Comments on: Tuesday Midday Links

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:32:48 +0000

@Dawn The WSJ article was focused on arguing that Banned Book Weeks is not important anymore because the success rate of challenges are low, but I believe that the success rate of challenges are low because groups keep awareness of the dangers of banning books high.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:29:33 +0000

@Terri By advocating against banned books, one isn't restricting another's right of protest. It's advocating that one parent or a small group of parents don't make decisions about what is read to my child.

By: Dawn

Dawn — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:27:58 +0000

Not all challenges are created equal. There’s a huge difference between trying to remove something from the shelves of a public library and challenging a book on your child’s required reading list. One restricts access. The other is asserting your right as a parent to not have your child forcibly exposed to something contrary to your values. Hey, parents were given the right to opt-out of viewing Obama’s speech which had to have a lot less controversial content than a number of books.

And some of the results of being challenged were good – crisping up book selection criteria, having additional discussions on race, etc.

So, yeah, a lot of the challenges are asinine, but the kneejerk reaction that challenging a book is a horrible, small-minded thing – no, not necessarily true at all.

And actually the WSJ article was pretty encouraging – 80% of the challenges are in schools as are all the removals but one. I don’t see this as severely restriciting access at all.

By: Jane

Jane — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:04:54 +0000

@Jane A No worries. Sometimes WSJ are behind paywall, so I figured I'd link to the CSM.

By: MicheleKS

MicheleKS — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:36:52 +0000

The goal of many ‘challengers’ is to have books taken off the shelves and/or severly restrict access to them. That’s why the ALA has Banned Books Week- not to squelch dissent but to make sure people can have access to books and make up their own minds. The free flow of opinion and thought goes both ways and the ‘challengers’ have complete rights to their opinions and I will defend their right to express those opinions. But I will not stand for books being taken off the shelves and or being told what I can or can’t read.

By: Terri

Terri — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:29:28 +0000

Exactly who pays for these books? That would be taxpayers. One could argue when you take away an individual’s right to challenge or voice opposition you’ve become a dictatorship.

Think about the argument. Really think about it. Censoring thought and opposition is as preposterous as banning books.

This is from the ALA site: “Imagine how many more books might be challenged-’and possibly banned or restricted-’if librarians, teachers, and booksellers across the country did not use Banned Books Week each year to teach the importance of our First Amendment rights and the power of literature, and to draw attention to the danger that exists when restraints are imposed on the availability of information in a free society.”

Good heavens, can anyone see the irony here?

By: MicheleKS

MicheleKS — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 00:00:52 +0000

What got me steamed about the WSJ editorial was a single person or small group dictating what a whole society should read or not read. No. Just no on that. If a parent wants to limit their child’s access to certain books then that their right as a parent but not to impose their viewpoints onto other parents. But I also feel that way about adults wanting to impose their viewpoints onto others and silence all dissent. That’s what challenging and/or banning books is about- silencing freedom of thought.

And I believe the ALA isn’t about squelching protest but about protecting the right of all readers to choose individually. A person can voice an opionion all they want but to deny someone else the same right and/or access to something just because they don’t agree with it. No. You start banning books and/or taking them off the shelves you have Nazi Germany or any number of dictatorships/oppressive regimes worldwide.

By: Jane A

Jane A — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:40:08 +0000

@Jane: Oh oops, I missed that!

By: DS

DS — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:12:33 +0000

I have no problem with a parent deciding a book is not right for their child. I do have a problem with a parent deciding a book is not right for another person’s child.

By: Terri

Terri — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:04:22 +0000

I actually found the WSJ piece to be quite thought provoking. As a parent of two small children I would feel quite confident in arguing that some books are not appropriate in the classroom or within every library. That is not to suggest that these books be banned…but that debate and discourse should be welcome within the system. Do I think that every teacher and every school administration should be trusted to make these decisions without input from the community? No.

Is it ever okay to challenge a book, Jane? Should all books be available to all audiences? At one point does a parent have a right to voice a concern? I’m a volunteer in an elementary school library and find this fascinating. The ALA takes issue with any book being challenged, at least that’s the tone of their message. Hmmm…so we should strip individuals of the right to protest? Somehow that strikes me as dead wrong.

By: Jane

Jane — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:26:54 +0000

@Jane A Nope, the op ed piece is in the WSJ - you can get there from the CSM link.

By: Jane A

Jane A — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:25:19 +0000

It's Banned Book Week and despite the ridiculous opinions of the editorial in the Wall Street Journal…

Umm, I think you mean The Christian Science Monitor? Regardless, I find it mind boggling that we’re still having to deal with “arguments” in favor of banning books. How could such a thing ever be good?