Sunday Reflections: A Radical Banned Books Week Thought – Throw Out Your Materials Challenge Form and Truly Embrace the Freedom to Read
A funny thing happened on Twitter a couple of weeks ago.
In preparation for Banned Books Week I came up with what I thought was a great idea: We would put challenged books on trial and I tweeted out asking everyone if there were certain books they wanted to write a defense for as guest posts. You will see those posts during this next week.
But one person replied and said: What if I said we shouldn’t even be arguing the merits of books? What if that’s not the point at all?
@TLT16 Can I argue that no novel should ever be defended from a challenge by justifying its merit? http://t.co/PrWCbpwzxj
— andrewkarre (@andrewkarre) August 28, 2013
And then we talked about it and he was right.
@TLT16 @LKeochgerien There’s not one idea in any book in any library that’s more important than the idea of free choice w/in that library.
— andrewkarre (@andrewkarre) August 28, 2013
Why do we have material challenge forms and give people the option of trying to say, I don’t like this book or it offended me or whatever so I think you should remove it from the library – all because of me. Maybe this whole time we have been doing Banned Books Week and Intellectual Freedom wrong. Throw out your forms!
Here’s a snippet of the conversation:
If we truly believe that people have the Freedom to Read what they want to read, then the answer isn’t to hand out forms saying well, maybe we’ll remove this book if you can make a good case. The correct answer when someone complains about a book is simple: I’m sorry that this book offended you, let’s do some awesome reader’s advisory to see if we can help you find some other materials that are right for you.
It’s a radical notion, I know. I have written the collection development policy at two libraries now and made the actual materials challenge form at one. It was a masterpiece. And now I think it was wrong. Our whole approach is wrong.
I get there are things that offend people, but those things are different for each person. And when I read the comments, most people say the same things for other types of media: If you don’t like a show, turn the channel. If you don’t like a song, turn the radio dial. If you don’t like a movie, don’t go see it. And the answer for books should be the same: If you don’t like the book, read a different book.
|Banned Books Week is September 22nd through the 28th|
There are shows I don’t let my children watch (a lot of them actually.) Just the other day I told my YouTube cruising Tween that she had to add her former favorite Miley Cyrus onto the list of music videos she wasn’t allowed to watch. I have a list of actors whose movies I won’t go see. I have banned Spongebob Squarepants because I don’t like the way they treat one another. But here’s the thing: those are all personal parenting decisions. I know that other parents would make different ones. I don’t get to make those decisions for your kids and you don’t get to make them for mine. Which is why we shouldn’t even have material challenge forms. Because it gives the impression that sometimes, maybe, we would in fact let someone make those decisions for an entire community; that if they could make a strong enough case that we might, in fact, decide to remove a book from the library allowing one person (or a group of people) to make personal decisions for an entire community of people, people for whom they don’t actually have the right to make that decision.
There is no “unless you can prove it doesn’t have literary merit” – who gets to decide that? There is no “unless you can prove it is dangerous to society” – we once thought the belief that the sun was the center of the universe was a dangerous idea, people died for that belief. Oops, turns out we were wrong. The only exceptions would be if a book had questionable authority (which you should be catching in your collection development process so it shouldn’t be an issue on the reader’s end) or books that do or advocate breaking the law (like books from NAMBLA, they apparently exist). Tyrants and dictators ban books, those who believe in democracy do not.
So instead, when a patron comes to a staff member complaining about a book and asking that it be removed, we use this moment to remind patrons about the goals of a library. Instead of handing them a book challenge form, we could hand them a bookmark or pamphlet that states the Library Bill of Rights and affirms their rights to self-selection and parental guidance. And then we ask them if we can help them find a new book to read and start the reader’s advisory process. This moment becomes a teachable moment where we reinforce the library’s mission to the entire (and very diverse) community. Instead of discussing individual titles, the conversation becomes one about Intellectual Freedom.
I believe that people have the right to read what they want to read. I believe that you and I don’t get to make those decisions for other people. Full stop. That’s actually the end of the argument. Throw out your forms.
More Banned Books Week on TLT:
Banned Books Week 2012
Teen Fiction is . . .
A Banned Books Week Primer
Redefining the 3 Rs for Banned Books Week
Libraries are radically unsafe places . . . and that’s a good thing
My Banned Books Week Posters
Edited 9/24/2013 to add a clarifying paragraph.
Filed under: Banned Books Week, Censorship, Intellectual Freedom, Professional Development, Sunday Reflections, Things I Didn't Learn in Library School
About Karen Jensen, MLS
Karen Jensen has been a Teen Services Librarian for almost 30 years. She created TLT in 2011 and is the co-editor of The Whole Library Handbook: Teen Services with Heather Booth (ALA Editions, 2014).
SLJ Blog Network
2023 Caldecott Jump
Exclusive Cover Reveal: Stuntboy In-Between Time by Jason Reynolds, ill. Raúl the Third
Recent Graphic Novel Deals, Feb 2023 | News
Programming with Constructive Destruction, a guest post by Austin Ferraro
The Classroom Bookshelf is Moving