Brent Bozell's latest culture column explored how liberal nitpickers landed in Alaska and quickly jumped to conclusions that any right-wing, Jesus-loving politician must be a book-burner. But Brent wonders if many librarians and "civil libertarians" aren't a lot like the liberal media elite, wanting to insure a serious bias in "acceptable information" without any troublesome conservative activism:
As part of the microscopic scrutiny applied to Sarah Palin’s record, the public has been told that as the incoming Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska in 1996, Palin dared to ask the town librarian what would happen if anyone objected to an inappropriate book. She merely inquired, but "anti-censorship" activists, perpetually filled with visions of a trash can full of burning books, exploded.
At the time, the Anchorage Daily News captured the librarian, one Mary Ellen Emmons, putting up her First Amendment dukes. “I told her clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves,” she said. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union would get involved, too.”
Not one book was jostled. June Pinell-Stephens, a long-time chairwoman of the Alaska Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, had no evidence of banning or any record of any phone conversations with Emmons about the issue back then. Emmons was president of the Alaska Library Association at the time.
As is so often the case, the horrified reactions were almost the only voices heard in the recounting of this old tale. The Governor laughed it off, as well she could, as it became clear that faked lists of Wasilla’s banned books were just baseless Internet babble. But it’s worth underlining the Emmons call to arms: "I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves."
In public libraries across America – public institutions funded wholly or in large part by taxpayer money – the librarians have appointed themselves the Czars of Acceptable Information. Any citizen daring to question their unfathomably deep taste and literary judgment are mysteriously designated as the bullies and the authoritarians. Does this sound like democracy in action, the free exchange of ideas? It sounds more like the librarian glaring at the taxpayers and gesturing at them to pipe down, rowdy children, pipe down.
In reality, they are the authoritarians; the bullies are often the lawyers from the ACLU.
Take the case of Nampa, Idaho, where the Nampa Public Library Board made the decision by a vote of 3 to 2 in June to respond to a parent’s complaint and move the graphically illustrated books "The Joy of Sex" and "The Joy of Gay Sex" to the library director’s office, where only those who specifically requested the tomes could see them. The parent activist, Randy Jackson, was stunned to hear in 2005 that these books were lying around on the library tables for any child to page through. "The Joy of Gay Sex" has a chapter in it entitled “Daddy/Son Fantasies.” Other chapter titles include "Exhibitionism and Voyeurism," "Fisting," and "Sex with Animals."
Immediately, one wonders: Who were the two who felt it appropriate to display this garbage in a public library, in front of children?
No matter. That split decision was quickly overturned. The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho sent a threatening letter to the library on August 25 demanding that the books be put back on display since any restriction on graphic sex books "violates the constitutional rights of library visitors." The library board unanimously caved to the demand, since the city attorney warned that it could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight the deep-pocketed "anti-censorship" bullies.
Read the whole thing.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Librarians engage in
September 22, 2008 - 06:52 ET by motherbeltLibrarians or library committees engage in "censorship" every single day.
Every time they decide which books to purchase for the library and which not, they engage in "censorship."
(There are no doubt thousands of books that a library doesn't stock. If the library had decided not to stock The Joy of Gay Sex, would that be censorship?)
The problem only comes when someone else disagrees with the librarian's or committee's choice.
How DARE those uneducated rubes presume to pass judgment on the librarian with the Master's degree in Library Science!! If they would just shut up and let the librarians make the decisions, everything would be fine!!
BINGO!!!
September 22, 2008 - 07:09 ET by cocodrieJust try donating "The American Riflrman" magazine or real Christian books or magazines. Your request will be politely refused. Try and find them in any library.
A local public library
September 22, 2008 - 17:30 ET by stratmanA local public library lists American Rifleman on its shelves via a search on their webpage. This library is in a very Democrat-populated city.
Next time I go there, I take out DVD's to watch - free!, I'll check to see if the magazine is on the shelf.
I do feel a little inhibited requesting Jonah Goldberg's 'Liberal Facism' through the library.
It has Traction
September 22, 2008 - 07:11 ET by allanfFrom my little sampling, these kinds of stories have traction -- but only with people who are searching for a reasons to dislike the very charismatic Governor Palin.
I have heard the story all over Boca Raton. All of those I've encountered who seize on this tale would not vote for McCain Palin no matter under any circumstances. They are searching to justify a bad decision in their own minds.
many here think it is truth
September 22, 2008 - 16:43 ET by UndercoverConservativethe big lie has been repeated so much around here, that many believe it. I overheard an older lady whispering to her friend, who'd commented on a photo of Palin on a magazine cover, her friend 'informs her "you can't vote for her, she bans books in Alaska!"
Is that slander or electioneering that the Media is guilty of? they know, even if a Big Lie is retracted later, it still has a life of it's own. Leftist liars won two votes tat moment, and since the Lie was what they heard "first", nothing I could say could prove otherwise.
