amdame1

OK, I thought I was done ranting, but here is one more link to check out.  This one is not connected to the ALA site. (whew).  However, it is an interesting little tidbit about library meeting room use and policies! 
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/03/08/LIBRARY_RELIGION.ART_ART_03-08-08_B1_R09J3TM.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

I am working on a paper for my 550 class about whether or not the ALA internet Toolkit is adequate for meeting the needs of minors in the realm of a school or public library.  So I was exploring a few of the sites that the ALA has linked on their page concerning CIPA.  It was in a section called "Profiltering and Content Rating Organizations."  I guess that should have given me a clue about what sorts of pages those links would lead to - but naive little me was shocked!  I was absolutely shocked that the ALA, who touts the absolute value of first right amendments and speaks out strongly against censorship, would link to these sites!  Here are a few examples:

1. The American Family Association - Their top headline reads "If your child's school observes the homosexual sponsored Day of Silence, keep your child at home on April 25."    http://www.afa.net/
   
2. Concerned Women for America - "High school pushes racist "gay" porn on kids" about the high school in Deerfield, IL concerning the drama "Angels in America:  A Gay Fantasia on National Themes" for its college-bound seniors.  http://www.cwfa.org/main.asp
3. National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families - Their mission?  "Moving the people of God to embrace, live out, preserve and advance the truth of Biblical sexuality."  OK, I've read the Bible but I'm starting to wonder if this group has...  How about David having a man murdered so that he could sleep with that guy's wife?  Or Samson and his mistress, Delilah?  Sex in the Bible was not as pure as this group seems to think.  A lot of Biblical heroes were definitely less than chaste.   http://www.nationalcoalition.org/
   

Anyway, there are other links as well that got my blood boiling.  Now, I know I said in our presentation that if we ask others to accept content that they find offensive, then we also have to include content that we find offensive.  So, I'm really struggling with this one.  I guess somewhere, deep down, (deeeeeep down!)  I admit that they have their right to their views.  But what still perplexes me is why this is linked to the ALA?  I just don't get it.  Maybe I never will.  But at least I'll be thinking about it.

I've been thinking about this topic a lot (as we'll be giving our presentation on it tomorrow...) and have been struck by several things. 
First:  it is really important for teens to have free access to information.  They are going through many challenges in their lives at this point in time and developing their own world views.  When a book is challenged, or banned, it tells them that whatever is in it was bad/wrong/evil and if they have ever experienced similar thoughts/feelings/activities, then therefore, they are also bad/wrong/evil.  Let them explore through books and perhaps they will be less tempted to explore risky behaviors in real life.
Second:  I've been struck by how many fabulous advocates for teens are out there.  Many are authors, many are librarians, some are my friends who have responded with outrage to these posts.  I asked my best friend what she thought about her "tween" daughters school library and if she ever felt the need to challenge a book.  She was incredulous about the challenge part.  She said that if her daughter ever came home with something that she didn't want her to be reading, then she would just talk to her about it!  (Amazing concept, I know.)  Then she said, "Why would I ever want to ban a book?"  Ahh, so many reasons why she is my best friend.
Finally:  there are some really awesome quotes out there from people who care about teens and access to books and information.  Here's my favorite so far, from Lois Lowry:
"I feel very strongly that we should question our own beliefs and rethink our values every single day, with open minds and open hearts.  We should ask ourselves again and again how we are connected to each other.  And we should teach our children to do so, and not to turn away."

