Banned Books - Part 2
Comments made by Ambrosia and m. paul bailey in my last post on banned books has caused me to look into the website for the American Library Association (www.ala.org). I wanted to see if perhaps I had been unfair in my criticism of the ALA. If anything I found that I had been too kind.
On the ALA website the question is asked, “What’s the Difference between a Challenge and a Banning?”
“A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.”
We see that the ALA considers any attempt to remove material from the library OR the curriculum as a challenge to freedom. Just removing a book from the list of required reading is considered banning a book.
The ALA claims “Books usually are challenged with the best intentions – to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information.” However, further on in the same answer to “Why are Books Challenged” you read that the top three reasons books were challenged (in order of popularity) were because they are “sexually explicit,” contain “offensive language,” and are “unsuited to age group.” These three reasons account for all of the challenges of the top ten most challenged books. The real reason that books are challenged has nothing to do with the content of the “difficult ideas and information,” but the objectionable way the material is presented.
The ALA rhetoric goes on: “Throughout history, more and different kinds of people and groups of all persuasions than you might first suppose, who, for all sorts of reasons, have attempted – and continue to attempt – to suppress anything that conflicts with or anyone who disagrees with their own beliefs.” They say this despite all the evidence that it is the offensive way the beliefs are presented, and not the beliefs themselves. Unchallenged books contain the very same ideas and beliefs, but they are not sexually explicit, they do not use offensive language, and are age suitable.
It sounds nobler to defend your support of sexually explicit material on the grounds of protecting information and beliefs than simply to admit that you like the stuff.
Comments made by Ambrosia and m. paul bailey in my last post on banned books has caused me to look into the website for the American Library Association (www.ala.org). I wanted to see if perhaps I had been unfair in my criticism of the ALA. If anything I found that I had been too kind.
On the ALA website the question is asked, “What’s the Difference between a Challenge and a Banning?”
“A challenge is an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others. The positive message of Banned Books Week: Free People Read Freely is that due to the commitment of librarians, teachers, parents, students and other concerned citizens, most challenges are unsuccessful and most materials are retained in the school curriculum or library collection.”
We see that the ALA considers any attempt to remove material from the library OR the curriculum as a challenge to freedom. Just removing a book from the list of required reading is considered banning a book.
The ALA claims “Books usually are challenged with the best intentions – to protect others, frequently children, from difficult ideas and information.” However, further on in the same answer to “Why are Books Challenged” you read that the top three reasons books were challenged (in order of popularity) were because they are “sexually explicit,” contain “offensive language,” and are “unsuited to age group.” These three reasons account for all of the challenges of the top ten most challenged books. The real reason that books are challenged has nothing to do with the content of the “difficult ideas and information,” but the objectionable way the material is presented.
The ALA rhetoric goes on: “Throughout history, more and different kinds of people and groups of all persuasions than you might first suppose, who, for all sorts of reasons, have attempted – and continue to attempt – to suppress anything that conflicts with or anyone who disagrees with their own beliefs.” They say this despite all the evidence that it is the offensive way the beliefs are presented, and not the beliefs themselves. Unchallenged books contain the very same ideas and beliefs, but they are not sexually explicit, they do not use offensive language, and are age suitable.
It sounds nobler to defend your support of sexually explicit material on the grounds of protecting information and beliefs than simply to admit that you like the stuff.
posted by Nectar | 12:41 PM
4 Comments:
yeah, we should probably take Song of Solomon out of the Bible
The Song of Solomon may not be inspired writing, but I see no need to take it out of the Bible.
Interesting. I would need more information before I could make a judgment call on this one. If most challenges are against curriculum, I'd be more inclined to support the protesters. But if the challanges are against library content, I would have a hard time supporting them. I think individuals should have the freedom not to read things they find offensive. However, I think some people are too easily offended, and their sensibilities shouldn't be allowed to overly restrict the options of those less easily offended. For instance, the woman in Georgia who is speaking out against Harry Potter. Harry Potter may well be inappropriate for very young children--I know that one of the HP books or movies gave my younger sister nightmares. But that doesn't mean they would be inappropriate for all students and or that they should be unavailable to all students.
According to the ALA website, between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005 there were 3,019 challenges listed according to institution. By far the greatest number of institutions challenged were schools (926) and school libraries (1,363). So, it appears that a fair number of the challenges were against curriculum, but not the majority of them.
I certainly do not support every protester. But if you read the ALA website you would get the impression that every challenge should be defeated. I think we need to exercise discretion here.
I would not support taking Harry Potter out of the library. I would think twice about having it required reading. I think we do need to consider the sensitivities of the more sensitive people. But if it is available in the library, and not required reading, I think we are being considerate enough for books like Harry Potter.
Sexually explicit books might be a different story. Some materials, such as child pornography, are illegal to possess, and certainly should not be in our school libraries. I think those who condemn book banning should be required to explicitly state that some books deserve to be banned.
Post a Comment
<< Home