taxpayers, but CHILDREN.” So who should get to decide what material is relevant to the Young Adults other than people within that age range?! I would be very unhappy if all the material in the YA section was selected by a librarian who had no idea what adolescents and teens were interested in. I would be more unhappy if the material was only selected by a community group. Is the goal here to raise a bunch of Stepford children? No thanks!
Steve:
“Maria, since you want the library to serve no public morality (see post #63) would you be fine if I as a private citizen underwrote a subscription to Hustler magazine for the 11-17 year old section?” You do not quote me accurately. I said a public library should not serve a “specific morality.” And no, I would not approve a subscription to Hustler (and this is based on the reputation, as I have never read a copy) because I don’t believe that or other sexually explicit material such as Playboy or X-rated movies are appropriate for the library. I do believe that these YA books, even though they may have some explicit passages in them, are appropriate and have artistic, literary, political and/or scientific value.Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 29, 2009 at 2353 hrs
Well, if the young adult librarian talking to teens about their wants and needs for books that will go into the young adult section is something shocking or inappropriate, I really don’t know what to say to that. I think it’s amazing that Kristin has such a good relationship with the teens that they’ll give her their opinions and trust her to represent them.
Buying books for TEENS is her job, not buying only books that PARENTS will approve of. I know that is probably the most awful thing I could say, and maybe that statement does not match your idea of what a public library does or how librarians should act. But librarians are librarians and parents are parents and frankly, it’s not our job to get the approval of parents or any group of people for every book we buy. Nothing would ever be bought for any part of the library if that were the case.
And GM, I have said before, if you had challenged only “Deal with It,” which seems to be the book you find most objectionable, you may have been successful in having it moved, and heck, you still might be successful if you make an individual complaint!
Honestly, moving one book because of a patron complaint does happen; I"m not saying that things don’t slide through the cracks and get put where they don’t belong sometimes. Patrons and parents should be able to challenge the placement of a book; just challenge each book on it on its own merits. It would be very difficult for any library to judge an entire list of books because of a single criteria (i.e. believing them to be pornographic).
For example, here’s what happens after a challenge at the library I work in (GM, I know you’ve been through the process, but I think a lot of people reading this don’t really understands what happens when someone challenges a book). When a book is challenged, the complainant must fill out our reconsideration request form, which is given to the director and the person who ordered the book. The person who ordered the book must read it in its entirety. Then the board forms a review committee. The members of that committee receive a copy of the complaint, and they all must read the challenged work in its entirety. Then, they must read reviews of the material, determine if the work generally fits the library collection development policies and fill out a lengthy form on which they must judge the work based on several criteria. This process may not be exactly what happens at West Bend, but it’s probably similar.
This process would be impossible for any board to complete fairly and accurately if they were presented with a challenge to dozens of books, books which should each be judged on their own merits and faults.
If I understand you correctly, you do not currently have a challenge pending, but instead are presenting the library with the petition that was circulated at Thursday’s meeting. I did my best to give a librarian’s perspective on the material being presented in the petition, at http://wissup.blogspot.com/2009/03/petition-for-child-safe-family-friendly.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 0013 hrs
Libby - Since when has society decided that 11-17 year olds can self-determine? They can’t legally enter into a contract. Under a certain age (dependent on state) they can’t legally consent to sex at all. So why is OK for a 12 year old to read graphic depictions of these sex acts? Most likely without parental involvement.
So the teens talk to the librarian and ask for some books. Fine. Isn’t it the responsibility of an adult to determine if what they ask for is appropriate? My kids ask for cookies at breakfast and ice cream for supper too. I don’t let them have it. Because I am the adult.
Maria -
Your distaste for Ginny is clouding your judgement of the entire issue. Regardless of the original complaint, some very graphic, and highly inappropriate for children, materials have come to light. That is the topic now. Penthouse Forum isn’t appropriate for these kids - but the books in question have similar graphic portrayals. Why do you feel that these are OK?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1148 hrs
Straw Man Alert! Comparing these books to Penthouse because they use a couple of the same words? Totally irrelevant, but nice try. Penthouse and the Bible use many of the same words too.
It’s all about context, and we both know well that the context of those words within those publications is entirely different, whether it’s teen fiction or Penthouse or the Bible. There’s a substantive difference between the discussion of sex in the context of a larger work of fiction and a magazine that is one sex story after another, broken up by photographs of naked women.
That is, unless these library books have a pictorial section…
Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 30, 2009 at 1257 hrs
JJ:
I don’t think anything is clouding my judgment. I wouldn’t call my objection to Ginny’s complaint personal distaste. I commend her for pursuing this matter on which she feels so strongly with such passion and conviction. I just disagree with her opinions on the material, and I’ve pointed out reasons I think her complaint lacks merit. I have done so without making disparaging comments about her and without attacking her.
When I first came into this debate, the only two books that were publicly challenged were works of fiction, The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Geography Club. I very strongly object to these books being labeled as pornography, or “obscene” (the actual legal term), which again means they have no literary or artistic value. I haven’t read/seen the latest focus, the Deal with It book, other than the page referenced on Ginny’s blog. And I don’t think it is responsible behavior to pass judgment on a book based on one page or a few passages.
And I have pointed out time and time again that I am not saying “these books are OK.” I am saying that I feel they are appropriate material for some in the YA age range of 11-17, and that the children and their parent(s) should be the ones to determine that.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 30, 2009 at 1403 hrs
RS - follow me on this one….
Maria and company are saying that this stuff is just dandy for the 11-17 crowd because the objectionable materials are “fiction”[al], albeit graphical accounts of sexual encounters.
But isn’t the a “letter” in the Forum also a graphic, and fictional, description of a sexual encounter. There are those that have even called it “artistic”.
How exactly are these different again? Besides the fact that one is sold in a wrapper to adults only and neither could be read on a radio station (per Fuzz above) without and FCC fine?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1728 hrs
JJ – You asked: “Under a certain age (dependent on state) they can’t legally consent to sex at all. So why is OK for a 12 year old to read graphic depictions of these sex acts?”
First of all, doing a thing and reading about a thing are not the same. It’s illegal to murder someone, too, that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to read horror fiction or that reading it will somehow warp your brain into thinking it’s ok to kill. Secondly, I have never once said it’s ok for a 12 year old to read graphic scenes. I haven’t said it’s not ok either. The reason I post here is not to say yes or no to any particular book, but to try and give a librarian’s perspective as to why those books are in a young adult section. And I will repeat myself:
A children’s section of the library might have books for grades 1 to 6, but that doesn’t mean that every book within that collection is appropriate, content-wise, for a first grader. Similarly, not every book in a teen section that is serving grades 7-12 is going to be appropriate for everyone in seventh grade. Teen librarians have to serve people in the entire age range, not just the younger end of the spectrum.
You also say: “Isn’t it the responsibility of an adult to determine if what they ask for is appropriate? My kids ask for cookies at breakfast and ice cream for supper too. I don’t let them have it. Because I am the adult.”
Of course titles are judged and determined to be appropriate or inappropriate. I never said that teen librarians buy every single thing teens ask for, just that they seek teens’ opinions on the matter. I have no doubt whatsoever that Kristin has had requests that she had to ask the adult librarian to buy because the book was more appropriate for an older audience, as well as requests that she had to ask the children’s librarian to buy because they were more appropriate for a younger audience. And there were probably a few in there that the library didn’t buy at all.