"to call an illegal immigrant an "undocumented alien" is the same as calling a streetcorner drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist".
"You spend your money anyway you want and respect other's rights to do the same"
Every time they decide
September 22, 2008 - 07:11 ET by rimskyEvery time they decide which books to purchase for the library and which not, they engage in "censorship."
So true MB, so true.
I Wonder if they have a Bible on the shelf somewhere? Or, I wonder if there are any books dealing with the Christian view of sexuality, which might include, for example, discussions of the mainstreaming of homosexuality in our culture. If they are going to be so blatant as to have something like The Joy of Gay Sex laying around on tables the least they could do is have available something representing the other side of that discussion.
library books
September 22, 2008 - 07:24 ET by charlietexasMy sister was a librarian in the Woodlands, Tx for years. When the Madonna book came out there was a national move to ban it from libraries because it was a pornagraphic pictorial book. My sister, God bless her, was vehemontly against removing the book...same attitude. The book stayed in and she didn't hear anything from anybody. She retired last year. No telling how many other books are in there. No telling how many children got to read it.
“I told her clearly, I
September 22, 2008 - 07:39 ET by lotr“I told her clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves”
That's some tough talking coming from the mouth of this library heroine. So, am I to surmise that she has also "fought" against leftist censors as well, and, for example, the American classic The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain has been defended from banning from the shelves?
Porn, on the other hand, has no place in a library.
When I was a kid, I used to
September 22, 2008 - 08:01 ET by HockeyKidWhen I was a kid, I used to walk the few blocks from school to the local library, where I'd spend the afternoon amusing myself until it was time to ride home with Dad, who worked next door to the library. My folks never had to worry about what I might run into in the library.
Sadly, my daughter will never know that freedom to explore literature on her own until she's an adult. The public porn peddlars have taken over. Here's a question for the libs: Would you let your children visit a person who keeps porn out on the coffee table? Many of them would probably answer with some tripe about "healthy dialog about sexuality". Sick.
Yep, there's nothing wrong with homosexuality--except it makes a normal person's skin crawl. That should be a clue...
also
September 22, 2008 - 08:20 ET by MazziGood post.
When my daughter was little, one of her classmates was not alowed to come to our home, after her mother asked if we had guns. I responded "yes, they are locked away, and in a separate area from the ammo" and this libtard mom still wouldn't let her kid come over. She never asked if we had porn or drugs. My swimming pool is way more likely to kill a kid than my guns, but try telling that to a lib, lol.
Also, in our town, our librarians refused, even after a referendum, to block internet acess to porn sites. They wouldn't even block the porn in the children's room, citing first amendment rights. Since then, we have had several incidents of vagrants trying to attack young girls - none sucessfully yet - in our libraries. Coincidence?
I am surrounded by idiots!
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." ~ Barrack Hussein Obama ~
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." ~ Sen. Joe Biden
just wondering...
September 22, 2008 - 08:10 ET by MazziWhat's the difference between a librarian and a pitbull?
The ACLU
"I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." ~ Barrack Hussein Obama ~
"You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.... I'm not joking." ~ Sen. Joe Biden
The Buyers
September 22, 2008 - 08:30 ET by jaywlOne quick thought. The librarians are the ones that buy this trash. I always thought of the typical librarian as being maybe bookish, a prude perhaps. You know, a little old lady type. But now I see another person sitting around reviewing the new book list. "Oh, here's a good one. Emily, 'The Joy of Gay Sex'. Look at the illustrations. We must get this one for our friends." Is this how they choose pornography for the Public Library? Then, of course, once it is bought it must be displayed.
»→ Emily
September 22, 2008 - 08:34 ET by Cool Arrow"How deliciously avant garde, Emily"
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Joe Biden 6/12/87
Apologies for asking the
September 22, 2008 - 08:40 ET by mrbucketApologies for asking the obvious question here - but what the heck were the kids doing in the same section as "The Joy Of Sex?" Not to mention, why did Bozell pinpoint "The Joy Of Gay Sex?" Straight people can do some freaky stuff too. There's a reason that pretty much every library has a designated childrens section.
I worked with libraries for nearly a decade, and in about 99% of cases they were run by lefties. That said - there really wasn't a problem getting any book or magazine - even ones written by our vast right wing conspirators - due to the very common Inter-Library-Loan system which makes any book in any library available to any patron in the system.
Books like that are rarely "left out on tables" unless some smart allack takes it off the shelf and puts it there - and in most cases, a library page will take the book and put it back on the shelf. This just sounds like a garbage excuse to raise issue where there is none, to support an underlying garbage agenda. Just like the Palin / Book Burning crap.
If we knee jerk with every 'what if' when it comes to kids, we're no better than the Libs, folks.
It certainly appears that
September 22, 2008 - 10:10 ET by j. frank wilsonGov. Palin asked about quite a bit more than the established library policy that permits patrons to object to a specific title.
