So, I received a faxed copy of the materials selection guidelines from the San Bernardino County Library; they read, in part: "The County Library provides materials presenting various points of view without regard to race, nationality, or the political, social, moral and religious views of an author. Works are judged on their content as a whole, not from excerpts. The County Library provides unrestricted access to all materials to all patrons regardless of age. Parents concerned about their child's reading or viewing materials should provide appropriate guidance."
Hmmm.... if I were a patron of the San Bernardino County Library system, I would definitely protest their ban of Mr. Gravett's book. It seems to be in direct contradiction to their stated policies (and I find their suggestions of labeling and 'further review of materials' sinister in the extreme).
Here's what one of my favorite authors, Neil Gaiman, had to say about it on his blog:
"I think that removing reference books from libraries is a very silly thing to do. I've not read it, but I've read a lot of Paul Gravett's writing over the last 25 years and it's always been well-reasoned, well-researched, inclusive, and never sensationalistic.
There's a good summary of the articles currently up at http://www.paulgravett.com/articles/041_californiancontroversey/041_californiancontroversey.htm
"To remove a book about the history of the genre of Japanese comics just because it contains a section on erotic comics is comparable to removing an encyclopedia because of an entry on erotic practices," NCAC Director of Arts Svetlana Mintcheva said.
The American Civil Liberties Union is one of the lead members of this coalition. The book Manga: Sixty years of Japanese Comics, became the subject of controversy after 16-year-old Matt Jones of Victorville told his mother the book contained illustrations of graphic sexual acts and sex with animals. The book was found to also be available in branches located in Hesperia, Apple Valley and Barstow.
Along with the order for removal of the book, Postmus also called for officials with the county library to draft a plan to protect children from similar books.
Monday, the supervisor said the book will remain off the shelves of the county library. "A cartoon depicting a person engaged in a sex act with a giant hamster doesn't belong in a San Bernardino County library. And our tax dollars shouldn't be used to pay for it either," he said. "That's simply what this is about," Postmus said.
(I find myself imagining a short checklist for books that they want to put on the shelves of San Bernadino County Library, saying only "Does this book contain a cartoon depicting someone having sex with a giant hamster?" and "Was it paid for by our tax dollars?" and if the answer to both is yes, it gets thrown away.)
If you live in San Bernadino county, and you want to be able to read MANGA! in your library, you might, as Paul points out on http://www.paulgravett.com/articles/041_californiancontroversey/041_letters.htm, want to write a polite letter of protest to
Mr. Bill Postmus
Chairman, Board of Supervisors, San Bernardino County
385 North Arrowhead Avenue, Fifth Floor
San Bernardino, California 92415, USA
email: SupervisorPostmus@sbcounty.govf
fax: (001) 909-387-3029
The most effective form of protest is a clear and well-reasoned argument. Please refrain from using threatening, insulting or otherwise legally actionable language when writing to elected officials."
Friday, February 29, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics pulled in San Bernardino County
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Orson Scott Card
I read the Unshelved cartoon featuring their comment on the Orson Scott Card controversy, and while I love these guys, I think they're missing the point. It's not about the books. If, in fact, the award was given solely on the basis of his published work, then I think the panel does have an obligation to completely disregard the author's personal beliefs, however loathsome they might be. In this case, the YALSA website describes the award as follows: "The Margaret A. Edwards Award, established in 1988, honors an author, as well as a specific body of his or her work, that have been popular over a period of time. The annual award is administered by YALSA and sponsored by School Library Journal magazine. It recognizes an author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world."
So I do think considerations of the merits of the author as an influence on young people, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the body of work, are not entirely out of place in this consideration. That being said, I've been thinking a lot about this since we discussed it in class, and while I'm not sure yet that I could vote for Card, I've also been re-examining my own personal beliefs and how they might affect my decisions. It's hard to stay neutral in all things, but as librarians upholding the ideals of intellectual freedom, that is our mandate.