As for the cookies for breakfast, you’re their PARENT so you can tell them whatever you want. Librarians aren’t the kids’ parents nor is it a librarian’s responsibility to behave as such. Kristin has a whole community of young adults to serve and as long as she is following the library’s collection development policies and is buying materials that fit within the RANGE of ages she is serving, she has not done one thing wrong.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1907 hrs
A children’s section of the library might have books for grades 1 to 6, but that doesn’t mean that every book within that collection is appropriate, content-wise, for a first grader
Correct - but unless your first grader is a genius, first graders don’t have the vocabulary or reading skills to read sixth grade books. It is a natural censor. Don’t have much of the same issue with the 7-12 graders. That’s where adult (parent or not) judgement should take over. Because teenagers really aren’t that smart or thoughtful.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 1914 hrs
The truth is, an adult DID judge those books, and DID find them appropriate for that collection. Just because their judgment is not the same as yours would be, doesn’t mean the books weren’t researched before being added to the collection. A parent’s judgment will always be fundamentally different than that of a librarian, who is tasked with serving an entire community, not just one family with one moral viewpoint. I buy books for teens all the time that don’t correspond with my personal worldview; that’s my JOB. If I only used one viewpoint, the collection would be lacking the scope it needs to serve its many users.
“Because teenagers really aren’t that smart or thoughtful.” Wow, talk about a blanket statement. I work with teens every day that prove that statement wrong - teens who need an adult to trust them and listen to them and who they feel doesn’t judge them as lacking in smarts or morality or good judgment simply because they are under the age of 18. Yes, teens make mistakes and sometimes they act without thinking, but so do we all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2009 at 2017 hrs
JJ: Do not try to paraphrase me. Immediately before your last post, you’ll note that I said “And I have pointed out time and time again that I am not saying “these books are OK.” I am saying that I feel they are appropriate material for some in the YA age range of 11-17, and that the children and their parent(s) should be the ones to determine that.”
Then you come back with:
“Maria and company are saying that this stuff is just dandy for the 11-17 crowd because the objectionable materials are “fiction”.Sad.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 30, 2009 at 2107 hrs
How silly! If you people think a 14 year old hasn’t heard about “sucking dick” or hand jobs @ 14, you are outta your minds. I heard about these when I was 14 and that was 26 years ago. My MALE sex ed teacher, in a Q&A of our sex ed class, said he preferred for the woman to swallow when he was getting a BJ.
That experience was a BIG reason that I decided to homeschool my children. I knew it was up to me to guide and shape them into the people that I wanted for them to be. I built their character by choosing very carefully the books that they would read. It was MY CHOICE, not anyone else’s. And if a parent it too damn lazy to check the appropriateness of what their kids watch, read or listen to, it still doesn’t mean that we give one of you fundamentalists the power to do it for them.
Posted by Sinnerviewer on March 31, 2009 at 0628 hrs
Maria said…
the only two books that were publicly challenged were works of fiction, .... I very strongly object to these books being labled pornography or “obscene” (the actual legal term), which means they have no literary or artistic value
So my paraphrasing that your opinion that these books are just dandy for the 11-17 crowd because they were “fiction” and had literary and “artistic” value was incorrect how exactly? Your argument above was that these topics couldn’t be inappropriate because they were fiction and that you (and the youth librarian evidently) thought they had artistic value.
Has common sense truly died in this society? How can anybody truly believe that pre and early teens are emotionally equipped for these topics graphically portrayed (fiction or non-fiction)?
Sinnerviewer - congrats on taking a very active role in your children’s lives and upbringing. Unfortunately, too many parents abdicate that authority to the pop culture society.
The point regarding parental involvement is just as strong in the case for moving the books to the adult section. If a parent believes that their children are ready for these topics, they can join them in the adult section (since the library won’t create separate pre-teen and young adult sections) and help them find them. The societal responsibility should default to encouraging parental involvement to find and discuss the topics when the individual child is ready for them, not to react to the kid stumbling across them before they are ready.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 1137 hrs
The societal responsibility should default to encouraging parental involvement to find and discuss the topics when the individual child is ready for them, not to react to the kid stumbling across them before they are ready.
Which also would make the case for leaving the books right where they are which would encourage parents to accompany their children to the library and become involved in their children’s reading choices.
The only way the child would stumble across them before they are ready is if the child was left unattended. You know like expecting the library and it’s staff to play the role of nanny.
That’s pretty much a 2 way street JJ.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 1200 hrs
How can anybody truly believe that pre and early teens are emotionally equipped for these topics graphically portrayed (fiction or non-fiction)?
Again, JJ, you show a lack of understanding of teenagers. Emotional development and maturity rates vary widely, so it depends on the kid. That’s why I wrote earlier that if your kid is an advanced reader at and early age, you’d want to monitor for content more so than when they were in early grades. Many 13-15-year-olds regularly read novels from adult library collections—including tawdry romances with racy passages. How will they be “protected” from those? Or would they be forbidden to check out any adult titles until they’re 18? Having thought police hovering over them would hardly encourage teens to pick up a book.
As others have noted, it is overly burdensome to expect a library to monitor content in every book. So here’s a thought: lobby the PUBLISHERS to establish a rating system. The movie, music, and video game industries have been using voluntary ratings systems on their products, so argue with the publishers that they should do the same.
I’d like to get the thoughts of teenage readers of the books in question. Do they find the characters realistic? Do they see the possible consequences of the characters’ behavior, whether or not those are shown in the story? Would they recommend the books to their peers? Libby, maybe you could give us some insight!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 1441 hrs
JJ:
I advise you to re-read my posts of you came to the following conclusion:
“So my paraphrasing that your opinion that these books are just dandy for the 11-17 crowd because they were “fiction” and had literary and “artistic” value was incorrect how exactly? Your argument above was that these topics couldn’t be inappropriate because they were fiction and that you (and the youth librarian evidently) thought they had artistic value.”
1) I did not say they were “dandy” or appropriate for an entire 11-17 age range, but that they were appropriate and valuable for SOME in that age range.
2) I did not say they couldn’t be inappropriate because they are fiction. I pointed out that for something to be legally called “obscene” it also must be determined to have no literary or artistic value, etc. I do not agree that the two works of fiction Ginny was so strongly against originally have no literary or artistic value.Please refrain from trying to state or rephrase my opinion or argument. Doing so does me - and yourself - a great disservice.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on March 31, 2009 at 1555 hrs
JJ, you show a lack of understanding of teenagers. Emotional development and maturity rates vary widely, so it depends on the kid.
Hardly - spouse is a teacher. Big, gigantic family with lots of them. I used to be one even.
Are there a few kids that show an enormous amount of maturity beyond there years. A few. The vast majority are too busy immersing themselves in the fad of the day - hollywood or music star du jour, video game du jour, my space/facebook, texting, etc. Good grief - they don’t even know how to talk to each other anymore. Normal human relationships and interaction is through the prism of the computer or cell phone. Sexting is considered OK - without thinking past the moment and that you will almost always break up with this person later. I stick with my earlier comment - teens really aren’t that smart or thoughtful. They don’t generally (there are some exceptions) have the life experience to think things through to their consequences. As a generation, mine has pretty much failed its children by coddling them so much that they don’t learn these life skills along the way. We need to say “No” a heckuva lot more than we do. And telling them that this is inappropriate for them would be a good start.
