Rethinking Banned Books Week

This week marks Banned Books Week, an effort sponsored by the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom.  It brings awareness to the many books that have been challenged in, and removed from, libraries.  The ALA is a major advocate of people's freedom to read, view, and access whatever materials they please, and considers any removal of books a matter of censorship that violates citizens' 1st Amendment rights.

I think there's validity to the principles advocated by the American Library Association (ALA).  Libraries have removed books because one person objects to even so much as a small detail in the book, like a dictionary that can allow a child to look up an expletive.  And if such actions are taken unchecked, things could get out of control, as one's persons objections could remove all manner of materials, even something like a book that contains images of the Sistine Chapel.

But I strongly feel the ALA should rethink its whole approach to book challenges.

The reality is that librarian professionals are not supposed to cast judgment on material people want to access based on its content.  Yet the ALA gets uptight when someone wants to challenge a book based on what is sometimes a legitimate concern.  For example, it's clear that pornography affects the mind of the person viewing it.  Some people, like in the ALA, would claim such a statement is just someone's opinion, and is not sufficient reason to remove a pornographic item from the library, and a similar line of reasoning is used to advocate against barring access to pornography on public library computers, even for children.  Furthermore, library policies on book challenges are set up in such a way so that a challenge would never be accepted, but pretty much always denied.

Librarians are also not supposed to judge patrons' reference questions.  Even a seemingly silly question usually has a legitimate purpose behind it, like in this tutorial video when a woman asks if birds can fly because she wants to take her pet bird with her on a commercial airplane flight.  A good librarian is supposed to take the time to discern that purpose through a reference interview.

I feel the community of librarian professionals should approach objections to books in the same way.  Instead of having a hands-off approach, they should take the time to communicate with the person making the objection, and understand what's behind it.  Challenges to library material could then be turned into a great opportunity to open up a community forum to discuss how best to address difficult issues, like how to limit pornography's devastating effects in society, or how to teach children to avoid using inappropriate language in a society where it has become more commonplace.

So while it may not be in the best interests of libraries to remove books on a whim because of one objection, the idea of belittling people's objections through something like Banned Book Week is not any more acceptable in my mind.  It's unfortunate that both sides on this issue are taking past each other, rather than dialoging about the larger issues at stake.

I feel Banned Book Week would be more meaningful if it aimed to foster healthy dialogue about making our society a better place.

In Celebration of 1783

It's once again that momentous day, September 3, which was the day when the Treaty of Paris 1783 was officially signed, formally ending the American Revolution, by which Great Britain recognized the independence of the United States of America.

On this high patriotic occasion, I offer some thoughts, as I think back to the July 4 ceremony I attended at the Chicago History Museum a couple of months ago.

The keynote speaker was Ron Gidwitz, who is active in Republican politics in Illinois, and ran for the Republican gubernatorial nomination back in 2006, and is a frequent attendee of this event.  He said that so many people sacrificed for the good of this country, even making the ultimate sacrifice.  We owe to them to be involved in the process of our government.  It all starts with voting.  He rebutted the idea that "my vote doesn't matter", noting that in the recent Chicago municipal elections, one of the aldermanic races was won by less than 100 votes.  He further noted that the turnout was less than 50% of the population of that ward, so that a relatively small number of people selected the alderman.

Personally, while I recognize special interests dominate the political process, that's no excuse to not vote.  Not voting doesn't change anything.  The only hope we have for changing anything is to vote.

Mr. Gidwitz then said we should be involved by communicating with our elected officials.  Our form of government is about their being accountable to us, and dialoging with us.  So we should speak up, and let our officials know what's on our minds.

 I hold dear in my heart these actions and the principles behind them.  We are fortunate to have this form of democratic republican government in this country, even if it's not perfect, which no government is.  We should make good of it by being involved in the process.

So on this day celebrating our country, I urge you to get out and be involved.