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• I was working at my local branch of the library the other day when a copy of "Lost Girls" came through.  It sparked a big discussion about porn and accessability and all that stuff.  The thing that shocked me most, however, was that one of the library staff that I work with - who seems young, liberal, etc., - said she thought it should be kept behind the desk.  And the reason?  "Think of the children!"
• "And Tango Makes Three" is still making headlines (ruffling feathers?).  It was listed on the ALA newsletter that just came out online.  Those poor penguins.  Do people really think that animals have a "gay agenda"?  It's a true story, folks.  Deal with it!
• Brent Hartinger rocks.  He is a strong teen advocate and author.  you will hear more about him in our presentation on the 7th.  (My apologies to those who won't be there to witness the excitement...)  Anyway, he has written a number of books that address teen sexuality issues, specifically gay and lesbian relationships.  Many of these have been challenged - and as a result, Brent has set out to show that you can ban them but you can't really make them go away.  He has three blogs going concurrently.  One is AS IF (authors support intellectual freedom)  Check it out!  http://asifnews.blogspot.com/
• I have to write a paper for LIS 550 that addresses the adequacy of the ALA toolkit.  Our prof asked if we think it is reactive or proactive - and I have to say that I think it is reactive.  The last time it was updated was in 2003.  What do we need to do to make it more pro-active?  I think with the rapid changes in technology, something needs to be done.  Unfortunately, I am a very concrete person and also not an IT guru, so I don't know how to make this happen.  Hmmm.
• Lawrence Lessig was all set to run for Congress.  He is very vocal about making the code regulate the Internet (or cyberspace).  I think we do need someone with his knowledge and willingness to speak out on the issue in government.  Now he says he will not run because he does not have enough time to organize his campaign.  Sad!

Yesterday's New York Times has an interesting article about several YA books that prominently use brand (commercial) names of products in their books.  Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/books/19cathy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

What does this have to do with intellectual freedom?  Well, apparently one of the books was first published in 2006 in a hardcover format.  It is now being published in paperback - but, all the specific references to brand names of products are no longer there!  Is this censorship?  The authors in this particular case decided to eliminate the references to Cover Girl makeup due to some strong reactions and boycotts of their books by certain advocacy groups. 

Another author is taking a different view and is deliberately keeping references to products such as Converse tennis shoes - and actually hopes to persuade Converse to endorse the book, mostly through advertisements.  This author feels that the use of these particular products help define the character who uses them.

The real question is:  should an author feel like they have to censor their work because of reactions to their book due to certain words they have included?  To me, it seems like there might be more concern over possible copyright infringement than anything else.   However, even then, it seems like companies would like having their products mentioned.  Name recognition can be a powerful thing.  The only time I can see it being an issue would be if it were mentioned in a negative manner, such as "the brand XYZ condom broke and the girl got pregnant" sort of scenario.  That might be the time to use a pretend company instead of an existing product.

It makes me sad to think that we live in such a highly litigious and judgmental society that authors have to alter their writings to pacify all potential readers.  Isn't the point of writing and reading to encourage learning and provoke thought?  Maybe whether an author mentions Frosted Flakes or Lucky Charms isn't that high of an intellectual ideal - but if it starts here, who knows where it will end.

Do you know what your children are reading??
My parents only knew about the books that I let them know about. I made a habit of reading at the dinner table, but you can be sure that I was careful about what reading material I chose to bring to the table. They probably knew about the Harlequin romances I "snuck" off my mom's bookshelf and they may have known about the adult-level Judy Blume books I checked out from the library when I was 12. But did they know about the porn magazines in my brother's closet? (Where did he get those, anyway?)
I have no idea what my library's policy was on allowing parents to access their children's records back when I was little.  I don't think it ever crossed my mind.  Most of the time it wouldn't have mattered, but there were a few items I certainly didn't want them knowing about.
My best friend has an 11 year old daughter and I asked her what she thought about this topic.  She definitely wants to know what her daughter is reading - especially since she reads so far above her grade level.  She could easily read material that is too mature for her.  However, they have a really open relationship and seem able to talk about things I never would have dreamed of discussing with my parents.  They talk about transgender issues, popularity, sex before marriage...all sorts of stuff.  So, in their case, I think that the daughter might actually talk to her mom if she read something she didn't understand or that upset her.    Novel concept, eh?
As for libraries allowing or not allowing parents access to their children's records, I am squarely in the camp of privacy for the children.  SPL starts their privacy for youth records at age 13, which makes sense to me.  At age 14, they have control over their medical records and those can be a lot more sensitive than their choice in movies or books they are checking out from the library.  I can see why parents would want to know just so they could make sure all the materials are returned on time.  This makes sense to me.  But knowing what they're checking out so they can "spy" on their kids is anathema to me.  If they really want to know what is going on with their children, they need to talk to them.  At some point, they need to start letting go of the control and trust that they have done a good job raising them and teaching them to make good choices.

