The ALA leads many to believe that right wing, cropped hair, thin tie rednecks
and their bee hived hair wives threaten our freedom to information.
The reality is librarians “censor” on a daily and with a substantially greater
impact upon patrons. Sometimes it is justified, other times not.
The truth is ALA’s representation of the censorship issue is disingenuous
and misleading. Why?
The Party Line on Censorship
I chuckle to myself whenever I see a banned book list. Why? Because
many of these books enjoy more circulation than most other books. And good
for them!! So what's the fuss?
The American Library Association (ALA) gets a lot of mileage on the "censorship"
issue. Although I think a more accurate characterization would be paternal
fear mongering to John Q Westernfictionreader and Jane Q Jackiecollinsfan.
To hear them invoke "censorship" would stir any decent, democratic citizenry
to arms. Myself included. After all, this is a nonpartisan organization
dedicated to "promote the highest quality library and information services
and public access to information". Really?
Here's a dirty little secret that you won't find whispered around water coolers
at 50 East Huron Street. LIBRARIES AND LIBRARIANS ARE THE GREATEST
PERPETRATORS OF CENSORSHIP. Of course this is anathema to the ALA politburo.
We can only guess as to how many courageous voices have been quelled by ALA's
CIPA caning rod. So how do they/we censor without anyone knowing?
The "Real" Insidious Censorship
Many library patrons come to a library not looking for a specific book, e.g.
Daddy’s Roomate, Go Ask Alice, etc.. Of course this varies to a small
degree relative to the library type. Public patrons will be more likely
to have a specific title in mind than patrons of special or academic libraries.
Notwithstanding this difference, my professional experience in all three
library types has been that most patrons search for books by subject, rather
than by a specific title or author. Are you still with me?
So how do a majority of patrons find their books? Usually by subject keyword
or title keyword searches. (If they have had a good dose of bibliographic
instruction, they may blow the dust of the LCSH and find a USDA approved
subject heading ; ) )
So they search using terms like "racism", "environment", "gun control" ,
you get the idea. Then they look at their list of 23 titles and usually
accept these books as the entire universe of knowledge on that given topic.
Now I am not inferring that patrons won't refine their searches but the overwhelmingly
majority will only select titles from their local catalog. Trust me,
I am a copious statistics keeper. No more than 10% of our patrons will bother
with interlibrary loan. Librarians with biases who also select books understand
this too.
Now those of us in library land are familiar with a "collection development
policy" (CDP). For library neophytes this is a gentle tool for codified
library censorship. Now understand that I have written and use CDP’s.
It's nice to have formal criteria established for purchasing books.
Most policies discuss the mission of the library, community interests, curriculum,
etc.. Again, these are good things but make no mistake, these are tools
for precluding the purchase of entire categories of books. Does this
sound like censorship?
Of course this is censorship and its insidious beauty is its veiled nature.
Plus the fact that its impact is far greater than ALA's top 100 banned books.
Even the anti-commonsenseorship crowd hasn't detected this. At least the
poor souls that have been duped into believing what ALA has been serving
up. The others are well aware but you won't hear any rallying cries
about this.
As much as I love librarians I am neither foolish nor naive enough to accept
that their collection development selections are free from personal bias.
I know too many. And as collection development librarians understand the
methods in which most patrons find books, biased collection development serves
as the perfect tool to censor.
If you are reluctant to accept this reality, log into your local online catalog
or better yet WorldCat. See what you get with respect to those time
honored contentious topics such as abortion, assisted suicide, gun control,
creationism, genetically modified foods, etc.. Do you see balance or perhaps
a conspicious bias? It works with author searches as well. Try Betty Friedan’s
“The Femine Mystique” against Phyllis Schafly’s “Feminist Fantasies” and
see what you get.
Can Books Be Censored Today?
Thirty years ago one may have had an argument that a patron could be effectively
denied a book. It is now impossible thanks to technology. Unfortunately
the anti-commonsenseorship crowd fails to accept this reality. The concept
of the stand-alone library has gone the way of the card catalog. So has the
ability to censor.