Still, what we're discussing here is not really directly related to the library itself. It's not about whether to include a book in a collection, or where to shelve it. It's about an award, honoring an author. The principles of intellectual freedom apply equally here, but so does personal opinion - whoever is on the panel is going to vote for the author that they feel is most deserving of the award. Period. The panel chose Orson Scott Card. If I was on the panel I might well have voted differently without even knowing about his personal beliefs, because from what I've read of his work I don't think he's a very good writer (I admit here that I haven't read Ender's Game, and obviously would have to read all his work if I was a panel member).
The award is also given in recognition of an "author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world." I can't really address whether or not Card's writing helps adolescents, since I haven't read the books on which the award was based. But here again, the wording seems to me to be about something larger than just the novels; it addresses the "author's work in helping adolescents" not just the author's written work. On the whole, I would have to disagree that Mr. Card is working to help adolescents to become aware of themselves, or to understand their roles in relationships, society or the world in a positive manner. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else. Honest.
Here's a link from Salon.com: My favorite author, my worst interview: I worshipped militaristic Mormon science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card -- until we met.
So I do think considerations of the merits of the author as an influence on young people, and having nothing whatsoever to do with the body of work, are not entirely out of place in this consideration. That being said, I've been thinking a lot about this since we discussed it in class, and while I'm not sure yet that I could vote for Card, I've also been re-examining my own personal beliefs and how they might affect my decisions. It's hard to stay neutral in all things, but as librarians upholding the ideals of intellectual freedom, that is our mandate.
Still, what we're discussing here is not really directly related to the library itself. It's not about whether to include a book in a collection, or where to shelve it. It's about an award, honoring an author. The principles of intellectual freedom apply equally here, but so does personal opinion - whoever is on the panel is going to vote for the author that they feel is most deserving of the award. Period. The panel chose Orson Scott Card. If I was on the panel I might well have voted differently without even knowing about his personal beliefs, because from what I've read of his work I don't think he's a very good writer (I admit here that I haven't read Ender's Game, and obviously would have to read all his work if I was a panel member).
The award is also given in recognition of an "author's work in helping adolescents become aware of themselves and addressing questions about their role and importance in relationships, society, and in the world." I can't really address whether or not Card's writing helps adolescents, since I haven't read the books on which the award was based. But here again, the wording seems to me to be about something larger than just the novels; it addresses the "author's work in helping adolescents" not just the author's written work. On the whole, I would have to disagree that Mr. Card is working to help adolescents to become aware of themselves, or to understand their roles in relationships, society or the world in a positive manner. But that's just my opinion, and I'm not trying to impose it on anyone else. Honest.
Here's a link from Salon.com: My favorite author, my worst interview: I worshipped militaristic Mormon science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card -- until we met.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Librarian fired over The Last Book in the Universe?
A librarian hired as a consultant to the Bellevue Union school district in Santa Rosa, California, was fired in November after giving a booktalk on Rodman Philbrick's The Last Book in the Universe. Richie Partington, a part-time faculty member at San Jose State's School of Library and Information Science, is best known for his children's book review website Richie's Picks and has been named to the selection committee for the 2009 Caldecott Medal. Partington was hired last October to update all the library collections in the school district; one of his first book picks was Philbrick's science-fiction fantasy, which he presented to two sixth grade classes at Kawana Elementary School in Santa Rosa on November 14 and 16. The booktalk was so successful that students were "clamoring" to read it, but when Partington attempted to add four copies to the school library, he was met with resistance. The clerk staffing the library told Partington that although she hadn't read the book, she "didn’t like the idea of that book because it had to do with gangs."
What happened next is open to question; according to the school superintendent, the clerk complained to the principal, who requested a meeting with Partington to discuss the book, and Partington refused. Partington, however, states on his website that he responded to an email request for a meeting by asking that the principal first read the book in question, suggesting that there could be no useful discussion otherwise. What isn't in question is how the school responded; they sent a termination letter to Partington dated November 20.
Several prominent YA authors have rallied in support of Partington, including Philbrick, Chris Crutcher, Christoper Paul Curtis and Jane Yolen. Philbrick even went so far as to contact the school superintendent, offering to come and speak at the school (at his own expense) and donate copies of the book. Philbrick said he received a reply "almost immediately" and that his offer was turned down "in no uncertain terms."
Philbrick's book was named a 2001 ALA Best Book for Young Adults.