I’d like to get the thoughts of teenage readers of the books in question. Do they find the characters realistic? Do they see the possible consequences of the characters’ behavior, whether or not those are shown in the story?
Agreed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 1637 hrs
“I’d like to get the thoughts of teenage readers of the books in question. Do they find the characters realistic? Do they see the possible consequences of the characters’ behavior, whether or not those are shown in the story? Would they recommend the books to their peers? Libby, maybe you could give us some insight!”
Well, I can’t really speak to the specific books, since I’m not familiar with which titles beyond those blogged about were actually on the list presented to the library. But, I’ll try to generalize.
Do teens find them realistic? This really depends on the book and the teen. Are some teens having sex? Yes. Are some thinking about it and want to read about other people thinking about it? Yes. Do they want to live vicariously through others without necessarily experimenting with sex yet themselves? Definitely.
Especially books for girls tend to focus a lot on the emotional side of deciding to have sex or not, and the aftereffects of that decision. Then there are books that deal with the peer pressure boys have to be seen as a man through sex, while at the same time the girl doesn’t want to be seen as ‘slutty.’ There are books featuring virginity pacts, to books where characters question their sexual identity, to books with happily ever afters, to books where someone is sexually assaulted. I know that books that have sexual scenes are in question here, but there is so much more to them than just the sex. I don’t know if that exactly answers the question, but I guess my answer is that for every teen’s experience and fear and anticipation, there is probably a book out there in which they could find a character with whom to relate.
On the other hand, although teens do like to read about people in similar life situations, it’s not always about that. Yeah, there are books out there to help teens find a reflection of themselves, but there are just as many that cater to simple escapism or need for an emotional connection or wanting to get away from life and get lost in another world. For example, there is so much angst in teen novels, but not every teen is that angst-ridden. It’s more of a “thank goodness MY life doesn’t suck as much as hers/his. I may think I have problems, but at least I’m not pregnant/abused/suicidal/homeless/insert problem here.”
As for realizing the consequences, it’s funny you say that because I find a lot of girls, especially, who get very involved with the characters in books. They cry for them, they laugh with them, and yes, they get angry with them. I have definitely had girls who got frustrated with characters because “it was so obvious that guy was just using her” or “how could she be stupid enough to get pregnant?” They engage their intellect as well as their emotions; a well-written book has that effect. Does every teen look for a deeper meaning? Of course not, but some do, and that makes me very happy in my work.
Would they recommend books to their peers? Without a doubt. That’s the way most books get to be popular in my library. One teen will read it and the next week, I’ll see their friend checking out the same book. The recommend what they love and trash what they hate, and their friends follow suit; such is the way of teendom.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 31, 2009 at 1834 hrs
Thanks, Libby. Such has been my experience with teens too, which I guess is why I disagree so strongly with JJ’s broad and bleak assessment. Most are decent to very good communicators if given a chance, and if treated more as the young adults they want to be instead of being treated like a little kid. Do they need guidance and correction and discipline at times? Sure. (Most adults do too.) Do they need to be sheltered from each and every possibly corrupting influence? Hardly! That would be impossible anyway. And, as Libby points out, most readers see beyond the explicit scenes and look at the story as a whole.
Think of such exposure as immunization against further influence. How can they be expected to assume adult lives at age 18 if they have no practice fully forming and testing their opinions and beliefs before reaching that age? As the saying goes, untried virtue is no virtue at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 0938 hrs
How can they be expected to assume adult lives at age 18 if they have no practice fully forming and testing their opinions and beliefs before reaching that age? As the saying goes, untried virtue is no virtue at all.
Until they are 18, that is their parents’ choice. The anti-reclassification side keeps making misleading statements about wanting to keep rights in the hands of parents (by not moving explicit books out of the kids’ section), and then they turn around and make comments like the above that prove they want none of the sort.
And, don’t forget, THE BOOKS WILL STILL BE IN THE LIBRARY. They’re not going anywhere. They’re not being banned. There won’t be any restrictions on who can read them or check them out. So kids can gain all the “opinions and beliefs” they want—- just not in the kids’ section.
Posted by Fuzz on April 01, 2009 at 1004 hrs
Until they are 18, that is their parents’ choice. The anti-reclassification side keeps making misleading statements about wanting to keep rights in the hands of parents (by not moving explicit books out of the kids’ section), and then they turn around and make comments like the above that prove they want none of the sort.
Fuzz: So your opinion is that children do NOT have the rights of other citizens, free speech and the right to read what they want?
As part of the “anti-classification side” as you call it, I am certainly all for keeping rights in the hands of the parents. They always have the right to involve themselves in the choices of their child’s reading material. As I have said, they can do this by keeping control of the child’s library card (can’t get one without a parent or guardian) and visiting the library with them to make selections, not by moving young adult material to the adult section. Your colleague Bob and other community members say that making this move is not censorship because everyone still has access to it. However, the move would be made with the intent to CENSOR this material from the young adult readers for which the material is intended, so how is that not censorship???
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 01, 2009 at 1019 hrs
I’d like to know more about the library. Who owns it? Who manages it? How are board members selected?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1142 hrs
West Bend Community Memorial Library is a public library. Public libraries belong to the communities they serve and are typically funded by public sources (taxes) and operated by civil servants, employees of the regional or local/municipal government. In West Bend, the library has a Library Director who oversees operations. He answers to a Board of Directors, which is appointed by the mayor of the city of West Bend. The current mayor, to my knowledge, did not appoint any of the current members of the board; she in essence inherited them when she took office. I am not sure what the criteria are used for selecting members of the board.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 01, 2009 at 1233 hrs
Until they are 18, that is their parents’ choice. The anti-reclassification side keeps making misleading statements about wanting to keep rights in the hands of parents (by not moving explicit books out of the kids’ section), and then they turn around and make comments like the above that prove they want none of the sort.
Fuzz, I never said it wasn’t a parent’s right to limit what their children read. In fact, I’m all for it, but FOR THEIR KIDS ONLY, no one else’s. You’re misleading by saying that giving a teenager a chance to think for him/herself and parental control are mutually exclusive things.
The point I was making is that part of growing up is learning how to form one’s own opinions about difficult issues such as sex, drugs, smoking, violence, etc. As Wendy pointed out in an earlier thread, it can be hard for parents to even begin conversations about these things with their kids if the kids only read about rainbows and unicorns. (I think that was how she phrased it. Forgive my laziness of not looking it up.)
Libby gave several examples of how teens are quite capable of critiquing what they read, and why they might seek out stories with characters in their age range. So it’s my opinion that the books for teen audiences, especially fiction, should remain together where the intended audience can find and browse them easily.
Non-fiction is easier to integrate into the main collection because it is classified by subject matter, so there’s a good case for moving a beyond-basic-biology sex ed book to the adult collection if the library board sees fit to do so. Also, if the books for teens are located right next to books for younger kids, then there’s a case for putting some physical distance between those areas.