The best source for this story is the Frontiersman Newspaper. Here's what they published on this story (12/18/1996):
Emmons drew a clear distinction Saturday between the nature of Palin's inquiries and an established book-challenge policy in place in Wasilla, and in most public libraries.
“I'm not trying to suppress anyone's views,” Emmons said. “But I told her (Palin) clearly, I will fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves.”
Palin said Monday she had no particular books or other material in mind when she posed the questions to Emmons.
Emmons said in the first conversation, before being sworn in as mayor, Palin briefly touched on the subject of censorship.
But on Monday, Oct. 28, Emmons said Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. This was during a week when Palin was requesting resignations from all the city's department heads as a way of expressing loyalty.
“This is different than a normal book-selection procedure or a book-challenge policy,” Emmons stressed Saturday. “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can't be in the library.”
Gov. Palin's advocates are now spinning this as an innocent attempt by the mayor to inquire about objecting to specific titles. But the library already had a policy in place for that (the form may be found on the city's website). The fact is that Gov. Palin directly inquired about censorship - and, rightly, the librarian objected to that.
This action cost that librarian her job - for a day, until the public outcry forced her to recind the firing.
j. frank wilson
September 22, 2008 - 12:15 ET by lotrI'll grant that if Palin, as the story goes, marched into the library with a covert agenda to impose her own one-woman censorship on books there, then fired the librarian for the sole reason that "she would fight anyone who tries to dictate what books can go on the library shelves," then that would be problematic. But let us keep in mind that such a "story" involves filling in many holes based upon the testimony of the librarian. We do not, as it stands, know for sure that "this is how it happened." For one thing, we do not know the librarian's political disposition (although, doing my own "hole-filling," my hunch is she was/is leftist-Democrat). For another thing, we do not have (here anyway) Palin's side of the story.
Much of the story as concocted above is based upon a preconceived sterotype of the "close-minded fundamentalist Christian anti-evolution censor" that is being applied to Palin. The media, true to form, even takes it up a notch in sensationalism with their "book-burning" moniker.
I'll first comment that "close-mindedness" is not something unique to right-leaning individuals -- arguably, there are many on the left who are invincibly close-minded, and such individuals subsribe to their own brand of censorship (e.g., the missing conservative news magazines as described by the NB post below; the banning of military recruiters and mainstream conservative speakers from campuses; the banning of true literary classics (not porn, mind you) such as Huckleberry Finn from school libraries, etc.). I am digressing here to point out that the stereotyping by the media of Sarah Palin, as evidenced in this one of many so-called "controversies," in and of itself is ill-founded and media driven.
lotr:
September 22, 2008 - 12:41 ET by j. frank wilsonCensorship - left or right - is wrong. Every library makes selections - although some commentors here try to conflate that with censorship, obviously it isn't.
Here's the link to the story I quoted - read it for yourself:
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/22/palin_news/doc48c1c8a60d6d9379155484.txt
My point is, many years after the fact Gov. Palin's water-carriers are trying to spin what actually happened into something else. At the same time, those who don't like her are putting out a load of garbage about the incident(s), as well. Both approaches are wrong.
Let's look at the facts and then we can make up our minds as we see fit.
I hope we can agree that this blog's comments about "The Joy of Gay Sex" really don't have anything to do with...well, anything...
Thanks for the link to the
September 22, 2008 - 13:05 ET by lotrThanks for the link to the news story. I checked it out and the most I can surmise from it is that Palin may have been testing the waters about the library's censorship policy, provoking a very strong knee-jerk reaction from the librarian. In the end, Palin did not make an overt request for specific censorship, and nothing ever came of it. Perhaps Palin did/does have books in mind that she would like to see "disappear." But, I would venture to say that such "daydreams" are probably held by most of us, both on the right and the left. Thus, the publicity and liberal-POV spin this story has received (e.g., "book-burning") really stands out as another desperate attempt to discredit the woman.
lotr:
September 22, 2008 - 14:18 ET by j. frank wilsonI don't think libraries should have a censorship policy - other than not doing it, of course. Given the context of Mrs. Palin's inquiries (timing, etc.) is was a very odd inquiry. The fact that she then tried to fire the librarian tells me a great deal about what was behind her questions.
The "book burning" thing is to me a straw woman (if you will). Meanwhile, the spin is that Mrs. Palin never inquired about banning a particular book. True. She did ask about censorship - a far worse inquiry, to my mind.
Personally, I'm not worried about very many books that are out there - right or left. As Gentleman Jimmy Walker observed, the physical damage done to any person by a book is rather slight, to say the least.
Please go back and re-read this blog. It downplays the question Mayor Palin asked. And I don't think that's reporting the facts.
"The fact that she then
September 22, 2008 - 14:48 ET by stratmanInnuendo once again.
Show the proof of her asking for books banned.
More importantly, detail all the books banned once Palin was mayor. How about when Governor?