I ask this. How can a library censor a book today? With more
libraries moving to consortial online catalogs equipped with patron initiated
borrowing, how do we put the kibosh on a book? Not to mention OCLC's
WorldCat and the Library of Congress online. Our interlibrary loan
traffic has been growing exponentially, though still comprising under 10%
of all library circulation.
Will a library really refuse to submit an interlibary loan request for a
naughty book? The fact is the only real censoring today is a library
not paying the electric bill. In fact, many libraries are entering
into collection development agreements with other libraries located hundreds
of miles away. We have. How does the censorship argument hold up to
these new paradigms in collection development. It doesn't.
So Why the Hoopla about Censoring?
I'm naturally a cynical person. In my humble opinion or IMHO in blog
parlance, I believe it serves the needs of those with specific agendas.
Take a look at any "Banned Book List" and count the political affiliation
of those titles. Do they have more of a liberal or conservative slant?
Is this a coincidence or do we go back to the hackneyed anti-censorhip playbook
and blame it all on religious conservatives, prudish parents and narrow-minded
bigots?
Is There Trash?
If it looks like trash, smells like trash and reads like trash, it probably
is trash. I submit that both conservative and liberal "nut cases" have
produced their fair share of wasted tree slices. I refuse to buy either.
Oh, I will pick up the occasional rant book but my fiduciary responsibility
is to spend our collection development budget on material that has some literary
or educational merit. If it's trash, then I'm a censoring fool.
Predictably, the anti-censorship crowd doesn't believe in the concept of
"trash". At least not publicly. Well, one exception may be that
of your typical white power/Ku Klux Klan/skinhead drivel. Why?
Because it doesn't fit the "anti-commonsenseorship" ideology, which has a
definite liberal slant. They only go into street theater mode when they (usually
ALA) have collectively agreed to adopt a book. Imagine this press conference.
A couple of faceless ALA officers sharing a podium with a pointy headed Grand
Dragon decrying Commonfolkville Public Library’s decision to remove "Why
our Bed Sheet and Hood are Misunderstood".
Again, never mind the hundreds of books passed over through collection development
on a daily basis by librarians, the ALA anti-censorship crowd accepts the
moral virtue of the librarian. But if a public layperson wishes that
a book not be purchased or removed it's censorship. Semantics pure and simple.
Filters
This is a biggy. ALA really loves this one. There are many issues
regarding filters in libraries. I maintain the only difference in filtering
software is that it doesn't have an MLS. As a former systems librarian,
I understand and concede that filters are far from perfect. I also
admit as to not purchasing any for our library. Again I work in an
academic library so I have more latitude with respective to the sensitivities
of our patrons.
ALA loathes filters. Why? Because it's governmental censorship.
(the only business ALA wants with Uncle Sam is a spot at the federal funds
feeding trough). But their argument doesn't hold water in light of the way
libraries have historically collected and disseminated material.
Why does the Internet have to be an "all or none" resource? Why isn't
Internet access to web sites accepted as another facet of collection development?
Where did this "all or none" business come from? If one separates the
medium from the content it really seems absurd.
For example, imagine your 100 most raunchy, filthy, hate-filled, web sites
providing free glossy print counterparts of their pages to public libraries.
Free postage to boot. (Please remember that I am speaking about constitutionally
protected material.) Would public libraries make these materials available
for their adult patrons? (notice I said adult and not children).
I bet not. Just as public libraries have never purchased girly magazines.
So why is filtering constitutionally protected smut abominable for one medium
and not the other?
Oh, one other thing about filters. They are only mandatory if a library wishes to have Uncle Sam subsidize their Internet costs. Hence, they are not mandatory after all..
The reality is the anti-commonsenseorship crowd doesn't work in reality.
All of this public posturing hasn't changed anything. Some librarians
will continue to "pass over" books based upon their biases. Some in
the public will continue to challenge books. Censorship, collection
bias, good taste, bad taste, call it what you want. The result is the
same.
