MARSHALL LIBARAY BOARD VOTES TO ADOPT MATERIALS SELECTION POLICY

[MattBrady]

Last night’s Marshall Public Library Board meeting in Marshall, MO was, if anything, more anticlimactic than anything else.

The meeting had become the focus of comic fans after the Board met last week to discuss the removal of Craig Thompson’s Blankets and Alison Bechdel’s Fun Home after complaints that material in the graphic novels constitute pornography. Late last week the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and the National Coalition Against Censorship sent a joint letter to the Board, speaking out against removing the titles from the shelves.

Those expecting fireworks and speeches both pro and con at last night’s meeting were disappointed.

According to Zack Sims, Staff Writer for the Marshall-Democrat News, the meeting opened with the Board President, in her opening statement, suggesting that, in light of the recent developments, a committee be formed for write a formal “materials selection policy” for the library, to determine the guidelines the library will use to select titles for its collection.

No public comment was heard or asked for, as it was noted that the meeting on October 4th served as the public’s time to comment on the issue, and last night’s meeting was a Library Board Meeting – albeit with more people than normal in attendance.

The proposal was agreed to unanimously, and until the policy has been written and adopted by the Board, the two books will remain out of circulation. After the policy is formed, the two books will be evaluated as to their suitableness for the library.

Sims told Newsarama that he asked if all the books in the library would be treated as such, and retroactively run through the yet-to-be-written policy, and said that he was led to believe that they wouldn’t, though the policy will be applied to every new book.

It was said that work on the policy will start immediately, Sims said, however, he pointed out that the Board meets once a month, and will be able to review the policy at its November meeting. At that point, it will be able to suggest amendments or changes, or approve it. If it is approved, a period of time for the books to be reviewed under the policy’s guidelines will be set. All in all, Sims said, the earliest the books will be back on the shelves would be in two months.

Currently, there is no policy governing the acceptance of materials or their suitability for the library. It was suggested that the Board will be looking at the policies of Public Libraries in other cites where such guidelines have been adopted.

[Blind Assassin]

whoops don't know what happened there.

[spiderrob8]

Unfairness is a part of life.

Not too concerned. Obviously choices based on content and value are made all the time.

That's why there typically is no porn section in a library.

We only seem to get worked up when something is purchased and then removed, but choices are always made in just what to purchase as well

[ssava]

Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
But in the previous thread about this a librarian by trade (I think they were retired) mentioned that MOST libraries HAVE to not stock certain books because of SPACE LIMITATIONS.

Then I think I remember it being said that it's logical that if certain books stay or go...may depend on the type of city you may be in.

Is this true?

If so...wouldn't it be logical that different communities would have different books to cater to it's patrons?

Just a thought. If so...then it's not censorship if a book isn't carried because there wasn't room for it. right?

I know that's not what this thread is about entirely. But it SHOULD make us think that if a community does not WANT a book in the library...then it's their right to not have it.

[RedBaron]

Mmm, bureaucracy

[LaughingJak]

Okay, devils advocate and actual question... Who are we to determine what a city is or is not going to put in their library? It's not that they're saying, "you can't buy this book in this town." or "you can't sell this book here." They're just building a library, and if a book is counter-culture to what's comfortable in their library - who are we to say, "you bastards!" for not wanting it in there? It's not censorship - it's just that they don't want it in their library.
I've read Blankets - i absolutely think it's library acceptable and lent out my own copy a bundle of times. But libraries aren't built to shove books down a community's throat if they don't want it. If people want the book that badly, and it's not in the local library, maybe they'll go buy it? Or borrow it from a friend?
A comic shop owner is allowed to say what books he wants and doesn't want in his store. Why should your local library location (your LLL?) be any different?

[avengingtitan]

What a load of BS.

If I lived there I'd boycott that library and encourge others too as well.

[NielsVanEekelen]

Originally Posted by ssava

Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
But in the previous thread about this a librarian by trade (I think they were retired) mentioned that MOST libraries HAVE to not stock certain books because of SPACE LIMITATIONS.