What happened next is open to question; according to the school superintendent, the clerk complained to the principal, who requested a meeting with Partington to discuss the book, and Partington refused. Partington, however, states on his website that he responded to an email request for a meeting by asking that the principal first read the book in question, suggesting that there could be no useful discussion otherwise. What isn't in question is how the school responded; they sent a termination letter to Partington dated November 20.
Several prominent YA authors have rallied in support of Partington, including Philbrick, Chris Crutcher, Christoper Paul Curtis and Jane Yolen. Philbrick even went so far as to contact the school superintendent, offering to come and speak at the school (at his own expense) and donate copies of the book. Philbrick said he received a reply "almost immediately" and that his offer was turned down "in no uncertain terms."
Philbrick's book was named a 2001 ALA Best Book for Young Adults.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Crescent
Last fall, novelist and memoirist Diana Abu-Jaber received an email from a teacher in Texas regarding her novel Crescent. The email, which Abu-Jaber describes on her website as "sensitive and beautifully-written" presented the author with an agonizing moral dilemma. The parents of three students had objected to the sexual content of four paragraphs in her novel, and the school had subsequently banned the book. The ban originated with the principal, but after teachers protested, he offered them a compromise. The teacher was writing to obtain Abu-Jaber's permission to black out the four paragraphs in question in order to continue teaching the rest of the book:
"If we obtain your permission to black out the four offending paragraphs … we are allowed to include the book in our curriculum….I am willing to ask you to do the unthinkable – will you allow us to mark through these four paragraphs in the interest of introducing a discussion of a culture so frequently demonized and belittled in our part of the country? Will you help me bring into a politically conservative community a sympathetic view of Iraq and Iraqi people?”
What a difficult, terrible choice for an author to have to make about their own work! On the one hand, this is obvious censorship; the ALA/OIF "Expurgation of Library Materials" clearly states that "Expurgating library materials is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Expurgation as defined by this Interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration of any part(s) of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution (if any). By such expurgation, the library is in effect denying access to the complete work and the entire spectrum of ideas that the work intended to express."
On the other hand, if the teacher doesn't excise the four paragraphs, her students will continue to be deprived of the remainder of the book. Either way, the book will be censored, and the students will be denied access.
In the end, Abu-Jaber decided that while she could not condone the censorship of her novel, she supported the teacher's desire to continue teaching the book. If the school did proceed with blacking out the four paragraphs, she would post them on her website, so that students could still have access to them.
Here is Abu-Jaber's lovely and heartfelt reply to the teacher:
October 2, 2007
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and insightful email. I've spent several days considering your question.
Ultimately, I find that I can't condone your principal's offer to censor my novel in order to make it more acceptable. That said, you do have my permission, to do what you think is right for your students.
In a strange way, I suppose, I think this discussion is an encouraging thing. I find it fascinating that, in our culture of war, macabre violence, and shocking cinema, a literary novel could still carry enough of an impact as to make someone want to silence it.
My husband pointed out that censors are always with us, determining the limits of morality and conventions, in every source of art and information, from books to film to music. He argues, along with you, that it’s better to allow students to read some of a book—indeed most of a book—rather than none at all.
Even though I see the excellent sense of this argument, I couldn’t find a way to feel right about crossing out text. I became a writer in large part because I felt like I couldn’t otherwise make my voice heard. To agree to blackening out such passages feels like colluding in my own silencing.
I once had a debate with a student from Saudi Arabia. I’d complained to him that the problem with America was that nothing was sacred. He’d laughed at me and said, on the contrary, that the great thing about America was that nothing was sacred.
I worry, though, that the American problem is that the wrong things are sacred.
I won’t belabor pointing out the obvious irony of blacking out scenes of love-making in a book that’s concerned with the depiction and the violence of unjust wars and dictatorship. We all already know this—in America, love gets bleeped, the violence stays. The two main characters in Crescent are in love, the few sexual passages in the book are far from graphic. Indeed, the scenes in which they cook and eat together are nearly just as suggestive as the contested passages.
But a friend, upon hearing about this debate, postulated that the real reason the students’ parents are upset is because the book gives a human face to Arab Muslim people.