The atheist group, Secular Student Alliance, posted that MySpace has reinstated the user group. Here is a link:


http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1942

MySpace has deleted an entire user group from MySpace as of Jan. 1, 2008.  The group targeted was composed of 35,000 atheists or "godless people" as their site proclaimed (well, before it was deleted, that is).  The response from MySpace about the reason for deleting the site was because of complaints from other users who find atheism offensive.  A petition from over 500 people and numerous emails have had no success in getting the group re-instated.  Just a note here:  this was the largest user group on MySpace not to mention that this is actually the 3rd time that the group has been removed from the site.  The last removal was in November, 2007.

Just think what kind of uproar it would cause at the library if all atheists were to be excluded from their patronage.  And let's remove all the materials related to atheism while we're at it.  Talk about violation of your constitutional rights!  In fact, I don't see how MySpace has gotten away with this for over a month now.  I suppose they might have some protection through their corporate by-laws or something.  Otherwise, in this litigious society it seems like a lawsuit just waiting to happen.

Here is the link to the whole MySpace and atheist controversy that I mentioned in class today.  Stay tuned for my actual blog about it.
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933

There is a sweet little old woman who comes into my branch of SPL.  She could be anyone's grandma.  About 80 years old.  White, curly permed hair.  Watery blue eyes behind round glasses.  Looks just as sweet as can be.  And yet, she is extremely prejudiced against all the males who work at my branch.  Because they all have facial hair - from beards and mustaches to trim little goatees.  She can't stand any of them.  And she is quite vocal about it.  She refuses to allow them to help her.  If she does talk to them, it's vituperative hateful words about how dreadful they are for not being clean-shaven. 
It strikes me as a different kind of intellectual freedom challenge.   Instead of explaining to patrons our diversity policy in regards to the collection, we get to explain it in terms of our diversity of staff.  How everyone has the right to read what they want - and wear their facial hair like they want.  Does facial hair - or the lack thereof - really make one a more or less capable person?  There goes my whole idea of people who frequent the library as being smart.

The rules of conduct at Seattle Public Library state: "Lying down or sleeping in the restrooms, or on any floor, or couch, table or seat in the Library; having feet on furniture; or blocking aisles, exits or entrances...is conduct not allowed on library premises."

It seems to me that this is unreasonable - and in the ways that I have seen it enforced, it appears to target the homeless.  On the occasions where I have seen SPL librarians enforcing this policy, it is always with street people and never students or other user groups.  I think what upsets me most about it, is that these people are not interfering with anyone else's use and enjoyment of the library.  They have simply nodded off over their newspapers and magazines.  They aren't snoring, they aren't drooling, they aren't damaging library property. 

I can relate to this falling asleep while reading thing.  How many times have I fallen asleep while trying to read textbooks for class - or even books for pleasure?  (Don't ask my room-mate; I'm sure she will tell you I sleep on the couch almost as much as I do in my bed!)  You get in a warm, quiet place.  The words on the page begin to run together.  Your eyelids begin to droop.  Before you know it, you have nodded off.    And I'm not chronically sleep-deprived, hungry and cold. 

There are a few things that I think are deplorable in this situation.  The first is that our social services are not adequate to meet the needs of our community.  I do think that Seattle has a pretty good system in place - but it's not enough.   The second is that libraries, which should be havens, are put in the position of acting like enforcers.  And finally, that the "economically challenged"  bear the brunt of it.  There must be a better way!