Ginny has proved she’s quite capable of publicizing, so I’ve suggested she continue to publicize the titles of books she finds offensive, and parents can take the news under advisement. I’ve also suggested lobbying publishers, not the library, to take up the task of labeling such books in some way. Such labels would also be helpful to librarians when they purchase books.
The library is a public space and as such, it cannot be sanitized or Bowdlerized so as to offend no one. Although I agree that the WB library has given Ginny the bureaucratic run-around, it has acted on the advice of their city attorney and shouldn’t be faulted for doing so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1442 hrs
Fuzz: So your opinion is that children do NOT have the rights of other citizens, free speech and the right to read what they want?
Yes. That is exactly what I am saying. Children are not afforded all of the same rights as adults because they cannot be expected to make adult decisions. As it is a public library, it should be acting in loco parentis, and therefore move the books to a different area.
It is in the best interest of the children for them to have to “seek out” rather than “stumble upon” grown-up material. You’re suggesting the equivalent of leaving your Hustler magazines on the coffee table.
And, again, it is not censorship because there are no restrictions upon the children to obtain these books.
Posted by Fuzz on April 01, 2009 at 1520 hrs
You’re suggesting the equivalent of leaving your Hustler magazines on the coffee table.
Stop it. Not the same at all and you know it, but you say that to fan the flames. Please re-read post #24.
Children are not afforded all of the same rights as adults because they cannot be expected to make adult decisions. As it is a public library, it should be acting in loco parentis, and therefore move the books to a different area.
What adult decisions would those be in this case? Whether or not to read a book about teenagers doing things that some teenagers do?
Funny that you’re advocating that the library—a government-owned entity—be the parent here. Yet Ginny has villified the library and it’s supposed agenda to corrupt kids.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1636 hrs
Stop it. Not the same at all and you know it, but you say that to fan the flames. Please re-read post #24.
How is this any different from a Hustler article? This is from “Deal With It: A New Approach To Your Body, Brain, and Life asa gURL” which is in the library’s section that is supposed to be for 5th to 8th graders:
going down on him giving a blow job fellatio oral sex on a guy: Bringing a guy to climax using your mouth and tongue.. I try to look into my boyfriend’s eyes when I’m sucking.. get him off faster.. lick and suck his balls.. If my mouth gets tired I use my hands to jerk him off.. until I can suck again.. make my mouth soft but tight.. Concentrate on the head.. Underneath the shaft is also a good place.. roll your tongue down the bottom of it. If it’s.. big one.. don’t try to get the whole thing in your mouth.. might.. gag.. have fun and just go with what seems right. ..literally sucked on his penis.. when you ‘suck’.. kinda put him in your mouth.. bob your head up and down sliding your hand up and down his penis at the same time. ..think guys like it better if you swallow, but if it grosses you.. move your mouth away.. cover the head with your hand so he’s not squirting all over the place. ..ain’t so bad. ..Wouldn’t put it on my cornflakes, but it doesn’t taste too heinous!
I’m quite certain that most parents do not think that a book dealing with this kind of material is suitable for their 10-year-old girl nor would they think that their 10-year-old could find this book mixed in with all of the other books for 10-to-13-year-olds.
What adult decisions would those be in this case? Whether or not to read a book about teenagers doing things that some teenagers do?
Kids should not be able to make the decision as to whether or not he or she is mature enough to learn about the things mentioned in the above book. You may think it’s okay for your child, but then I suggest you walk him or her over to that section of the library and discuss those issues with him or her personally. That kind of material shouldn’t be mixed in with the other books - that’s copmletely irresponsible.
Funny that you’re advocating that the library—a government-owned entity—be the parent here. Yet Ginny has villified the library and it’s supposed agenda to corrupt kids.
I have said from the beginning that I think Ginny and Maria are both certifiable. Ginny has her own agenda that seems to be routed in anti-homosexual beliefs, whereas Maria has the extreme opposite view. To me, this issue isn’t about hetero- or homosexuality - it is about adult material, as evidenced by the above, mixed in with the general selection of kids books.
Posted by Fuzz on April 01, 2009 at 1706 hrs
Fuzz:
I respectfully ask you to refrain from calling me nuts or certifiable, and while I disagree with her, Ginny deserves the same respect.
While I certainly disagree with your opinion, I have made no disparaging remarks about you, your character or your intellect. If you cannot defend your point of view without making derogatory remarks about others, I suggest you remove yourself from the debate. Calling people names does nothing more than tarnish your own image.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 01, 2009 at 1724 hrs
kwilli said -
Fuzz, I never said it wasn’t a parent’s right to limit what their children read. In fact, I’m all for it, but FOR THEIR KIDS ONLY, no one else’s.
How about we state this another way….
kwilli, I never said is wasn’t a parent’s right to allow their children to read this material. In fact, I’m all for it, but FOR THEIR KIDS ONLY, no one else’s.
See - it all depends on the perspective.
Holy crap people - how can you possibly think that this content is OK for a pre-teen to find and read on their own.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1740 hrs
While I certainly disagree with your opinion, I have made no disparaging remarks about you, your character or your intellect. If you cannot defend your point of view without making derogatory remarks about others, I suggest you remove yourself from the debate. Calling people names does nothing more than tarnish your own image.
You’re trying to shut me up. That’s censorship!!!!1!1!
j/k.Forgive me. I was making my point that I disagree with Ginny nearly as much as I disagree with you. When it comes to things like this, I am usually open minded, but I cannot get my head around how someone could actually want explicit material scattered about the children’s section. Perhaps my choice of adjectives was uncalled for, but to me that mindset is simply not sane (nor is the mindset of the ban-homosexuals movement - what is this the 50’s?).
Posted by Fuzz on April 01, 2009 at 1814 hrs
Fuzz:
Scattered about? The “Deal with It” book you quoted would be shelved by it’s Dewey Decimal classification, 305.235, which is Social Groups, Young People ages 12-20, probably with other books about teenage girls and sexuality. Same with the YA fiction books Ginny is against. While they are grouped together on a booklist on a web page, they are not all grouped together on a shelf. They would be shelved alphabetically by author, just like all the other YA fiction. I find it hard to imagine a scenario for a child to stumble upon one of these books by accident. How do most people look at books in a library to determine whether or not they are interested in them? They pick up the book and read the description of the storyline on the back cover or the jacket flap. Maybe they open the book to the first page to see how the story begins. They typically don’t flip the book open and start reading passages…...doing so might compromise the storyline and ruin possible surprises in the story. So the possibility of a younger child accidentally finding one of the more explicit passages in a book is pretty slim. And if they did find it, what would happen? If they were not looking for the reading material in that book, they’d probably put it back without thinking twice.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 01, 2009 at 1858 hrs
I’d like to thank Fuzz for posting an excerpt of the book. I think it puts into perspective the situation much better.
Add “illustrations” and you have Hustler. Yeah, that’s what I want my 10 and 12 year old daughters finding at the public library children’s section.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 1909 hrs
Not that he needs my help, but I think Fuzz is right in the sense that this debate is basically being laid out by extremists - or at minimum, people who hold extreme views on this particular issue. We’ve got one person who had to work hard to tack away from her sketchy, anti-homosexual approach and towards something more relevant, and another person who seems to be arguing that, community standards be damned, relocating a book from one shelf to another somehow amounts to censorship. I think the overwhelming majority of us probably fall somewhere in the middle.
