How Anti-Censors, "Censor" the Truth about Censorship or...
Looking for Nazis in all the Wrong Places
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 (sic) 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 (sic), 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...
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 [by] 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....
So Why the Hoopla about Censoring?
. . . 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. . . . 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....
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....
http://webpages.charter.net/tomeboy/censorship.html
E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format
|
 |
|
|
Illinois Family Institute
P.O. Box 88848
Carol Stream, Illinois 60188
Phone: (708) 781-9328
Fax: (708) 781-9376
Evil men don't understand the importance of justice,
but those who follow the Lord are much concerned about it.
~Proverbs 28:5
(NKJV)
|