Then I think I remember it being said that it's logical that if certain books stay or go...may depend on the type of city you may be in.

Is this true?

If so...wouldn't it be logical that different communities would have different books to cater to it's patrons?

Just a thought. If so...then it's not censorship if a book isn't carried because there wasn't room for it. right?

I know that's not what this thread is about entirely. But it SHOULD make us think that if a community does not WANT a book in the library...then it's their right to not have it.

Fair point--but then let them look at there records and see which books are lent out how often, and get rid of the ones that are gathering dust.

The complaints of a vocal minority--who weren't part of the target audience anyway--are not a good basis for the removal of books. A few people keeping others from reading what they want because it doesn't fit their personal guidelines for books? That's censorship.

[UnknownEric]

Originally Posted by NielsVanEekelen

Fair point--but then let them look at there records and see which books are lent out how often, and get rid of the ones that are gathering dust.

That's how it's gone at every library I've ever been affiliated with. Weed what doesn't circulate.

[Mr Wesley]

I hadn't thought of it until ssava and LaughingJak mentioned it, but about 50% of my book purchases come from library discards.

Having said that, I do think this just another case of over-sensativity to lumping all graphic literature in with 'funnybooks,' and thinking that they, by definition, must be for children. I'm sure there are plenty of books in this library that have more mature themes or adult situations. The only reason for singling these two out (specifically Blankets) is because they aren't "BIFF! POW!" comics.

[dcorsetto]

They say "no fireworks" as if that's a BAD thing. I'm glad nobody got too worked up about it.

And of COURSE they're not going to go through every single book in the libraray to see if they fit the new guidelines. How much spare time do you think these people have?!

I don't think this was the best solution, but it's not a bad one either. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's perfectly within their rights to decide which books they want in their library, too.

Just for the record, I think "protecting" children from real life (nudity, making choices about sex, etc.) only stunts their mental growth, and that Blankets is an appropriate book for teenagers. But I also think it's not up to me to choose what parents are letting their kids look at.

d

[ssava]

Originally Posted by NielsVanEekelen

Fair point--but then let them look at there records and see which books are lent out how often, and get rid of the ones that are gathering dust.

The complaints of a vocal minority--who weren't part of the target audience anyway--are not a good basis for the removal of books. A few people keeping others from reading what they want because it doesn't fit their personal guidelines for books? That's censorship.

Well I agree there. I'm talking about a whole community. Not a vocal minority of course.

If the library deems that having extra books on Rap Music artists isn't really needed in a Country Western town...that's not Censorship. That's catering to your patrons.

This kind of thing isn't mentioned.

But if it's something with some nudity, language, and sexual situations that the library feels most people in a more conservative town wouldn't read....then people here get upset.

It only seems to be labeled censorship if it's a book like this.

I think it's fair that in a library...the community can decide what books to keep and which ones to not stock. They don't keep people from doing a library swap (if that's the right term). It also doesn't keep people from BUYING the book.

They're just saying "Look. We can only carry so many books. This one we don't feel will be read as much as say...Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick."

Also...I also would hope that they DO weed out books gathering dust to bring in new ones too. See how they rate...and decide to keep them or not.

[Blind Assassin]

Originally Posted by spiderrob8

We only seem to get worked up when something is purchased and then removed, but choices are always made in just what to purchase as well

If I remember right, the books was already pre-approved by the library before its purchase.

(can someone back me up on that? or correct me if I am wrong? I'd be happy with either)

Why then, do they need 2 months to decide if it is now they deemed worthy a few months ago now needs to be re-deemed (as it were).

Also, if they are willing to 'retroactively' look at these two books in particular, then they owe it to the community they are claiming to serve to retroactively view all the books they have on the shelves.


That is my opinion.

[dcorsetto]

Originally Posted by NielsVanEekelen

Fair point--but then let them look at there records and see which books are lent out how often, and get rid of the ones that are gathering dust.