That might be the part of this that unnerves me the most – and like so many forms of subtle discrimination and racism, we’ll never really know if that’s the case or not. The people who want the book banned may not even be entirely conscious of it themselves.
So I thank you for giving me the chance to think out loud a little about such an important issue. If you decide to proceed with blacking out the passages, I’ll be happy to post the offending text on my website, so those students who might be curious, can decide for themselves if they’d like to see what the fuss is about.
Please feel free to share my response with your principal, the parents, and even with your students. It’s a wonderful object lesson in the free and open exchange of ideas vs. book banning, especially during this, Banned Books Week.
With great respect for wonderful teachers, like yourself,
Diana Abu-Jaber
"If we obtain your permission to black out the four offending paragraphs … we are allowed to include the book in our curriculum….I am willing to ask you to do the unthinkable – will you allow us to mark through these four paragraphs in the interest of introducing a discussion of a culture so frequently demonized and belittled in our part of the country? Will you help me bring into a politically conservative community a sympathetic view of Iraq and Iraqi people?”
What a difficult, terrible choice for an author to have to make about their own work! On the one hand, this is obvious censorship; the ALA/OIF "Expurgation of Library Materials" clearly states that "Expurgating library materials is a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Expurgation as defined by this Interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration of any part(s) of books or other library resources by the library, its agent, or its parent institution (if any). By such expurgation, the library is in effect denying access to the complete work and the entire spectrum of ideas that the work intended to express."
On the other hand, if the teacher doesn't excise the four paragraphs, her students will continue to be deprived of the remainder of the book. Either way, the book will be censored, and the students will be denied access.
In the end, Abu-Jaber decided that while she could not condone the censorship of her novel, she supported the teacher's desire to continue teaching the book. If the school did proceed with blacking out the four paragraphs, she would post them on her website, so that students could still have access to them.
Here is Abu-Jaber's lovely and heartfelt reply to the teacher:
October 2, 2007
Thanks so much for your thoughtful and insightful email. I've spent several days considering your question.
Ultimately, I find that I can't condone your principal's offer to censor my novel in order to make it more acceptable. That said, you do have my permission, to do what you think is right for your students.
In a strange way, I suppose, I think this discussion is an encouraging thing. I find it fascinating that, in our culture of war, macabre violence, and shocking cinema, a literary novel could still carry enough of an impact as to make someone want to silence it.
My husband pointed out that censors are always with us, determining the limits of morality and conventions, in every source of art and information, from books to film to music. He argues, along with you, that it’s better to allow students to read some of a book—indeed most of a book—rather than none at all.
Even though I see the excellent sense of this argument, I couldn’t find a way to feel right about crossing out text. I became a writer in large part because I felt like I couldn’t otherwise make my voice heard. To agree to blackening out such passages feels like colluding in my own silencing.
I once had a debate with a student from Saudi Arabia. I’d complained to him that the problem with America was that nothing was sacred. He’d laughed at me and said, on the contrary, that the great thing about America was that nothing was sacred.
I worry, though, that the American problem is that the wrong things are sacred.
I won’t belabor pointing out the obvious irony of blacking out scenes of love-making in a book that’s concerned with the depiction and the violence of unjust wars and dictatorship. We all already know this—in America, love gets bleeped, the violence stays. The two main characters in Crescent are in love, the few sexual passages in the book are far from graphic. Indeed, the scenes in which they cook and eat together are nearly just as suggestive as the contested passages.
But a friend, upon hearing about this debate, postulated that the real reason the students’ parents are upset is because the book gives a human face to Arab Muslim people.
That might be the part of this that unnerves me the most – and like so many forms of subtle discrimination and racism, we’ll never really know if that’s the case or not. The people who want the book banned may not even be entirely conscious of it themselves.
So I thank you for giving me the chance to think out loud a little about such an important issue. If you decide to proceed with blacking out the passages, I’ll be happy to post the offending text on my website, so those students who might be curious, can decide for themselves if they’d like to see what the fuss is about.
Please feel free to share my response with your principal, the parents, and even with your students. It’s a wonderful object lesson in the free and open exchange of ideas vs. book banning, especially during this, Banned Books Week.
With great respect for wonderful teachers, like yourself,
Diana Abu-Jaber
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