Answer = ZERO!
This story preyed on your bias and you have built it up further. To continue this vein of attack furthers the Left's cause. This is an old Saul Alinsky ploy - to sow the seeds of discontent, to rub raw the sores of the unwashed masses until revolt.
Thanks for playing the game Frank. Sorry, we have no parting gifts for you.
j. frank wilson
September 22, 2008 - 14:59 ET by lotrI agree that books, written in good faith, left or right, ought not to be banned. However, I simply disagree with the a priori proposition that there can be no censorship whatsoever. A book containing edifying knowlege does not cause "physical damage," but, as for a collection of porno-graphic images bound by two covers: (1) does not qualify as a "book," and (2) may indeed cause pyschological and/or emotional damage. And before you object that I'm getting off on a "Joy of Gay Sex" tangent, my point is to cite an example where censorship in a public library may in fact be a warranted and necessary thing. I don't subscribe to the "all or nothing" mentality on this.
I checked out the news piece and did not find any mention of the librarian being fired. You would have to point me again to the next reference for that. In the meantime, again, I don't have Palin's side of the story.
"Book burning" is what I have heard floating around the airwaves and blogosphere. It is a straw-woman, but only in the sense of it being a sensationalistic lie.
I am still not convinced anything "irregular" has occured in this incident from over 10 years ago.
Let's Look At The Facts
September 22, 2008 - 14:41 ET by stratmanWhen does "selection" become "censorship"? Is it intent? Is it perspective?
Selection is a form of benign censorship. Selection is determining what is available to others. It can be useful and necessary - no business could survive if they did not utilize selection. Selection is also driven by bias. To say "obviously it isn't" is a denial of the reality of bias even within librarians and their selections of the catalog. Your statement is also a marker of your own bias.
Your own prejudicial thinking has allowed you to absolve/deny bias on the part of librarians and believe it soley on the part of Palin.
You can not be impartial and openminded unless you do not take either participant's words at face value. Instead, you have chosen sides, despite no proof. And you can not reach a more impartial conclusion if you have already absolved one party in an argument of this nature.
Your "proof" is innuendo and unsupported accusations. For instance, the librarian states
Frank, refresh me where the librarian, or anyone else, quotes Palin as saying this. No one has ever quoted Palin as saying she wanted/asked for any book (kept) out of the library. This is the bias of the librarian and is not supported outside of her conjecture. There is innuendo in the mind of the prejudicial librarian, but nothing more. No proof. No money quote. Nothing.
The spin here is by the librarian concerning the conversations that appears to be privy to her and Palin. Where are the corroborating statements from witnesses? Where is the document trail?
You are pushing innuendo and unsupported accusations while advancing personal bias concerning the librarian.
BTW, I don't recall seeing Playboy on the magazine shelf when I was growing up. I know its inavailable was not because of a paucity of "readers" that would want it. Why, then, was it not available?
Please don't answer because of financial reasons, since there are obscure tomes on the shelves that will never have their spines cracked in a lifetime as much as one monthly issue of Playboy. Same argument goes for serving the needs/wants of the community.
So, was the exclusion of Playboy now and then a matter of "selection" or "censorship"?
One last thing, I can checkout Saul Alinsky's Rules for radicals : a practical primer for realistic radicals at my local library. How is anarchy and governmental overthrow a more wholesome and financially sound choice to engage readers and promote the library as useful to Americans as opposed to Playboy?
I ask again, is this "selection" or "censorship", and what sort of agenda might this mean of librarians... or am I, like the librarian in the article, now adding innuendo into the equation?
Frank: I believe there
September 22, 2008 - 15:36 ET by stratmanFrank:
I believe there are important substantiating facts that none of us have addressed yet. There were recent as well as ongoing issues about censorship/selection in the libraries in Alaska. These events can not be disavowed as reasonable points from which a conversation on censorship may occur.
The reality is that the librarian makes unsupported and prejudicial statements. Her comments are made throught the rose colored lenses of someone who thinks themselves beleaguered and beseiged. The librarian has had the wagons circled for a long time and everyone looks like an Indian to her.
Palin had reason to enquire about censorship. There was a big enough incident to have triggered a rewriting of the borough's policy and the city of Wasilla was going through similar changes. The librarian was a party to past and present events and it is unknown her behaviour surrounding/involving these events.
It is entirely possible that the librarian's behaviour, something Palin would have witnessed and heard about while councilwoman, gave Palin reason to question the librarian's abilty to carry out the job appropriate, hence the alledged Palin "remind" comment about there was a policy in place in Wasilla.
Innuendo - yes. But every bit as possible and factual as stated by the librarian or you.
Better than Book Burning
September 22, 2008 - 10:31 ET by needleIn my town, the Public Library of Weston Massachusetts does not burn books or periodicals, because for one thing there are no conservative periodical to burn.