Eep!! That would be awful. Those are the ones I normally pick up at libraries; the fascinating old books that have been there for decades!

[hunterjax]

Originally Posted by LaughingJak

Okay, devils advocate and actual question... Who are we to determine what a city is or is not going to put in their library? It's not that they're saying, "you can't buy this book in this town." or "you can't sell this book here." They're just building a library, and if a book is counter-culture to what's comfortable in their library - who are we to say, "you bastards!" for not wanting it in there? It's not censorship - it's just that they don't want it in their library.
I've read Blankets - i absolutely think it's library acceptable and lent out my own copy a bundle of times. But libraries aren't built to shove books down a community's throat if they don't want it. If people want the book that badly, and it's not in the local library, maybe they'll go buy it? Or borrow it from a friend?
A comic shop owner is allowed to say what books he wants and doesn't want in his store. Why should your local library location (your LLL?) be any different?

I think your point is valid, but in this case, the books were already in the library (which shows that someone did want them and the library official responsible for ordering books felt these books should be part of their collection and used, what I am sure are limited budget funds to purchase those books) and now, someone wants them REMOVED from the library.

Not buying books or stocking them by choice or by financial/space restraints is one thing. Having a book publicly available and then removing it because one or more people find it offensive is censorship. It's what the Nazis did during WWII - they didn't stop their libraries and schools from ordering books they disagreed with, they destroyed/burned the books those libraries already had.

I know everyone will be jumping on me about comparing removing a GN from a single library to book-burning by the Nazis, but censorship is censorship is censorship. Letting there be degrees of censorship only opens the door.

Sooner or later, another Gordon Lee will be arrested in this town for selling Blankets and then what is the defense? That he could have sold it on eBay or in another town, why bother making a big deal if just this town agrees that it shouldn't be available there?

It's a slippery slop.

[Blind Assassin]

Originally Posted by ssava

But if it's something with some nudity, language, and sexual situations that the library feels most people in a more conservative town wouldn't read....then people here get upset.

But why is that?

Why do people get so upset over 'nudity' or 'sexual situations'..?

a fair bit of popular romance novels have a good deal of 'sexual situations' (and I know, cause I used to read Danielle Steel novels, and 'summer beach reads' like 'A Glimpse of Stocking', and "Hollywood Wives"?

If books such as those are still on the shelves, then doesn't it appear hypocritical..? It means that they are possibly excluding two books for a specific reason raised by the community, but not checking deeper into its shelves to see what other books may violate the same rules the community brought up.

And I don't think that is fair at all.

[FallenFate]

Originally Posted by ssava

Please correct me if I'm wrong here...
But in the previous thread about this a librarian by trade (I think they were retired) mentioned that MOST libraries HAVE to not stock certain books because of SPACE LIMITATIONS.

Then I think I remember it being said that it's logical that if certain books stay or go...may depend on the type of city you may be in.

Is this true?

If so...wouldn't it be logical that different communities would have different books to cater to it's patrons?

Just a thought. If so...then it's not censorship if a book isn't carried because there wasn't room for it. right?

I know that's not what this thread is about entirely. But it SHOULD make us think that if a community does not WANT a book in the library...then it's their right to not have it.

*shaking my head in utter despair*

Scott,
The SAME stuff every time. An individual has a right to read what THEY want to read. The simple fact is: IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T READ IT!!!!!!!

It IS censorship when you take away the rights of the individual to have something accessible to them.

That's it. That's all. We are forever going to be at odds on this issue.

[Blind Assassin]

Originally Posted by LaughingJak

A comic shop owner is allowed to say what books he wants and doesn't want in his store. Why should your local library location (your LLL?) be any different?

Well, for one, libraries are partially funded by TAXPAYERS.

Comic book stores are not.

[Kolimar]

Originally Posted by Blind Assassin

That is discriminatory and ________.

