I just finished The Library Book, by Susan Orlean. The author uses the devastating 1986 fire at the Los Angeles Central Library (400,000 books destroyed, 700,000 damaged) as a jumping off point to create an homage to libraries generally. Orlean is a breezy, straight-forward writer, and a pleasure to read. Since I am a library geek myself, this book resonated with me.
I have four libraries within 10 minutes of my house. Although these libraries are not stately tributes to books, like the Los Angeles Central Library or the Philadelphia Free Library, they all have that hushed buzz that makes me want to linger in the stacks, even if I know what I want to check out. If my local libraries don’t have a copy of the book I am looking for, I can get it sent from one of the other 17 libraries in the County system. It is exceedingly rare that I cannot borrow a book that I want to read. How lucky can one man get?
Two recent news stories highlight the importance libraries play in our communities. There has been significant coverage about the decision by a School Board in McMinn County Tennessee to remove the Holocaust graphic novel “Maus” from its school’s libraries. According to the School Board, this was not because of the book’s Holocaust theme, but because of “concerns about profanity and an image of female nudity in its depiction of Polish Jews who survived the Holocaust”. Many are skeptical of this explanation.
The Maus decision is part of a larger effort nationwide to cull books from schools that parents find objectionable. The American Library Association has documented a “dramatic uptick” in challenges to books in libraries’ collections. The Association goes on to say that the most frequently targeted books deal, not surprisingly, with race, gender and/or sexuality.
While these efforts have focused on school libraries, this movement will inevitably spillover to public libraries. Those looking to to limit access to books they find offensive will seek appointment to Library Boards in order to influence those collections as well. Politicians will jump on this bandwagon, since politicos like nothing better than to feign misplaced outrage.
Like seemingly every controversy we confront today, this one is more nuanced than media reports make it out. It is legitimate to question what books should be held in school libraries. I would be uncomfortable if my kid’s school stocked “The Turner Diaries” by William Pierce, leader of the Neo-Nazi National Alliance or “QAnon: An Invitation to the Great Awakening”. Librarians have to make judgments on which books are properly geared to youth, and which are not.
The trouble, of course, is that a judgment call is always evaluated from the eye of the beholder. Parents defending the current bans will argue that a school should not be promoting alternative views of sexuality by carrying books that embrace those views, just as I would argue than schools should not promote extremist political perspectives. I pity the poor librarian caught in that crossfire.
One thing is clear. The standard for library contents cannot be, as one Texas Legislator suggested, the banning of books that “might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any form of psychological distress because of their race or sex”. Not only is such a standard pathetically vague, discomfort is part of the learning process. Students need to be challenged by new ideas to determine their own beliefs.
This ridiculous standard also ignores the many children who need to explore issues of race, gender and sexuality. A library is one of the few resource centers that lets kids look into what concerns them without judgment. The ability to connect with the world on a broader basis is essential to kids, as is the knowledge that their concerns are not theirs alone.
It is why, ultimately, we need to leave it to trained librarians to evaluate books and find the right balance between the challenging and the offensive. Librarians are not perfect, and many will have their own agendas, but they are best positioned to know the needs of the patrons they serve. It is far better than leaving those decisions to the parents that can scream the loudest.
On a more positive note, NPR has reported that libraries in the Ukraine have been incredibly busy during the Russian atrocity. Embracing the broad role that libraries play in communities, Ukranian libraries serve as bomb shelters, refugee reception points, and even as a place to weave camouflage netting. Books are being sent to neighboring countries that receive Ukrainian refugees and psychologists are hosted to provide counseling.
Ukranian librarians also issued a notice “postponing” an international library conference scheduled for early March. According to NPR, the notice concluded by saying that “We will reschedule just as soon as we have finished vanquishing our invaders.” Needless to say, this announcement engendered broad international praise.
The way in which Ukranian librarians have stepped up should wipe out any notion that librarians are weak spinsters (see It’s a Wonderful Life), or that libraries are outdated book depositories. Librarians have embraced modern technology, and reconceived libraries as community centers offering a wide range of resources. They are as important now, as modern life gets more complex, as they ever have been.
Unfortunately, many libraries in the Ukraine have already been destroyed in this war, and undoubtedly many more will as the Russians continue to advance. You can also bet that if Putin takes control of the country, one of the first things he will do is make sure that the remaining libraries cull books that contradict the skewed version of history he has been promulgating. But not to worry. I am sure he just wants to make sure that no one encounters books that make them feel “discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any form of psychological distress”.
*Desiderius Erasmus
Tom, I embrace your general theme that libraries serve an important role in our communities. I also agree that librarians can and should play a larger role in deciding what books are available. The more difficult question is where to draw the line between books describing even the most Illogical or anti-democratic elements of society and those proselytizing pure hate against fellow citizens and traditionally protected individuals. If a high school junior needs to write a paper on Qanon, the Proud Boys, or some other other divisive group, shouldn’t they have access to a non-promotional book in their library to understand where these groups came from, why they developed, and what they are about? It’s a close question, no doubt.
You make a really good point. I guess that the bottom line is that we have to err on the side of including books that have some merit. Which again begs the question about what has merit. Very sticky, indeed.
I’ve read The Library Book. Fantastic!
As for banned books, I agree with the pundits who have said, “These are the books to read!” Or, to at least be aware of. As for the titles that would be repugnant to decent people, I agree with Peter’s point – they should remain available, perhaps not in a school library, but certainly in a public collection. Would we tolerate a “talk to the librarian first” restriction on certain books?
It is amazing to me how the list of banned books often mirrors my own reading list. Your suggestion of a “talk to the librarian first” restriction is an interesting one, and highlights how difficult this issue is. It makes sense intellectually, but many, especially kids, would be reluctant to approach a librarian about a sensitive topic, even if they think the librarian would be sympathetic. I believe that traditionally many libraries had such books, and librarians did see their role as guardian of the public morals in deciding who could see them. Luckily, I think those days are behind us, for the most part.