It offers:
The Atlantic Monthly
The Week
Time
The Economist
The New Yorker
US News & World Report
Newsweek
The Nation
The Advocate
The New Republic
It does not offer:
Commentary
The Weekly Standard
The National Review
I am left to assume that The Reader’s Digest is its token conservative offering.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Reader's Digest is also
September 22, 2008 - 11:43 ET by lotrReader's Digest is also liberal.
CNN? Educational?
September 22, 2008 - 11:30 ET by goldenthroatHow about this one? The main branch of the Stark County District Library in Canton, Ohio that I used to take my daughter to always has CNN on the TV in the magazine section with closed caption showing on the screen.
When I inquired why I was told is that the director of the library wanted that station for "educational" value! I then mentioned that there are other cable news networks to watch. When I ask if that edict meant it was either CNN or nothing, she said "yes".
CNN is educational? Excuse me, but I thought this was a public library! Tell you what, gang - the next time this library or any library district ask for a renewal levy to publicly fund this overt attempt at promoting liberalism with my tax dollars, my vote will be "no".
"Mediocrities everywhere! I absolve you! I absolve you!" - Antonio Salieri in "Amadeus"
Goldenthroat: Lived in
September 22, 2008 - 14:56 ET by stratmanGoldenthroat:
Lived in Canton for a few years and loved it. Nice people.
Was thrilled when Ricky Li's thai food restaurant opened in Cleveland, since it was one of my favorites in Canton. Unfortunately, Ricky closed it down. :-(
Is Samantha's Sunny Corner still open? My fav breakfast place.
Hope you and Canton are doing well.
Stratman, the more things change the more they stay the same...
September 22, 2008 - 20:04 ET by goldenthroatYes, Samantha's is still there - still serving up great breakfasts! The Hoover Company shut down it's North Canton operation due to years of mismanagement by several owners - Timken Company is still thriving - A/C Airport is the fastest growing airport in Ohio - Thurman Munson Stadium is still without a baseball team - my alma mater Malone College will become Malone University on October 3 and the dimwitocrats still control the political machine in Canton.
"Mediocrities everywhere! I absolve you! I absolve you!" - Antonio Salieri in "Amadeus"
To me, there is no better
September 22, 2008 - 22:26 ET by stratmanTo me, there is no better restaurant than an excellent breakfast place!
I read about Hoover. For a moment I thought they'd stay open.
Timken will be strong for years, hopefully. The family won't let it swirl the drain without a hard fight.
And that airport is one of the best I'd ever been in from a convienence, operational and customer friendly POV. The prices were prety darned good too! Now I use Hopkins in Cleveland and it's all the ugly one can expect from an airport these days.
You live in a good city!
It could have been Emmons' intransigent...
September 22, 2008 - 10:47 ET by on-the-rocksattitude as much as anything that got her fired.
There is middle ground between having something inappropriate "on the shelves" and banning it. A mayor's inquiry about the process of challenging a title is not necessarily the first step towards banning or burning any books.
It is called "on reserve", wherein interested persons - of appropriate age - can ask to see it or to check it out. If they are embarrassed by its content, is it something that should really be in a public library?
With bookstores and the internet as two alternatives, a local government is not able to completely ban a book, in any meaningful sense of the word.
on-the-rocks:
September 22, 2008 - 10:58 ET by j. frank wilsonGov. Palin didn't inquire about the process of challenging a title. That's the spin we're being asked to accept well after the fact. Gov. Palin asked the librarian about censorship. There's a world of difference between those - in the words of Mark Twain, the difference between a lightening bug and lightening.
Challenging a title IS
September 22, 2008 - 18:39 ET by stratmanQUESTION PLEASE
September 22, 2008 - 13:31 ET by ZuccoZoidWhat do Democrats gain by sabotaging all we "enshrine"? Leninism, Stalinism - or Islam? The bloody lust for power is their common denominator.
If you don't vote Liberal/Socialist [in this case Hussein Obama] you're "unenlightened" or foolish, or just plain dumb. So follow the money and the power.
Who profits by "unenlightened" citizens? Evil "capitalists" like Ted Turner apparently do - and look to the Democrat controlled Congress for more examples: Charlie Rangel, Harry Reid, Pelosi, Kennedy, Rockefeller, Boxer, Byrd, etc, etc. ALL of them MULTI-MILLIONAIRES who see the "common man" as a threat to their gluttonous fortunes.
Are you an "enlightened" Citizen? If so will you be exempt from the tsunami of taxes and "hate crime" laws coming your way?
Are you willing to remove the 10 Commandments and replace them with Shari'a laws?
Leftists/Democrats want to replace God - a Judeo-Christian God - with the G-d of State, Government - same as the Islamists do - convert or die.
That's the "change" you may be voting for...
Censorship?
September 22, 2008 - 13:54 ET by expatriotIt is very interesting that when a reported incident about Sarah Palin is broadcast in the press it is taken as fact, but when rebuttals are made they are the water carrying far right extremists trying to smooth the waters for the rights annointed heroine.