THe fact that they are going to make a ruling on these two previously purchased books and then new ones, while ignoring all of the other previously purchased books is unfair.

Originally Posted by Blind Assassin

Also, if they are willing to 'retroactively' look at these two books in particular, then they owe it to the community they are claiming to serve to retroactively view all the books they have on the shelves.


That is my opinion.

I agree with you but I think the difference is that those two books have complaints against them. That's what they will probably say.

[Blind Assassin]

Originally Posted by Kolimar

I agree with you but I think the difference is that those two books have complaints against them. That's what they will probably say.

good, then I would lodge a complaint against the bible, because it is full of 'sexual situations', graphic verbal depictions, and 'language' that I found offensive.

[Kolimar]

Originally Posted by Blind Assassin

That is discriminatory and ________.

THe fact that they are going to make a ruling on these two previously purchased books and then new ones, while ignoring all of the other previously purchased books is unfair.

Originally Posted by Blind Assassin

Also, if they are willing to 'retroactively' look at these two books in particular, then they owe it to the community they are claiming to serve to retroactively view all the books they have on the shelves.


That is my opinion.

I agree with you but I think the difference is that these two books have complaints against them. That's what they will probably say.

[NielsVanEekelen]

Originally Posted by ssava

It only seems to be labeled censorship if it's a book like this.

Because, well, there is less--if any--reason to assume those other books would be kept out for censorship reasons. Reread the original complaint. It was not about whether anyone would want to read these books, but about them being supposedly objectionable.

"[M]y concern is with the illustrations and their availability to children and the community.”

They're just saying "Look. We can only carry so many books. This one we don't feel will be read as much as say...Huckleberry Finn or Moby Dick."

I'm sorry, but I'm not hearing that here at all.

Having these books was compared to buying a porn store. The implication was not that no one wanted the porn. The implication was that no one should have or be allowed to have the porn.

[kalorama]

The idea of coming up with review guidelines for their collection is perfectly reasonable (and, really, is something they should have already had in place). But essentially banning these books from the library until that process is complete is the wrong way to go. Since there is no review process currently in place, the library can stock whatever they want. They've already added Blankets and Fun Home to their collection. Unless they're going to go through the entirle collection and weed out any other potentially "objectionable" books and sideline those as well, Blankets and Fun Home should stay just where they are. By taking that approach of proactively punishing certain (perfectly legal) material to allay social fears about what is and isn't "appropriate" (and thus denying access to said material by peoiple who may want it and have every right to get it) it becomes very much a censorship issue.

[The Funketeer]

Originally Posted by avengingtitan

What a load of BS.

If I lived there I'd boycott that library and encourge others too as well.

You can't really boycott a library. Your tax dollars will still be given to them whether you use it or not.

[ssava]

Originally Posted by Blind Assassin

But why is that?

Why do people get so upset over 'nudity' or 'sexual situations'..?

a fair bit of popular romance novels have a good deal of 'sexual situations' (and I know, cause I used to read Danielle Steel novels, and 'summer beach reads' like 'A Glimpse of Stocking', and "Hollywood Wives"?

If books such as those are still on the shelves, then doesn't it appear hypocritical..? It means that they are possibly excluding two books for a specific reason raised by the community, but not checking deeper into its shelves to see what other books may violate the same rules the community brought up.

And I don't think that is fair at all.

No...see...that's the point.
Why is it acceptable to remove (as in my example) a book on Garth Brooks...but not something like Blankets?

The reason why people complain NOW is that it's the CONTENT.

It's OK to remove something that isn't objectionable. But if you remove something that may be objectionable....then you have to keep it?

Doesn't make sense.

My point is...libraries can decide to keep or discard books based on their patron's tastes.
It should be universal. Whether it's the bible, Garth Brooks, or Blankets. It shouldn't matter. IF people WANT the book in the library...it should stay. If they DON'T want it...then we shouldn't have to call in the CBLDF to MAKE them keep it.

Doesn't that just make sense?