That said, I think the important thing to remember about the quote Fuzz posted is that it’s just that: an excerpt. There are lots of other topics covered in that particular book, including coping with depression and anxiety and what to do if you’re sexually assaulted. And the reality is that even in discussing sex, the book is addressing a lot of issues that teenagers have questions about but are often uncomfortable asking adults about, and doing so in a tone and language that teens are comfortable with.
There isn’t a court in America that would find this book without merit, even if some people may dislike some of the language or content.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on April 01, 2009 at 2051 hrs
Just to remind people, these books are not in the ‘children’s’ section of the library; they are in the young adult zone, which is not meant for grades 5-8, but grades 6-12. And those in the upper grades deserve to have books representative of them in that collection.
I agree with Recess in that most people are probably in the middle. Heck, I have said several times that if an individual book complaint were made against ‘Deal with It,’ it might actually have been moved, for good or for ill. The problem is painting other books with the same brush as ‘Deal with It,’ based only on these excerpts. The majority of the books that have been challenged are fiction, not nonfiction, which means the context of the work is much more important when deciding what collection it belongs in. It would be nearly impossible for any library board to be able to fairly judge all the books based on the same criteria.
The same problem exists with the current petition being circulated, which seeks reclassification or labeling of explicit works. The definition of ‘explicit’ is subjective, for one thing. And frankly, a policy like this, even if passed, could never be fully enforced. It is asking the impossible of librarians to know the cover-to-cover contents of every book that is bought for the teen section.
And I’m here to try and give a true librarian’s view, so here you go: labeling these books will most likely backfire, since nothing will make teens want to check out a book more than curiosity over why it was labeled ‘explicit.’ It’s true in everyday life and it’s true in the library - the quickest way to get a teenager to want to do something is to tell them they can’t or shouldn’t do it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 01, 2009 at 2156 hrs
Fuzz said, “To me, this issue isn’t about hetero- or homosexuality - it is about adult material, as evidenced by the above, mixed in with the general selection of kids books.”
Bingo.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 0019 hrs
Let me address something here. Fuzz is right concerning the fact that I have strong convictions about homosexuality. This is not a secret and I don’t claim it to be. An extremist? Maybe. My mistake was addressing the pornographic content of homosexual books before investigating ALL books. I filed my complaint, then continued to do research and realized there is just an ISSUE with porn in the library for kids, PERIOD. So let’s take a step back. That is what we are doing, since the library has so graciously allowed us the extra time. We are beginning again and doing it RIGHT. We are addressing the REAL issue here. Sexually explicit, as Mark Belling said “RAUNCHY” material in a KIDS section of the library. That should be enough to make ANYONE’S blood boil.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 0623 hrs
A very important note about the “Deal with It” book that is getting so much lip service here….
This book is categorized as Young Adult Non-Fiction in the West Bend Library. The library does not have a physical YA Non-Fiction section; all YA Non-Fiction is shelved among the Adult Non-Fiction section, the upper floor of the library. YA Non-Fiction materials do have yellow “YA” stickers on the spines of the books, but again, they are physically shelved with the adult non-fiction books. Any re-classification of this particular book would not change the physical location of the book.
There is a separate “Juvenile Non-Fiction” section within the larger children’s section downstairs, but again, the YA Non-Fiction titles are not located in this space. If you visit the West Bend library and browse books in the upstairs non-fiction section, you may already be familiar with or recall seeing some of these yellow “YA” stickers on the ends of books.
So discussions about moving this particular book (or any other books that are YA Non-Fiction) are moot.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 02, 2009 at 0918 hrs
Regarding “Deal With It,” the New York City school system removed it from hundreds of public schools after it was recommended by the school, likely based on the ALA calling it a “Top 10” book. Places don’t get more liberal than New York City. Obviously the book even riled up the Big Apple.
See “City’s Ed. Boobs,” by Carl Campanile, New York Post, 13 October 2003.
Maria’s attempt to convince people to take no action regarding the book is admirable for its evidence of her persistence and tenacity but has nothing to do with reality or what’s best for the West Bend community. Discussion of moving the book is not “moot” just because Maria wants people to think that.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 0932 hrs
This only reinforces our request for labeling of explicit materials that are “written for”, “aimed at”, “recommended” or “published for” 11 to 17 year olds.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 0947 hrs
This book is categorized as Young Adult Non-Fiction in the West Bend Library. The library does not have a physical YA Non-Fiction section; all YA Non-Fiction is shelved among the Adult Non-Fiction section
So, good grief, I said you can make a case to move it to the adult nonfiction and it’s already there.
And no, I don’t think Deal With It is appropriate for a 10-year-old and never meant to imply as much. But, 1) it’s not in a section meant for 10-year-olds and 2) it wouldn’t scar anyone for life anyway. Gross him or her out, maybe, but not do permanent damage. I also think the title couldn’t be more ironic. As for Dan’s comment, public libraries and school libraries are different entities. Schools DO serve in loco parentis and have to be much more careful.
Bottom line is, we need to be wary when anyone decides to play morality cop, and it’s insulting to make a blanket statement that teenagers can’t handle a particular issue.
Any lover of liberty would have a fit if someone said teenagers lack the emotional maturity to handle a gun, much less kill an animal, and therefore no one should get a hunting license until they’re 18.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 0948 hrs
Kwilli said, “Schools DO serve in loco parentis and have to be much more careful.”
Do West Bend residents know why your library does NOT serve in loco parentis? Because of the American Library Association. The ALA forced this change into public libraries nationwide out of adherence to ACLU principles.
See, “The Internet And the Seduction of the American Public Library,” by Helen Chaffee Biehle, Family Friendly Libraries, 15 January 2000.
West Bend: you do not need to accept ALA dictates. This is your library, the “public” library. This is not the ALA library. Think and act for yourselves. Do you wish to protect your children in your public library or do you not. The decision is yours, not the ALA’s or its local acolytes.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 0959 hrs
Uh oh. She just said “guns” on Owen’s blog.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 1000 hrs
By the way, our library does NOT have MEMBERSHIP in the ALA.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 1001 hrs
West Bend, if you want any particular book removed from your library, there’s a procedure to request that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 1002 hrs
Think. The ALA says libraries do not act in loco parentis. The ALA says Deal With It is a Top 10 book. The ALA says the book cannot be removed from the library. The ALA says it is age discrimination for a librarian to keep children from such material. When do West Bend residents get a say in their own public library?
Someone finally speaks up and an excuse is used to drop her request for reconsideration, and she is attacked rather viciously from what I’ve seen. Who runs the West Bend library?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 1005 hrs
Maria’s attempt to convince people to take no action regarding the book is admirable for its evidence of her persistence and tenacity but has nothing to do with reality or what’s best for the West Bend community. Discussion of moving the book is not “moot” just because Maria wants people to think that.