A person who has not been vetted by anyone is claiming that Sarah Palin was asking about banning books and she has immediate credability? Since when.
J Frank Wilson, I agree that we need to look at facts. The fact is that you have already made up your mind and will accept the librarians story before researching any additional information or waiting for any possible rebuttal from Gov Palin.
In my experience the most open minded people are center right to right. The left is constantly censoring as proven by current school curriculums and what is "allowed" to be said these days by individuals who are guaranteed freedom of speech rights. My speech is my own and will not be infringed upon by anyone. Just like your librarian.
expat:
September 22, 2008 - 14:12 ET by j. frank wilsonThe news story I linked to included Mrs. Palin's response. Personally, I think it is not very credible. But then, it's her answer, not mine.
I don't buy your generalizations. There are both open- and closed-minded folks on both ends of the political spectrum. Your reference to what people are "allowed" to say is too vague for a response.
Not enough space or time
September 22, 2008 - 15:26 ET by expatriotFrank,
Excuse the abbreviation please. What I am trying to convey is the fact that the left will always deny free speach rights to anyone who disagrees with them. EG: If you speak out against the mainstreaming of homosexuality you are a homophobe and not able to speak out about it. If you are following your religious convictions you suddenly are intolerant and cannot speak any longer.
If a conservative goes to any college or university they can be shouted down and not allowed to speak and that is lauded by the left. A denial of free speech is lauded. If a conservative makes a contrary statement they have a phobia and need to be, well, censored.
What say you?
I disagree
September 22, 2008 - 15:41 ET by expatriotFrank,
I have to disagree with you on her response as reported in the article from the frontiersman.
There is nothing there that supports any arguement that she is a hard right book buning harridan.
Once again, my experience shows that the left is the group who want to censor. The Bible as a "hate book"? Sorry I don't buy it.
Respectfully.
E
Expat:
September 22, 2008 - 17:00 ET by j. frank wilsonI would completely agree with you - thre is nothing there that supports any arguement that Gov. (Mayor) Palin is (or was) a hard right book burning harridan."
What I object to is the characterization of ther inquiry into censorship as something different.
There have been numerous attempts to ban books in this country. Anthony Comstock wanted birth control information to be considered unsuitable for sending in the US Mail. Efforts to ban Harry Potter or The Catcher in the Rye or Are You There God, It's Me, Margaret or Heather Has Two Mommies - the sad list goes on and on.
To what purpose is it to argue that either the left or the right has tried harder? Why not just say both are equally wrong?
And why not tell the truth? How many times have we heard conservatives complain the US Supreme Court banned prayer in public schools. Simply not true. Can't we stick to the facts?
The same Obama supporters
September 22, 2008 - 18:02 ET by CooltomThe Obama supporters that are claiming Palin engaged in ''book burning'' are pretty much the same ones who tried to shut down discussion on Milt Rosenberg's WGN radio shows with David Freddoso and Stanley Kurtz.
Sorry Frank
September 22, 2008 - 19:23 ET by cocodrieOn June 17 1963 the SCOTUS took the case of Madalyn Murray O'Hair v. Curlett #119 and abolished school prayer and Bible reading in schools.
cocodrie:
September 23, 2008 - 11:58 ET by j. frank wilsonNope. The Supreme Court eliminated compulsory school prayer. It did not state that children could not pray. I wish I'd said it first - as long as there are tests in schools there will be prayers.
What a public school can not do is force children to pray. And that makes perfect sense to me.
What law forbids students from reading the Bible in public schools? Under our Constitution the law may no more force students to read the Bible than it can prevent them from doing so. The seperation of church and state is, after all, a two-way street - and for the protection of both the church and the state.
Recall, for example, the ACLU went to court to protect the right of a high school student to quote a Bible verse under her yearbook photo.
As long as they're not
September 23, 2008 - 12:15 ET by JasonCAs long as they're not reading the Bible during math class or something. I can just imagine a big-to-do about a supposedly anti-Christian teacher who told a student she couldn't read the Bible, only to find out later that the teacher said this when the student should have been learning long division or the quadratic formula or something. In other words, of course kids can read the Bible at school, but they can no more read it there whenever they please than other kids can with comic books.
This sort of specificity aligns rather closely with my view of supposedly liberal college professors being resistant to Christian and/or conservative views in class. Sometimes a student can be just plain wrong. So, for instance, if a religious student could not separate himself from scripture for the time it takes to discuss or write a paper on, say, Paradise Lost or Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil, and brings Biblical ideas to bear on those texts in ways that are simply irrelevant to the course material, then, indeed, that student should be given a poor grade or told that he or she is simply advancing an incorrect argument.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
JasonC: Be careful!
September 23, 2008 - 15:19 ET by j. frank wilsonYou're starting to make sense here...
