This week is the American Library Association's 26th annual "Banned Book Week", and posters are all around the local libraries. From the hoopla, you'd think book banning was a serious problem, right? But when you think about it, how can any book be banned in an era when books are freely available over the internet? What gives? What books does the ALA think were banned?

It turns out that they really aren't talking about banned books, but only books that were removed from some free library (but still available if you care to spend your own money to buy them). Now that's a very different thing; "removal from a library" is not "banning". Also, fully ¾ of those cases involved school libraries – and of course, we're all familiar with limiting what kids are exposed to. (We do that routinely with movies, with the PG-R-X rating system.)

But the ALA goes further to vastly overstate the scope of "banning". (It gives only incomplete data, the best of which is this 82-item partial list (pdf file)).

This ALA list, read carefully, shows that there is much less here than meets the eye. It shows:

• NOT EVEN ONE book banned in the US;
• exactly ONE book removed from a US public library; and
• SIX books removed from school libraries (but presumably available in the public library, if the parent wishes it).

The ALA pads the list to make it look better. As minor padding it has five books banned abroad (in Iran (2), Turkey (2) and Egypt), and seven books not removed from the library at all (just no longer listed as required (2) or recommended (5) reading). But as huge padding, the list has sixty-three books not removed in any way at all, listed merely because someone asked for removal (but was denied).

Would you say this is a bit dishonest? Admittedly, the fine print sometimes reveals that "banned" books includes those "challenged" unsuccessfully. But that's the fine print, and it's entirely omitted from many ALA promotional posters.

Personally, I would think that the actual removal-from-libraries is very small (for a country this size), not suggesting that our librarians bravely face powerful forces of censorship. Indeed, librarians aren't perfect, and surely sometimets they make foolish book-choices. With so few being challenged, do their choices need more supervision?

Comments?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: shufitz,

I can agree that the ALA overstates its case, but there ARE a lot of "blue-nose" types around who believe that their children ought not to be exposed to the rape, incest, murder, genocide, and political intrigue of many books that we consider to be classic literature, despite such stuff's being in their "Good Book!"

The bottom line: All groups have an agenda, and will play to it.

I think you're overreacting to the ALA list. The link you provided does say, in large print "BOOKS CHALLENGED OR BANNED IN 2006-2007." It says that at the very top of the page and again a little later, in case you missed it.

In the following paragraphs is a sentence that reads, "Challenges are as important as actual bannings, in which a book is removed from the shelves of a library or bookstore or from the curriculum at a school." So at the very beginning the ALA lets you know that the list contains both challenged and banned books, and it defines banned books as those that are removed from a library, bookstore, or a school curiculum.

Then just before the list appears another sentence, also not in fine print, that says, "This bibliography represents books challenged, restricted, removed, or banned in 2006-2007 as reported in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom from May 2006 through May 2007."

That all sounds pretty clear to me. You seem to be taking the position that only books legally banned in the United States should be on the list. This is just supposition since you didn't really say what you consider "banned" to mean.

Tinman

I believe this video should clear things up a bit.

I was purposely waiting to post on this thread so that I could see what people were thinking.

As a Librarian, I actually knew about the "overstatement" many years ago. Do I agree with it? No, not really. Do I use the list as they publish it? As I need to (i.e., if we do a display of Banned Books, I use the official list).

I find it interesting to see what people are challenging . . . what small towns across the world will not allow into Elementary School libraries. Sometimes it's not any kind of ban at all, but just that parents don't think a certain book is appropriate for their age of child.

School libraries are, to my way of thinking, a totally different beast from a public library. School libraries can, and should (I think) have more control over what they include. They are building a library collection to cater to a certain small segment of society - their own students.

The public library, on the other hand, should have books for everyone who wants to visit. As one of my co-workers' t-shirt says "My library has something to offend everyone." When someone tries to protest and remove a particular book from my own library's shelves, I will listen to their arguements, but most likely will not remove the item. If it is a concerned parent, I applaud their concern and strongly suggest that they, personally, monitor what their children do and find in the library by being with them at all times (something I would like every parent to do, actually). The same goes for internet use.

We are required by law to have filters on our internet access, and we are required by law (or by library policy?) to bypass the filter when someone over 18 requests it. Filters, being imperfect, will often block sites and information that is legitimate/non-pornographic, and frankly, that just bugs me.

As a parent, there have been a lot of books that I have thought weren't appropriate for my child at a certain age. He's not wanted to read any of them, but frankly, if he had, we'd have had a discussion about the book and probably read it along with him. If a kid is motivated to read, I'm not going to squelch that.

OK - that's my 5 cents worth.

In Indiana the governor is attempting to consolidate libraries and shut down those in small towns as a money saving measure. I wrote the following to an Indiana newspaper:

Regarding potential library consolidation, your governor is just plain wrong. While he is well-educated in business, he fails to comprehend that a library is not a business. It is a cultural center, a learning center, a mental recreation center, a respite from everyday pressures, a place to obtain paper copies or to send faxes, to check email, and much more, but it is NOT itself a business. Libraries do not have shareholders; they have patrons. They do not have CEOs who demand obscene salaries; they have modestly paid directors. They do not produce either intellectual or physical goods; they produce informed citizens.

The business model demands consolidation, elimination of overlap, and reduced expenses, all to satisfy some shareholder's demands for profit. Ben Franklin started libraries in this country. Andrew Carnegie funded many libraries nationwide. Now your businessman governor wants to gainsay the wisdom of Franklin and Carnegie. It is a shame that he, like so many of his ilk, have great learning but no insight; they know how to make money but no sense of how to build community.

A library should be as sacrosanct as a church, for what the one does not feed the other does. Would your governor deign to close churches to save money? He wouldn't dare try. He should no more try to do it with a library.

The problem has hit closer to home too. One library system in Oregon had to shut down for lack of operating funds. Isn't it odd how politicians can always find funds for war, or real estate destruction that's Orwelled into "development," but not for learning?

What beautiful posts, both from CW and from Asa. This is why I love this site.

Asa, that letter should be sent to all cities in the country. Libraries, you are correct, build community. That's why I like to see what Evanston is doing with their children's library and what I've seen in CW's community. They are trying their best to lure children in and to expand their minds. What an amazing difference we would see in society if kids gathered in libraries, rather than in the streets.

CW, I agree with you about the difference between schools and libraries regarding books. But mostly I agree that the parents need to be the ones to watch what their children read. I realize that's probably a bit idealistic, though.