Dan:
Ginny says she doesn’t want any of the books removed from the library, but merely moved to the adult section. The “Deal with It” book is already shelved in the adult non-fiction section. So further discussion of moving it IS moot.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 02, 2009 at 1009 hrs
Maria, it appears on the surface you are correct. But Ginny is not the only West Bend resident. Despite her statements, it is possible the community as a whole may decide to remove the book completely from the library, or to take other action, such as keeping it behind a counter with the Playboy mags, etc. I’m not saying any of these things should or should not happen. I’m only saying there are alternatives available to the community that may not exactly match yours or Ginny’s suggestions.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 1017 hrs
it is possible the community as a whole may decide to remove the book completely from the library
Dan:
And how would something like the above be done, exactly? Are we going to add a question on a voting ballot to determine this? How can the “community as a whole” decide to remove a book; there will certainly be citizens of the community such as myself that remain opposed to such an action. West Bend has 30,000 some residents. Never mind the fact that the WB library serves a larger community of residents within and even outside the county through the shared libraries system.I think you are the only one who is so concerned with what the ALA may or may not dictate. I suspect that most of the residents have no interest in the ALA or even know what the ALA is/does. As Ginny pointed out, the library does not have ALA membership. The books that are in the library aren’t there because the ALA recommends them or says that they should be there, they are because librarians have determined that there is a need for them and that some residents will benefit from them. If a resident does not have a need for them, they can avoid that material.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 02, 2009 at 1051 hrs
“The books that are in the library aren’t there because the ALA recommends them or says that they should be there, they are because librarians have determined that there is a need for them:
Some excellent points!
Our library does not have membership in the ALA; therefore, they are not bound by any legalities concerning that organization. This frees them up to serve the community ANY WAY THEY LIKE. Let me repeat that - ANY WAY THEY LIKE. Our very own library has a policy that states such. They will give the COMMUNITY what THEY want. Or NOT? And, yes they DO use ALA literary reviews.
Moving right along…
The books are there because the “librarians have determined”.... No more needs to be said here.
Our library can choose to remove a book if the community does not want it. Our library can choose to create a new section, start a new category, and much, much more. It’s all about choice when you get right down to it. And the library doesn’t like this choice. THAT, my friend, is very disturbing.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 1103 hrs
Maria, I know you are good hearted, but you are just plain wrong. First of all, just because it may be difficult to ascertain and act on community values does not mean it should not be done.
Second, if citizens are not aware of the ALA control over the library, that only speaks to the effectiveness of the ALA’s control. Everybody thinks the library does not act in loco parentis, right? As I explained above, that happened as a direct result of the ALA’s actions. So while people in West Bend are thinking one thing, they are not even aware that the ALA is the sole reason for that. They could, I suppose, decide to require the library to start acting in loco parentis like it used to before the ALA did an about face on the issue, with ACLU guidance, and without input from local communities.
You keep pointing to Ginny as a reference. If Ginny thinks the library does not have ALA membership, that may be correct, but it’s neither here nor there. The issue is not membership, but what policies are actually in place in the library. No in loco parentis? That’s thanks to the ALA. Deal With It as an award winning book? That’s thanks to the ALA. Falsely calling citizens efforts to act within the reconsideration policies of the library censorship? That’s thanks to the ALA.
You don’t need ALA membership to enforce ALA policies that can allow children to remain exposed to harm despite legal means for protecting them. If as you say, “most of the residents have no interest in the ALA or even know what the ALA is/does,” and I believe you, then an effort should be made to advise citizens of what the ALA does, how it oversteps its bounds, how existing and legal means to protect children from harm are available for the citizens to use, how the ALA makes a nationwide effort to hide that very fact (among others) from local communities, and how West Bend could decide to follow the law instead of ALA policies.
Maria, why are you fighting so hard against seeing what legal means may exist to protect children from harm in public libraries?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 1119 hrs
Maria, why are you fighting so hard against seeing what legal means may exist to protect children from harm in public libraries?
Dan, I am not against the above and never said I was. With regard to the in loco parentis issue, why should a public library act in place or in the role of a parent?
The issue is not membership, but what policies are actually in place in the library. No in loco parentis? That’s thanks to the ALA. Deal With It as an award winning book? That’s thanks to the ALA. Falsely calling citizens efforts to act within the reconsideration policies of the library censorship? That’s thanks to the ALA.
1) I cannot believe that there are many public libraries in the world that have policies that say they do act in loco parentis, whether they have ALA affiliations or not. A public institution does not and should not act in place of or in the role of parents. I do not think that the citizens of this community want or expect the library to act as parents to our children.
2) Deal with It may have been named an award winning book by the ALA and by scores of other entities. This means nothing more than that…..the book has won awards.
3) The library has never, to my knowledge, called Ginny’s efforts to act within the reconsideration policies “censorship.” I (and other citizens) view her attempts to to re-classify these materials as censorship. For me and others I’ve talked to, it has nothing to do with ALA policies; it has everything to do with the First Amendment, and the fact that I am unwilling to allow another citizen’s views on what is moral or appropropriate determine what material should be available or where it should be located.
First of all, just because it may be difficult to ascertain and act on community values does not mean it should not be done.
Lastly, I never said it should not be done, I asked (and you ignored) HOW can it be done?
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 02, 2009 at 1152 hrs
How? Your own community would know better than I.
I can only say this. When I once attended a library trustee meeting, I asked if they would accept the results of a public vote on a ballot for a certain issue. They said no, if even one person did not vote, then they would not know what the community wanted. They said anyway, people were not “sophisticated enough” to understand the issues involved and that is why there’s a library board in the first place, so the library board may act any way it wishes. They actually said this to me. No kidding. This is part of why I got involved in this issue all those years ago.
I haven’t addressed your other comments simply due to time constraints.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 1213 hrs
Dan, I’m sorry, that library board was tactless, but they were right. The board IS there for a reason and they are educated in library laws, standards, policies, and procedures (or should be, at least). They are the ones who have to set the policy, so they are most familiar with the background issues that each policy deals with, and the consequences of changing those policies to suit only one community group.
Honestly, most people probably DON’T understand the issues at hand from a library perspective, any more than I would understand the perspective of the fire district board. That’s why the board exists. If every issue like this were put to a community vote, library services would grind to a halt waiting for every voting day. It is the board’s responsibility to do what they feel is in the best interests of the ENTIRE community.
I think part of the problem here is that the WB library board is appointed; sometimes that can make certain people or groups feel disenfranchised. The board at my library is elected and I am glad it is. I think it is a pretty good cross-section of the town, based on some of the disagreemets I have seen them hashing out at board meetings. They are forced to come to a consensus that they all feel will benefit the town.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 1648 hrs
One more thing. Am I the only one who finds it just a little humorous that all the brouhaha over “Deal with it” actually comes down to the placement of a sticker on the book’s spine? I think that’s a nice reality check - it’s already shelved with the adult books!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 1739 hrs
Libby said, “The board IS there for a reason and they are educated in library laws, standards, policies, and procedures (or should be, at least).” Libby, this is the board that may have violated its own practices and procedures and improperly dropped a reconsideration request already underway.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 1840 hrs
Here is a tidbit of information. The gentleman who is the VP of the library board does not own a computer. He did not know what a link on a website was. He did not know anything about what I was trying to explain to him, and he did not know policy. He was a very nice man and I liked him. I don’t think he was intentionally putting me off or anything of the sort. I think this board may not have a clue. I am speculating, so take that to heart, but it appears that way.
