http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozellIII/2008/05/09/librarians_against_censor****p?page=full&comments=true#comments
Librarians Against Censor****p?
Brent Bozell III
Friday, May 09, 2008
The American Library Association (ALA) has released its annual survey
of offenses to "intellectual freedom," the books whose place in public
schools and public libraries is the most "challenged" by the public.
Leading that list for the second straight year is the children's book
"And Tango Makes Three," about a penguin family with two daddies.
Several books on the ALA list are perennially controversial, from
"Huckleberry Finn" with its racial issues to Maya Angelou's "I Know
Why the Caged Bird Sings" with its rape scenes. Some controversial
tomes are newer, like atheist Philip Pullman's anti-God "The Golden
Compass."
Overall, the ALA re****ted the number of library challenges dropped
from 546 in 2006 to 420 last year, well below the mid-1990s, when
complaints topped 750. But oddly, the ALA also acknowledged that its
data collection is terrible: For every "challenge" listed, about four
to five "go unre****ted."
It is quite apparent who the ALA believes to be the heroes and
villains of this struggle. There are the avatars of intellectual
freedom, the brave souls who champion open-mindedness, and then there
are the censorious busybodies. Some have made the obvious point that
challenging libraries to provide titles they're not stocking would
turn the tables and make people realize that librarians can also be
censorious in the titles they choose not to display. The mere act of
selecting some books and excluding others is a "censorious" act.
Press accounts leave out that the ALA not only disdains the public
"challenges," it lobbies on the books' behalf. In 2006, the two-
penguin-daddy "And Tango Makes Three" was honored as an ALA Notable
Children's Book. The librarians' group isn't simply for "freedom."
It's for ***ual liberation, promoting the "non-traditional," and it
takes offense at the idea that parents might not want their children
discussing homo***uality in kindergarten. Simon & Schuster, the
publishers of "Tango," offer discussion questions about the book on
their website. One says: "Tango has two fathers instead of the
traditional mother and father. Do you have a nontraditional family, or
do you know someone who does?"
Already we can predict how the ALA next year will complain about any
objection to a book called "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," the story of a
young guinea pig who worries that her Uncle Bobby won't play with her
anymore after he "marries" his boyfriend Jamie. The book ends at the
"wedding," with Chloe as the enthusiastic flower girl.
In other words, the ALA doesn't favor open discussion and debate with
parents -- which is what the "challenges" represent. Its idea of
"freedom" is emboldening librarians to be brave enough to indoctrinate
children with what they really need to know, whether their parents
object or even know about it. If public debate follows, it's viewed as
a distasteful and unfortunate bump on the road to enlightenment.
In fact, this year the ALA has created a "Rainbow List" of books, a
bibliography of current books for children "from birth through age 18
dealing with the myriad of gay, lesbian, bi***ual, transgendered or
questioning issues."
The librarians of the ALA's Gay, Lesbian, Bi***ual and Transgendered
Round Table have expressed frustration in not finding enough "rainbow"
books on the shelves meeting the "vital need" for "quality books ...
that validate same-gender lifestyles." And then, in their lobbying
crusade, the anti-censor****p folks display their own censorious
stripes:
"The search for these books was eye-opening, revealing a lack of
accessibility through missing subject headings and the promotion of
inappropriate titles insulting to the GLBTQ population including such
books as 'A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homo***uality.'"
They only want to allow titles such as "Hear Me Out: True Stories of
Teens Educating and Confronting Homophobia." Intellectual freedom is
certainly not an ALA priority if the lobbying librarians themselves
worry out loud about "the promotion of inappropriate titles."
ALA and its gay roundtable of political correctness promote a do***ent
calling for the exclusion of negative stereotypes: "In our homophobic
society any work dealing with a gay theme is prone to include cliches
and preconceptions of 'gay character.' It would be excellent to have a
reviewer who is proudly self-identified as gay examine relevant books
to point out negative stereotypic attitudes when they occur and to
make suggestions as to how the librarian can best counteract such
stereotypes."
Doesn't this sound like librarians want to appoint a guardian to
screen out and counteract "negative stereotypic attitudes"? In other
words, an official censor?
|
