Banned Books Week - question

[heiditandy]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> 
> I think the key questions are:
> 
>  - is 'challenge' a formal process sanctioned by law?
>  - does it refer only to complete removal from shelves, or moving 
> from children's to adult's sections as well?
>  - is a challenge asking for complete removal leads only to a move 
> to an adult section, how is that counted in terms of banning?
>  - how many books are, in fact, removed from libraries annually as 
a 
> result of this process?
> 

David, I respectfully disagree that these are the only key 
questions, as you imply - challenges aren't a formal process, nor 
are they sanctioned by law, but what sort of difference does that 
make? If the end result of the challenge process is to have books 
removed from being accessable by hundreds or thousands, or even 
dozens, of students, does it really need a court order to back it 
up? 

Your second question covers two things - in the ALA's language, it 
refers to both complete removal from shelves, and from moving things 
from kids' sections to adult sections, depending on the 
circumstances. My city's policy is to allow any child with a library 
card the ability to check out books from the whole library, but a 
child under 16 needs parental permission to get the card in the 
first place. But in other libraries, kids cannot check out books 
from the adult section, no matter what - and, as I said in my last 
post, there's a question of what age do you define a "child" as. If 
it's 13 or 14, that's very different from a definition that stops at 
ten. 

The third question is something nobody knows - and it also seems to 
ignore one of the most insidious things, which I mentioned in my TLC 
article - sometimes, a complaint isn't made about a specific book, 
but rather, about a type of book, or about a series, because of 
restrictions that are incorporated in an acquisitions policy. A book 
is banned before it's even purchased if it isn't "allowed" because 
of the policy. There's a chilling effect that occurs in a school or 
a town that's gone through the bookbanning process. I read an 
amazing set of presentations by teens who were arguing against the 
banning of certain books from their schools, and I'm going to try 
and find it tonight - we're not talking here about 8 year olds not 
being allowed to read The Color Purple; we're talking about 15 and 
16 year olds not being allowed to read To Kill A Mockingbird and 
Catcher in the Rye. They're not being given a chance to explore and 
learn and grow, and *that* is a big problem. 


Sherry wrote: <spin01 at a...> wrote:
> Heidi,  I think maybe we are at cross purposes here.  I am 
speaking 
> of a public library.  not a school library.  

You never said that. I just went through your posts, and you never 
said that. But my argument is still the same - what age stops being 
considered "children"? How old does one have to be before the 
responsibility of the parents for shielding and barring changes, or 
ends? 
> They are in private schools and have 
> not had things removed from their shelves. 

Are you very sure? What hasn't been purchased because of acquisition 
policies that restrict access to 'controversial' books? 

 > however they have had to 
> ask for them.  I guess I just don't see the problem with children 
> asking for what they want/need.  


Because it presumes that they will know what they need without 
knowing that it exists. Browsing gives access to many more 
opportunities than having to walk to a librarian and ask for 
something specifically. And if you pull something from the shelves, 
then the chance of coming accross it while browsing is gone. It's 
just completely gone.


Heidi