I would agree with Libby about the appointment versus elected statement. She is absolutely correct. Much like aldermen, school boards, etc. are run. You talk to your representatives. You work together. There is more of a sense of community. If something goes haywire, you just don’t vote that person in if you feel they didn’t do a good job. Unfortunately, that is not how it is here in West Bend..YET.
Libby, I am enjoying your posts, and I mean that very respectfully. You have good insight and an even disposition.
I do not find it humorous that Deal With It is already in the “adult” section. In fact, it is only on the floor with the adult books, but not away from the YA collection. There is more to it than a label.
Posted by GAMazy on April 02, 2009 at 1900 hrs
Dan, I can’t really speak to whether or not the board violated policy; unfortunately, neither their collection development not their reconsideration policies are available on their website. I really do not have access to the information the board is working from. I assume the city attorney advised them and they followed what he recommended because they had no precedent to work from when dealing with such a large-scale challenge of materials.
It is unfortunate that the board members aren’t as educated on these matters as they should be, but that doesn’t mean they are unfamiliar with library policy in general. My board goes through at least one of our policies each month on a rotating schedule, but if someone were to make a request for a large number of books to be reclassified or labeled, they, too, would need to be reminded of policy and why those policies were put into place.
That is the job of the library director, at my library at least; he is the liason between them as the policy makers and library employees who have to carry out those policies. I am hopeful the WB director is trying to give them a refresher on the issues at hand.
I was pretty surprised when I found out that the board was appointed; I haven’t come across many non-elected library boards near me (actually, I can’t think of even one). Is that the common practice in your area? Are other boards (i.e. school, fire dept.) appointed as well?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 02, 2009 at 2059 hrs
Libby, interestingly, all boards near me (NJ) are appointed, so far as I know. NJ already has 6 elections every year in what most view as a political boondoggle. Shhh, or they’ll find an excuse for a 7th election. NJ is not much less crooked than IL. One candidate for governor is now running on how he put 132 criminal politicians out of 132 cases into jail. And that former NJ governor who spent 911 federal funding on his boyfriend instead of the safety of NJ residents. He resigned. Oh I could go on, but it’s irrelevant to West Bend.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 02, 2009 at 2119 hrs
Ginny/Maria, whoever knows…
In addition to the question of other boards in town being elected or appointed, I am curious about something else. Is the library board appointed Supreme Court-style - once they’re in, they’re in - or are there term limits? Our board is elected for either a 2 or 4 year term, and I’m just curious how long the appointments in West Bend are.
Of course, our board members usually are reelected because they run unopposed, but still, someone could run against them if they wanted. I guess an unpaid position making library policy and budget decisions isn’t exactly the most glamorous position in town!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2009 at 0032 hrs
So what do you propose the library do with the “Deal With It” book? If it is already shelved with adult nonfiction, it is away from the YA section. What more is there to that issue? I would like an explanation of why what label on a book in the adult nonfiction is such a problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2009 at 1436 hrs
Libby:
A library board term is for 3 years. I think several of the 9 board members have terms that expire this year.
Other boards are either made up of a certain number of elected alderpersons (such as the board of Public Works) or are appointed by the mayor (library board, parks and recreation commission, etc.) So the library board being appointed IS in line with how other city boards are formed. See this link for more info: http://www.ci.west-bend.wi.us/Departments/Mayor/CommitteesCommissions.htm
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 03, 2009 at 1515 hrs
I do not find it humorous that Deal With It is already in the “adult” section. In fact, it is only on the floor with the adult books, but not away from the YA collection. There is more to it than a label.
I, like Libby, also find it humorous that this particular book that so urgently must be moved to the adult section already resides there, and has for some time. I think at one point YA non-fiction was shelved within the Young Adult/Children’s section, but I think it was interfiled within the adult non-fiction section for space reasons a few years ago. So yes, I guess it comes down to the half inch sticker that is on the spine of the book.
To me, this further illustrates how some of the parties that have gotten so publicly vocal about this issue, both here and elsewhere, seem to know very little about where some of these books are located in the library. I actively use the Young Adult section, and it still took me a while to realize that any non-fiction Young Adult books (such as Deal with It) Ginny or others would challenge are already physically shelved with the adult non-fiction books.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 03, 2009 at 1721 hrs
Be amused, entertained even! We do not personally care if the book(s) have been there five years or five days. We want them to come into compliance under a policy that empowers parents (and children) to be aware of the contents.
Posted by GAMazy on April 03, 2009 at 1741 hrs
“We want them to come into compliance under a policy that empowers parents (and children) to be aware of the contents.” Ginny, I would be interested in the actual plan of action you want the library to take. Not rhetoric or what is written in the petition, but how you think the librarians can actually carry out your requests as a matter of day to day procedure. I’m just talking about the reclassification/labeling part now, not the whole petition.
I have said many times that it is not possible for the librarians to know the entire contents of every book that they order. I think I have made it clear enough in past posts why I believe what you are asking is unenforceable. If you want me to clarify anything from a library perspective, please let me know.
I know it’s hard to judge tone in a post like this, so I’ll make it clear that I’m not being sarcastic. I am truly interested in what you want the librarians to be doing on a day to day basis to be able to accurately assess the whole contents of every book they purchase. Since your definition of an explicit work includes works with just one page with explicit content (see post 50), how do you expect the staff to be able to do what you’re asking? If your petition is actually voted on by the board and passes, what exactly are you expecting to happen?
If they do vote to label YA fiction, yet recognize that they can’t require librarians to read every work, would you be satisfied with the library compromising in some way? For example, using labels that take the grade recommendation from professional library reviews and labeling the book with that range? I.e. School Library Journal’s ranges like grade 5-8, 6-9, 10-12, etc.? This would also satisfy the criteria that the work be reviewed and recommended for inclusion in a young adult collection; the fact that a grade level is included in the review indicates as much. Just wondering what type of compromise could be reached…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2009 at 2116 hrs
Libby, be careful what you ask for. Ginny need not respond to you immediately, here and now, on a blog, no less. She will likely take her time, get her ducks in order, then present a viable solution that is already working in other libraries. No one needs reinvent the wheel. It’s already working elsewhere, if I’m correct.
On another topic, is it true that when it says Libby, Libby, Libby on the label, label, label you will like it, like it, like it on your table, table, table?
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 03, 2009 at 2145 hrs
Dan, haha, of course it’s true!
But seriously, I’m not affiliated with the West Bend library, I’m just curious about the ramifications of this request on library procedure. Of course she doesn’t have to answer, but she seems willing to, so why not ask?
I know, ‘be careful what you wish for,’ right? But I don’t think anyone, is misunderstanding my thoughts on the matter. I think I have made it clear that my position as a librarian demands I have a broad view of what a collection should include, and I am definitely not advocating for labeling the collection in any way. I am just wondering what could be done in this specific situation to reach a compromise of any sort.
As for viable solutions that are already working in other libraries? School libraries do often label by grade, if they are serving primary grades through junior high, that’s true. And I know there are libraries that separate out their junior high collection and their high school collection. However, most libraries can’t due to space constraints. I am of course not familiar with every library out there, but I have never heard of a library that labels materials in their collection as ‘obscene.’ I’m pretty sure that in this case, they would be inventing the wheel, not reinventing it.