Having lived through school myself, I know that very good teachers may take a position to stimulate discussion (and that may well not be a postion they personally believe). However, since the poor right-wingers are daily picked on in the colleges and universities across this great land, they can always call up lap dog Sheer Insannity and whine about their terrible mis-treatment. Remember that lad who complained about his English grade and his paper was just plain terrible?
Indeed, J. Frank. And
September 24, 2008 - 10:06 ET by JasonCIndeed, J. Frank. And I'm certainly not claiming that an unfair bias on the part of a professor has never been a legitimate point of complaint for a student. But I do believe that the conservative narrative - that such bias/discrimination is commonplace and routine in our universities - is a bunch of malarkey fueled by vague, inspecific, one-sided testimonials by a handful of students. I have never encountered a professor who would grade up or down based on ideology alone; only on proper vs. improper application of that ideology.
And finally, all of this aside, universities are not and should not be FoxNews. Professors have no ethical, professional, or practical obligation to be "fair and balanced" in the material they present or perspective they present; only in the criteria with which they grade.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Ahem
September 24, 2008 - 11:23 ET by lotrProfessors have no ethical, professional, or practical obligation to be "fair and balanced" in the material they present or perspective they present;
Clarification: Professors do, in fact, have the obligation to present material in the most objective manner possible, sans proselytizing or political editorializing. Contrary to the above statements, I submit that strict objectivism (detachedness) is becoming increasingly more rare on campuses these days, especially in liberal arts classes. FNC only reports on those who are bold enough (full disclosure: I was not) to come forth. They are but the tip of the iceburg. Most students (like myself) keep their mouth shut, bide their time, and get their "paper."
See, I just fundamentally
September 24, 2008 - 18:38 ET by JasonClotr, I just fundamentally disagree with you here. Imagine how tremendously dull and sterile a literature or philosophy lecture/discussion would be if the professor was doggedly presenting all sides of the ideological spectrum simply to appease those who might disagree. Imagine how odd it would be if a professor of Victorian lit gave a 15-minute speech about oppressive patriarchal structures in Jane Eyre, only to then give a speech of equal length - merely to placate those who think the very notion of oppressive patriarchies is a bunch of feminist/socialist nonsense - about how, gee, maybe oppressive patriarchal structures aren't present in Jane Eyre. If a student feels this way, it is up to him or her to argue to that effect; and simply claiming that "the very notion of oppressive patriarchies is a bunch of feminist/socialist nonsense" is, I'm afraid, nowhere near sufficient. Likewise, it would be inappropriate for a student to wholly dismiss readings of Milton or Nietzsche purely because that student takes theological issue with the material. A professor who grades down such a student demonstrates not anti-Christian bias, but rather an ethical insistence upon certain methods of criticism and interpretation.
However, in cases where a student is able to articulate a reasonable opposition to a professor's stance on a topic, I have never seen the professor simply shoot down the student's idea, or worse, grade the student down. I'm sure it's happened. But I do not accept the premise - widely advanced by such professional paranoiacs as David Horowitz - that such incidences are the norm in academia.
There is a widely-held misconception that there's no right or wrong in these liberal arts fields, that everyone's view is equally valid. But this is not the case. The litmus test of whether your view is right or wrong is always predicated on your ability to legitimately argue it, and to do so within the parameters and logic of the text or issue at hand.
All of that said, I have never actually heard of a student "coming forward" with a legitimate story of biased grading or other treatment at the hands of a professor. Testimonials to that effect have generally been vague; often citing, more than anything else, a simple discomfort at being a conservative in a liberal arts classroom. Perhaps, having been in that position, you can tell me what, specifically, such professors have done to you. Perhaps we're simply on different wavelengths here.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
JasonC
September 25, 2008 - 08:13 ET by lotrI would not say that I disagree with your first paragraph -- yes, most works of literature have subtexts and allegorical meanings, and even possibly more than one moral. The professor ought not try to find meanings that aren't there, merely in the interest in placating an opposite political point of view. That said, a professor also ought not limit reading material to presenting only his/her personal politics. If you're going to read Nietzsche, then you should also be reading C. S. Lewis (or comparable).
Regarding your second paragraph, I don't know about such cases of overt repression of conservative viewpoints in classes, but I do believe that there is passive aggressive anti-conservative behavior commonly going on out there.
Next, I certainly also agree that not all points of view are equally valid (I hate to break it to you, but this statement is fundamentally conservative in nature -- the notion of objective truth that does not depend upon the subject's feelings about it). However, surely you must realize that a 20-something student ought not to be expected to win a debate against a doctor of philosophy. This amounts to intellectual bullying.
Finally, again, I was not speaking about overt oppression/discrimination in the forms penalized grades and the like. I'm talking about passive aggressiveness -- a subtle discrimination that is real, but difficult to point the finger at. I have been in this position and can say that it depends on the college/university, as well as the academic area of study. The college I went to was located in a somewhat conservative area of the country, and I was a science/math major, so I was minimally subjected to this. However, I went to graduate school at a notoriously liberal university, and I witnessed first hand examples of liberal indoctrination going on in classes and on campus in general, and I also noticed a certain "discrimination" once people realized that I did not share the neo-liberal worldview.