The Central Park Zoo in NYC is home to two male penguins who bonded and raised a baby penguin from an egg when zookeepers placed it in their nest.  This is a true story.  And someone made a picture book out of it. (Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell)  It's called "And Tango Makes Three."  This book is written in a very factual manner, not aggrandized or anything.  Very sweet and endearing illustrations.  Yet, somehow, it has become the center of a controversy.  People are offended by the idea of "gay" penguins.  This confuses me because it is a true story!  It's not like the penguins are trying to make a political statement or that their parents raised them in a certain way that caused them to be gay.  I try to be open-minded about it, but, really, how could someone not like this book?  It's very sweet and it's true!  You can even go to New York and visit Tango.  In fact, I know someone who did just that, but the zookeepers couldn't point Tango out, as all penguins look so much alike.

Now let's look at "The Higher Power of Lucky" by Susan Patron.  People are upset about this one because it has the word scrotum on the first page.  Technically, it's a dog scrotum and not a human one if that makes any difference.  And it is the winner of the Newberry Medal to boot.  But people see that one word, that one scientific term and they get all freaked out.  I really don't understand it.

Going back the "And Tango Makes Three", I was just looking at an ALA  list of the most challenged books and was amazed by the number that are challenged due to issues of homosexuality.  Someone in my class suggested that we may be going through a phase similar to when the rights of women and blacks were hotly contested.  It may just be a matter of time before people come around.  Whatever.  Perhaps I have lived in Seattle too long.  I often forget that where I was raised was a very religious, conservative area - and many in my family are probably among those that are offended by the idea of homosexuality.  It's sad, to me.  I mean, really...  do you see gays asking to have all straight couple materials removed from the shelves?  Or blacks asking to have all the illustrations of Caucasians removed?

I fully support Intellectual Freedom - except when it comes to my neighbor's music.  The first amendment and the freedom of speech give them a right to listen to any type of music they like:  from rap to classical, hiphop to blues, 80's pop to country, heavy metal to new age...  That part is okay with me, since I also want to be able to listen to any type of music I choose.  Where I draw the line, however, is when they choose to play it so that the floor vibrates and I can't escape from the heavy bass beat no matter where I go in my apartment.  Especially since this is usually at some ungodly hour of the morning.  I usually stay up pretty late, so it's not like I'm being unrealistic of my expectations for peace and quiet at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning.  The worst time was when I had to be up at 5:00 and hadn't gone to bed til 1:00.  I stomped on the floor and they turned it down a bit, I'll give them that.  So I went to bed.  And there I lay, stewing, fretting and getting angrier by the minute because they were impinging on my sleep!  And I still couldn't escape that continuous thumping from too much bass.  I sent my then-boyfriend down at 2:00 and he asked them to turn it down, which they did.  But it still wasn't enough.  I could still hear it - and I've never mastered the art of being able to sleep when there is a lot of noise.  So at 2:30 (when I would only be able to get 2.5 hours sleep!  grrr), I sent him down again.  This time he asked them to turn it off.  Which, finally, they did.  Hallelujah!  Plus all their noisy partying friends decided it was time for them to go home since I had obviously ruined all their fun.  The next morning I looked up the Seattle noise ordinances and realized that there are definite limits to when they are allowed to listen to their music that loudly.  Next time I intend to call the police!

So, what does all this really have to do with intellectual freedom?  There is that obvious connection to the freedom of speech that I think carries over into music.  The crux of it seems to be where it impinges on other people's rights.  In my LIS 550 class, we attempted to define what intellectual freedom is and everything we came up with always had the rights we wanted but also with some sort of limitation.  On the first day of 551, however, although we didn't spend much time on it, our definition was simply "free access for everyone; freedom of the mind".  While I support this ideal, absolute anything can be dangerous.  I want those limits on noise levels and I wouldn't object if they were in effect for even more hours, but then I guess that would impinge on his rights.  So, my neighbor is free to listen to whatever music he likes, with any type of lyrics, but there are limitations on the volume - unless, of course, he wants to go listen to his music out in the wilderness somewhere (which I'm wholeheartedly in favor of!).