Gail Sweet, Library Director for the Burlington County Library System, has decided that she is the sole source of moral sanity in a gay rainstorm (a gaynstorm, if you will) of depravity. Or, at the very least, displayed her appalling lack of backbone in the face of criticism.
According to School Library Journal, Sweet has removed an anthology of LGBT teen essays from her library shelves, with the only official reason being her opinion that it is “child pornography.” Apparently, there was no formal complaint from a library patron about the book. Instead, this library director took this course of action after receiving a crotchety email from an elderly member of Glenn Beck’s “9.12” nutbags. Who, incidentally, have targeted this book at other libraries before.
Naturally, people are free to be offended by whatever they choose. I choose to be deeply offended that Gail Sweet is working in the information profession at all, never mind in a director’s position, when she is so cavalier with the core ideals of the library profession. I’m almost as offended that a fellow librarian would tarnish my Scotty-like image as a magical fact-finding wizard by offering such flawed reasoning for her unilateral decision. Child pornography? Really? Well, I found the Go Ask Alice Book of Answers in the Burlington catalog. Is that going away, too? How about the myriad teen fiction books that portray sexual awakenings among heterosexual teens; are those also breaking child porn laws? Is the director going to send cryptic emails about removing adult mysteries and thrillers that reference or depict illegal sexual behavior?
Now, if the community that the library serves demanded that the book be removed, and it was clear that nobody in the community was reading it or checking it out, that would be one thing. If the removal was the result of a formal review process overseen by more people than the director, her deputy, and a shit-stirring book-burner, that would be another thing. But the way this was handled not only betrays what librarians are supposed to be about, but encourages the ravings of like-minded lunatics who besiege libraries every day with attempts to control what everybody reads. Or, even worse, encourages similar, heretofore restrained lunatics who work in libraries and already have responsibility for shepherding information.
I mean, if I had my way, I’d take all of Glenn Beck’s insipid books off of my shelves, cut the pages into little pieces, rearrange the words into gay erotic haiku, and slip them back into the covers for kicks. Instead, I happily direct patrons who ask for them to where they sit, sliming up my political shelves. You know, because of that pesky code of ethics that reassures library patrons that I won’t inject my personal opinion into their information search.
And it’s certainly not as if the idea of somebody panicking about “THE CHILDRENZ!!1!” learning about sex is a new one. It’s pretty common knowledge that sex raises more hackles than violence among the ignorant and self-righteous. Just ask Fox News’s Diedre Behar, who is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that a teenaged actress admitted to masturbating. Rantings about the “perversion” of allowing gay youth to read something that reassures them and teaches them about themselves should not be news to anyone who works in libraries. If we torched every book that someone decided other people shouldn’t read, we wouldn’t have any books on our shelves worth reading.
Librarians are not supposed to display this kind of hypocrisy. Library directors are certainly not supposed to display this kind of hypocrisy. We’re supposed to fight for the free dissemination of information, and encourage people to read things that strangers tell them they shouldn’t. Come on, Gail, we just got some indie cred from NPR; don’t fuck this up for us.
I agree with what you say, for the most part. However, the actual facts of the case are different from what has been repeatedly reported. I actually spoke with Gail Sweet, and the result is the ACLU got the story very wrong in very significant ways, then everyone reports what the ACLU said as if the ACLU is some unbiased source for information.
ReplyDeleteHere, take a look at what I wrote based on my conversation with Gail Sweet, and take note of the second comment:
"Et tu, Mary Minow? Then Fall, Gail Sweet!"
Generally, you may also be interested in this:
WILL UNWOUND #193: “Why do Librarians Hate Conservatives?” by Will Manley. (Or this by the same author.)
I understand that there are two sides to every story, and respect the fact that there is plenty about this case that, not being there, I don't know. But nothing I've read makes me feel like I need to reconsider my initial opinion. The book is a work of nonfiction. It was removed from the collection due to a unilateral decision after a complaint from a member of a local pressure group to a board member that was once affiliated with the same group. It may not be straight-up censorship, but at best, it's cowardice.
ReplyDeleteSo. Speaking of misleading information, let's talk about your post for a second.
-Characterizing this as being done "before any patron complained" is flat-out incorrect, as shown by your own link to Gail Sweet's correspondence with the complaining patron. There was a complaint. Just not an official, above-board one.
-You insist that homosexuality is a "red herring," and then post a picture from the book depicting a homosexual act, and take great pains to characterize this as an act of protecting children from inappropriate content. Given that the content of this book deals solely with homosexuality, I wonder if you'd mind explaining what the real issue is, if it's not homosexuality.