This is, even by Bozell's
September 22, 2008 - 18:06 ET by JasonCThis is, even by Bozell's usual uber-traditionalist standards, quite a stretch. While I have no excuse or even rationale for why the offending book in Idaho couldn't just be put in a more discrete location without a fuss - though I do take issue with the basic equating of gay sex with bestiality - it is quite a mean feat to turn that story into a polemic which a) comes extremely close to outright supporting censorship in libraries so long as enough taxpayers bitch about whatever work is in question and b) claims that librarians are the real censors because of all the books they don't buy; an extremely slippery bit of rhetoric if there ever was one.
Point (a) seems to emerge from the same ideological perspective that supports the FCC's ability to define and legislate obscenity and believes that trashy reality TV shows become several times more trashy when hosted by transsexuals - both of which stances I find to be hysterical and disagree with vehemently - and is rather easily argued against by the simple fact that those people who do not want to read certain books (and frankly, the type of person who tries to eradicate certain books is usually not the type to read much him or herself) need only not to read them. I am stunned that Bozell is suggesting it is legitimate for people to try to remove a certain book from circulation, from other people who might like to read it, based on their status as a taxpayer. Get a life already. I have as much right to read Ulysses or Tropic of Cancer as Joe Knuckledragger has to not read it. But why should J.K. have any influence over my reading list? Why should my literary tastes be subject to his morality? That, Mr. Bozell, is where censorship begins. Now, for instance, I happen to think Ann Coulter is a raving, borderline-threat-to-herself-and-others loon, and a terrible writer to boot, but I'd never, ever advocate removing her books from my public library or supporting any effort to do so. And yes, cocodrie, my library in Boston has her books, as well as a big religion section, and back issues of various sportsman periodicals.
Point (b), the whole "librarians are the real censors" stuff is a nifty bit of obfuscation, but the reality is pretty sobering. If 100,000-odd new books come out every year, there is simply no place to put them all. Not to mention, libraries don't tend to have great budgets. So tough decisions concerning acquisitions and holdings must be made. However, any decent library system can get for you - at no extra charge - a copy of just about any book you want. Old, new, out of print, controversial, whatever. It's called an interlibrary loan system. I have never - not ever - heard of a librarian refusing to get a copy of something on ideological grounds. If anyone has, and if it's not just hearsay or vague generalizations about those fascistic librarians, I'd love to hear about it.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Jason...Not to go onto
September 22, 2008 - 18:15 ET by bigtimerJason...
Not to go into your other points...I am going to stay with your last point...I have always been able, in any library to request a book I want, if they are able to they have always got them for me...and this is all over the NW and Alaska...the only exception have been to two books that I can think of off hand, and I'll be danged if they both weren't about women...Victoria Woodhull (sp) and what's her name...(LOL, I can't think of it at the moment, but I will later.)
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
That's what I'm saying.
September 22, 2008 - 18:18 ET by JasonCThat's what I'm saying. If you can do it all over the northwest, and Alaska, I'd guess you can do it anywhere. Thanks for the support (in that point, at least).
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....
Whose rights?
September 22, 2008 - 18:42 ET by nkviking75Here's an opinion I never see explored: Whatever your right to see or read or listen to anything you like, the taxpayers have no obligation to provide it for you. If a city or a school opens a library, they have the right to determine their standards for what they will or won't stock. If you don't like their standards, run for the library board or the city council or the school board and try to change them. A bunch of unelected lawyers from the ACLU shouldn't be able to shove their opinions down our throats.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
yes...i agree the taxpayer
September 25, 2008 - 16:45 ET by patmac49yes...i agree the taxpayer should not have to pay for books they find objectionable...i have always held fast..the problem is,so many people would have so many different views,the library would be missing a lot of books and the become irrelavant..i loved the library growing up..now..i buy whatever i want to read to avoid that problem...and i have satellite radio and tv so i can view what i want without offending anyone..i know not everyone can do that but is has worked for me
But how would this be
September 25, 2008 - 18:55 ET by JasonCBut how would this be regulated? How many taxpayers in one community have to formally object to a particular book in order to ban it? > 50%? Would it go on a ballot any time some yahoo malcontent decides he or she has a problem with a particular book? I mean, surely, a noisy minority would not be sufficient to banning any one book, right?
Why not just leave these things to librarians? I'm sorry, but anyone arrogant enough to think that, just because a negligible portion of their income tax goes to funding a public library, they have a right/obligation to police it for objectionable literature needs to get a life.
Communities that do organize well enough to get books banned from public consumption accomplish little but make themselves look foolish, reactionary, knee-jerk, and unintellectual.
Oh Sarah P... http://www.theonion....