The labeling project has been compared to the RIAA and MPAA systems. The RIAA and MPAA are organizations that deal with the producers of music and movies; it’s not up to libraries to label those products. The record labels and studios have their content rated voluntarily, and when a library collection adds this material, it’s already been assigned an ‘explicit’ or ‘R’ rating when appropriate.
If publishers want to have similar systems, that’s up to them. The West Bend librarians can’t be expected to form their own book ratings system and then proceed to read and rate every book coming through their doors. It’s just not practical.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2009 at 2246 hrs
“The West Bend librarians can’t be expected to form their own book ratings system and then proceed to read and rate every book coming through their doors. It’s just not practical.”
No kidding. But a workaround is likely available.
Consider for example what the Court said in US v. ALA. No library can be expected to read and rate every web site coming through the Internet, as the ALA argued. But the Court still found Internet filters 100% legal.
I’m sure you see the analogy.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 03, 2009 at 2303 hrs
Filters are products for sale; when they must be used, libraries aren’t expected to create the filters from scratch.
I know there are workarounds; I just offered my own example of one to Ginny in an earlier post. But, I am more interested in seeing what her vision is, since it’s her complaint.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 03, 2009 at 2347 hrs
The main problem I have with a labeling system comes down to the idea that one person or group is going to end up being responsible for making the determination that a book is explicit enough to get a label. As a parent, I don’t want any one person, community group, or a library staff person (or committee) to have this power. How will you know that they are truly carrying out the standards of the community (and, more importantly, how do you come up with community standards? What one person considers sexually explicit will be a far cry from what another person thinks.) How will you know the rating/labeling system is doing what it was intended to do, and how to you prevent the people that are doing the labeling from abusing their power? And if we start labeling books for sexual content, how do we say no when others want to start labeling books based on other criteria, such as religious or political views?
We want them to come into compliance under a policy that empowers parents (and children) to be aware of the contents.
Well, Ginny, then you can end your campaign. The library is already in compliance with policies that empower parents and children to be aware of contents of books. For one, minors cannot get a library card without parental/guardian approval. Secondly, parents and kids can visit the library together and discuss which books are appropriate in their household. Finally, parents and all readers have innumerable ways to find out more about book titles they are interested in. They can get recommendations from other parents. They can ask a librarian questions. They can look up the title online and read countless reviews of the book, both from groups that name “best books” and individual readers that provide reviews at places like Amazon.com and endless other online book retailers and consumer opinion websites. Certainly, parents can always check out the book first, and read it or skim it to determine if it is right for their child. But again, this responsibility remains with the parent, not the library.
I found the Collection Development and Maintenance Policy for the Slinger Public Library. (Slinger is another village within our county and is connected with the West Bend library through the shared libraries system.) From their policies and guidelines for selection: “The selection of any materials for the library’s collection does not constitute an endorsement of its content. The library recognizes that many materials are controversial and that any given item may offend some patrons.” It goes on to say “Responsibility for the reading, listening and viewing of library materials rests solely with their parents or legal guardians. Selection will not be inhibited by the possibility that materials may be accessible for use by children.” It also states that library materials are not labeled or identified to show approval or disapproval of contents, and they are not sequestered except for the purpose of protecting them from damage or theft.
Sounds exactly right to me.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 06, 2009 at 0008 hrs
Maria, your argument is basically that no one is in any position to make any judgments. Then throw out the Supreme Court cases. Throw out the law. Throw out community standards.
Then you argue if anyone does make judgments, it should be the very same library profession that awards oral sex books as the best books of the year for kids 12 and up and that never provides notice as to such content.
You have set it up so you win either way you turn. Clever, but wrong.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 06, 2009 at 0609 hrs
Maria, your argument is basically that no one is in any position to make any judgments. Then throw out the Supreme Court cases. Throw out the law. Throw out community standards.
Supreme Court: justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the US Senate.
Law: Based on the US Constitution and laws enacted by Congress, elected officials.
Community standards: Who decides these? Who decides what the standard are? Ginny Maziarka?
I did not say the library should make the judgments. I said the responsibility for that lies with the parents, but they only get to make that judgment for their own children. I even pointed out in my post that I would not want the library staff to have the power to decide when and where labels get placed either.
You say my position is no one is in position to make judgments, yet you ignore that these books have already been judged, and in the eyes of the law, they are not (legal definition) “obscene.” And you are wrong about my position. Someone IS in the position to make judgments; it is the parents, and they get to make that judgment for their children only.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 06, 2009 at 0856 hrs
The WBPL YA section is right next to the adult mystery and sci/fi section. Will Ginny address those books too?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 24, 2009 at 2136 hrs
Know what bugs me? People who think they can censor library books for my kids. Yeah, you know, the people who bring in sex books and shove them in front of my kids. Uh huh… I am tired of having my kids subjected to books that other people feel are appropriate for mine. So there. That’s the issue.
Posted by GAMazy on April 24, 2009 at 2157 hrs
No one from my group has ever said anything about what books are appropriate for your kids, Ginny. We have ALWAYS said that it is every parents’ right to decide what is and is not appropriate for their kids, and no one else’s.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 24, 2009 at 2217 hrs
People who think they can censor library books for my kids. Yeah, you know, the people who bring in sex books and shove them in front of my kids.
I tried to let this comment rest, but I can’t. Censors don’t bring in books, they suppress them. The library is certainly not forcing anyone to read or look at anything they don’t want to, and I have always believed (and publicly said) if you don’t like a book, it is your right not to read it (or not let your kids read it.) But by the logic of your statement above, one could say that you are trying to bring in “ex-gay” books and “shove them in front of my kids.” I welcome the addition of any books the library is asked to add to the collection that are published by established, known publishers and have been reviewed by credible and objective book reviewers.
Posted by Maria Hanrahan on April 25, 2009 at 0120 hrs
The 1986 Attorney General Commission on Pornography defined pornography as material that is “predominantly sexually explicit and intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal.” Hard-core pornography “is sexually explicit in the extreme, and devoid of any other apparent content or purpose.” From older dictionaries, I would also add that material that is predominantly violently explicit can be considered pornography if its main purpose is to arouse violent feeling, i.e., snuff films. It appears Ginny considers her identified literary works that are partially sexually explicit to be Pornography (1/2p in 200p is a rough average of the works Ginny has targeted). There is also no submitted documented evidence that the lightly sexually explicit books in question, not intended primarily for the purpose of sexual arousal, were ever “forced” on any library patron. The library board has also remained true to the book challenge process, which is simple to follow for anyone citizen apprehensive with any book. No crime, thus, has taken in the West Bend public library’s acquisition of materials.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2009 at 0909 hrs
Tom, the issue is not pornography, even if Ginny said it was initially.
Posted by Dan Kleinman on April 25, 2009 at 0919 hrs
Dan,
I hope you notice Ginny keeps changing the issue a lot. The issue will likely change again, as well as her demands. I was just thinking how cool in the future that would be to read one of the “tagged” books anywhere but in public view. That would be so cool to be able to identify the children and their parents who allow them to read a challenged book. I suggest a big gold star. The kids will better be able to locate the books then. They will not have to go to Ginny’s website to get all the titles. I can’t apologize for needling, but that would be the future.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2009 at 1804 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 121
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 09:44 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).