-You cite the banning of the book from a high school library as sufficient precedent for banning it from a public library. High school libraries fulfill a vastly different purpose than public libraries, and thus implement a generally different collection management policy, as any clueless newbie librarian (which I am) could tell you.
-Choosing not to add books on patron request due to selection policy parameters is not at all the same thing as removing a book legitimately added through the selection process. Correct me if I missed it, but I didn't see anything that pointed out how, exactly, this book fell afoul of the selection policy. I did, however, see a large appendix defending the inclusion of controversial materials.
And yes, your second link was generally interesting, but frankly, the veracity of your veiled accusation of my partisanship is immaterial. Whether or not I "hate conservatives," the point is that I am still happily serving them.
Look. I have no quarrel with you. You said, "It was removed from the collection due to a unilateral decision after a complaint from a member of a local pressure group to a board member that was once affiliated with the same group." That is simple false. I spoke directly with the library director. What you said is what the ACLU, etc., wants people to think, but it is not the truth.
ReplyDeleteListen, it is not the truth.
I know you did not make up the lie, and I know you are blameless for believing it, but you now know what you said that I quoted is false. I spoke with her myself to determine it was false, and finally a very few media sources are finally publishing the correct information that I first reported.
Again, I have no quarrel with you. I too support civil rights, but I do so when civil rights have actually been violated, not when they have not but interested parties say they have, such as in the Gail Sweet case.
There was nothing in your post that indicates this is a "lie." In fact, multiple links you point to corroborate it.
ReplyDeleteYou refer multiple times to an inviolate conversation you apparently had with her, and then (again, unless I'm missing it) refuse to cite any particulars from that conversation. Though, I did find the quote in the comments about the "child pornography" justification being lamely dismissed as a joke, which I personally didn't find all that funny.
Instead, you have confirmed (more than once!) that Sweet followed an obscure internal process to remove the book after hearing about the same lady complaining about the same book at a high school, conferring with nobody but the board member that the complaint came to. Subordinates were not given justification, but merely directives. That is certainly the director's prerogative, and an important part of her job. It's also the textbook definition of a unilateral decision, and screaming "LIES!" at it doesn't change that fact.
I'm not looking for a quarrel, either. Then again, you pretty much directly accused me of using my passion for intellectual freedom as a smokescreen for shilling political views. Which, with all due respect, I am not going to take lying down.
I am sorry. I have not accused you of anything. The media source in comment 4 of my blog post corroborates what I said may be the case. It is my own failing that I have not written clearly enough to explains things.
ReplyDeleteI likely won't write here further. Arguing about things that simply are not true is useless for both of us. And having words put in my mouth does not make for productive conversation.
I just read that article again. It does no such thing. In fact, it says the exact same thing the SLJ article does: Gail Sweet decided to pull the book after conferring with board members. It also corroborates through the citation of Library Commission meeting minutes that this was done at the behest of a complaint, and that the usual process for dealing with complaints was bypassed.
ReplyDeleteYou are patiently pointing out the same exact things I initially took issue with, and insisting they prove something entirely different. I don't understand. What "lies" am I falling prey to or propagating? It's absolutely confounding.
And I'm sorry, I must have misread the meaning behind recommending to me an article entitled "Why Do Librarians Hate Conservatives?" in which it is asserted that librarians who support intellectual freedom are either trying to validate their liberal views at best, or are "socialists" at worst. Surely you had only my academic interests at heart.
It bears mentioning that I am not asserting anything other than my opinion that this was a shamefully piss-poor decision for a director-level librarian to make. But what do I know? We all have bad days. And pressure from elected officials who make up a library's governing board certainly isn't easy to ignore, so the fault probably doesn't even lie entirely with her.
"On rare occasion, we have situations where a piece of material is not what it appears to be on the surface and the material is totally inappropriate for a school library. In that case, yes, it is appropriate to remove materials. If it doesn't fit your material selection policy, get it out of there."
ReplyDelete"Marking 25 Years of Banned Books Week," by Judith Krug (of the ALA), Curriculum Review, 46:1, Sep. 2006.
Thank you, Captain Obvious. You know, because I certainly don't know how selection policies work. Being a librarian myself, and all.
ReplyDeleteI'd point out once again that school libraries are not public libraries, but that didn't seem to do any good the first time.
So, which question shall I ask you again, then? The one about which clause of the publically available selection policy this book violates, especially in light of said policy having a strongly worded clause in support of the inclusion of controversial works? The one about the lack of "a committee of staff selectors" clearly identified in said policy that were not used in this case? Or maybe I'll just return to the one about what "lies," in particular, you are referring to when you take me to task for daring to think this was a poor decision facilitated by external pressure rather than good information custodianship.