Over the course of a week, I have been reading and seeing information about censorship in the library (c/o my MLS courses). The issues of controversial books, censorship, and professional ethics have all come into play.
Take a simple children’s book for example: And Tango Makes Three. This heartwarming book chronicles the relationship and family life of an unusual pairing of penguins: Roy and Silo, two males. Traditionally, every year a female penguin and male penguin find each other and create a permanent attachment to one another, similar to that of a human relationship. However, one year, two male penguins created a bond outside of the traditional boy-girl pairing. As their relationship developed and they began nesting like all the other penguin couples, they realized that there was something missing from their duo: a baby chick. After being given an abandoned egg from a zookeeper, the pair began to care for the egg diligently and finally the baby chick, named Tango, was hatched from the egg to become the first baby at the zoo to have two daddies. And Tango Makes Three cleverly describes a male homosexual relationship in the animal kingdom world to young children. We actually have this book at Snell Library in the Favat section (see link above).
According to Worldcat.org, in addition to Northeastern, there are about 1800 other libraries around the world that also own this book. However, this book has some very controversial topics (namely homosexual realtionships) and they are being presented to young children, which may not sit well with some parents and even librarians who select children’s materials. It wasn’t until I read Debra Lau Whelan’s article A Dirty Little Secret: Self-Censorship for one class, that I realized there may be censorship of this book going on, despite the number of libraries who own it. According to the article, it appears there is a “quiet” censorship that happens outside of the more public act of removing a book from the shelf due to controversy. Librarians are simply not buying materials for the library because of the backlash the materials might recieve from the community (what would ALA say, re: VI and VII?).
This may not apply to an academic library in liberal Massachusetts, but is And Tango Makes Three an appropriate book for children and ultimately a school library? Are there libraries out there that might “self-censor” this book? Do libraries actually have the right to “self-censor” books because of the fear of backlash, or is it a required part of professional ethics that they put aside those fears and personal convictions?
You know, in case people wanted a little “light” discussion. 🙂
I read Whelan’s article and it is pretty disconcerting. I find it upsetting to see these “watering-down” decisions being made (especially in journalism), because the US is one of few countries that has real freedom of the press. While I recognize the stress of a book challenge, there are many journalists, writers and publishers the world over, that bravely endure the threat of violence and death. I read this weekend about the assassination of Russian researcher, Natalya Estemirova. (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1910909,00.html). I understand that courage is often required to make challenging and unpopular decisions, but I think they still need to be made. Decisions made under fear are much more likely to be regrettable.
I did think this bit was funny:
“Similar considerations led another publisher to suggest that Myracle change the title of her book about a snarky group of popular schoolgirls from The Bitches to Rhymes with Witches (Abrams, 2005). Ironically, now there are complaints from people who think the book is about witchcraft.”
I thought that part about the “controversial” title was funny too! You can’t win no matter what you do! It’s also disconcerting that people will challenge a book based solely on the title without actually reading the book. You can’t judge a book by its cover! (cheezy, I know! :P)
If you think about this in the context of personal values and cultural norms then “self censorship” takes on a kind of Stockholm syndrome , where librarians see themselves as the “hostages” of communal values that have a bias against one or more characteristics of individuals or groups different from the local community in which the librarian resides.
The existential dilemma here is: Do you resist the coercion and defy the community becoming a potential martyr for something you may or may not agree with or do you quietly give in as an act of self preservation?
An alternative way of addressing this issue is that books/media contrary to social norms are necessary for a well educated electorate to consider complex social issues that may exist within the community. Thereby avoiding controversy by providing the community with dissenting opinions and alternative views that will allow the community to engage in cross cultural dialogues in meaningful ways.
In response to the final sentence in Jonathan’s comment, I’d just express my concern that the community often isn’t willing to engage in meaningful dialogues when it comes to banning books. The people who want to ban a book called “Rhymes with Witches” because they think it’s about witchcraft (see Tricia’s and Emily’s comments) — proving they haven’t even read it — are not going to “engage in dialogue.” The people who have knee-jerk negative reactions to “And Tango Makes Three,” because it’s about a homosexual relationship (between PENGUINS, for heaven’s sake) generally don’t tend to be very open to discussion about the merits of such books or the ideas therein. So even if you try to make the argument that libraries are providing these books in the name of exposing people to alternative views in order to create dialogue, libraries will often be hard-pressed to actually get that dialogue going, sadly enough. It can be difficult to open closed minds…
“An alternative way of addressing this issue is that books/media contrary to social norms are necessary for a well educated electorate to consider complex social issues that may exist within the community.”
I completely agree with this, Jonathan. If we didn’t have views and books that express those views that “go against the grain” we would only have a narrow form of education about social issues. However, I think what Rebecca said about libraries being the ones to get the difficult discussions going is very depressingly true. So, although we are providing these materials to the public for educational/recreational purposes, if there wasn’t a librarian fighting for the right (or making a professionally ethical choice) to put a book like And Tango Makes Three on the shelf, I don’t think this book would get out to the intended audience properly.
Sometimes “Communities” are like books (In that we should not simply judge them by their covers) they may appear to be a unified group with a shared ideology/world view but once you get to know them; they may in fact turn out to be more diverse then imagined. For example, the children of some fundamentalist families reject the values of their parents and embrace a diametrically opposing set of values in some instances. So I would argue that it is a dis-service to assume that communities would maintain value systems without modification in perpetuity.
Also we have to remember that Communities are organic entities that have an ebb and flow as their membership increases and decreases. The forces of change do have an effect on altering values and value systems in organized groups. We must always remember, those who are with us today may not be with us tomorrow. Furthermore, American culture is a culture of “Inclusion”. Cultures of “Exclusion” tend to wither and die. It is ok to bend in the wind of political opposition however it is not ok to let the opposition break you.
Finally, those of us in library service are not always communicating with the present community, we are preserving knowledge for future communities, who may consult the works that we have collected for them to solve a future problem in their present time.
Our mission is to collect and preserve the knowledge that is the most valuable, the most enduring and the most transcendent. To do otherwise is to cast our legacies to the flames of ignorance and to write our names in the waters of oblivion.
Comments are closed.