Free speech and community challenges
From PLN
Free speech and community challenges
|
LaRue's Views
- by Jamie LaRue
- Editor's note: this article combines slightly modified versions of two pieces by Jamie LaRue--"An independence day editorial" from July 3, 2008 and "Uncle Bobby's Wedding," a July 14, 2008 post at LaRue's myliblog. I provided the title because I believe these two pieces offer a worthwhile commentary on free speech (and intellectual freedom)--and an fine example of how to not merely note a challenge but respond to it.
- Followup: LaRue's letter wasn't the end of it. The library received another challenge to the book, a challenge LaRue believes was based on his response. That followup also appears here.
An independence day editorial
On June 26, a patron (let's call her Ms. Patron) wrote a Letter to the Editor about a children's book called Uncle Bobby's Wedding. I haven't read it yet, but it's apparently about the marriage of gay guinea pigs.
Ms. Patron wrote, "I am offended. Shouldn't I have the right to voice my opinion?" I just wanted to say, here around Independence Day, that she most certainly does, and more power to her.
One of the driving forces behind the founding of our nation was a deep revolt against the tyrannies of England. There, people were forced to make public oaths that contradicted their deepest beliefs--or be unable to hold public office. They lost civil liberties--and sometimes, their lives--for daring to speak any opinion at all that contradicted the religious majority.
Authors were forbidden from writing anything unless the King's office first granted permission, a practice called the "imprimateur."
Hence this statement, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Many patriots died to secure that freedom.
It was James Madison who said, during the introduction of the Bill of Rights, that the greatest danger to liberty is to be found "in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."
So congratulations to Ms. Patron for not only having the right to exercise her free speech, but taking advantage of it. (And kudos as well for investing her time with her daughter not only to read books together, but to talk about them.)
But Ms. Patron went a little farther. Her full question was, "Shouldn't I have the right to voice my opinion and to take my young daughter to the public library without concern that she will choose a book that promotes gay marriage--a view that is a slap in my face?"
And here, I'm afraid, the answer is, "No." She does not have the right to insist that no one will express an opinion contrary to hers, or that people won't write books that she disagrees with, or that such books will somehow be hidden or made more difficult to find.
Why? Because while she has the right to free expression, so does everybody else. The First Amendment applies to everyone, and maybe especially the minority. Or as Madison might have pointed out, if we only have the freedom to agree with the majority, we don't have any freedom at all.
At this writing, the Douglas County Libraries have some 98,000 "Easy/Picture Books" (the category of children's literature into which Uncle Bobby's Wedding falls). By far the majority of those books have nothing to do with gay marriage, and the majority of our users seem to approve of them. In fact, in 2007 the Douglas County Libraries checked out more children's materials than any library in the state--more than Denver, more than Colorado Springs, more than Jefferson County and Arapahoe County. And not just by a little, by a lot (our 3 million plus was a good 600,00 higher than our nearest competitor).
That means that here in Douglas County, parents are reading to their children, and children are reading for themselves. And that's a good thing, even if--especially if--they run across things that make them think.
Uncle Bobby's Wedding
Recently, a library patron challenged (urged a reconsideration of the ownership or placement of) a book called Uncle Bobby's Wedding. Honestly, I hadn't even heard of it until that complaint. But I did read the book and responded to the patron, who challenged the item through email and requested that I respond online (not via snail-mail) about her concerns.
I suspect the book will get a lot of challenges in 2008-2009. So I offer my response, purging the patron's name, for other librarians.
Uncle Bobby's wedding June 27, 2008
Dear Ms. Patron:
Thank you for working with my assistant to allow me to fit your concerns about Uncle Bobby's Wedding, by Sarah S. Brannen, into our “reconsideration” process. I have been assured that you have received and viewed our relevant policies: the Library Bill of Rights, the Freedom to Read, Free Access to Libraries for Minors, the Freedom to View and our Reconsideration Policy.
The intent of providing all that isn't just to occupy your time. It's to demonstrate that our lay Board of Trustees–-which has reviewed and adopted these policies on behalf of our library--has spent time thinking about the context in which the library operates, and thoughtfully considered the occasional discomfort (with our culture or constituents) that might result. There's a lot to consider.
Here's what I understand to be your concern, based on your writings. First, you believe that “the book is specifically designed to normalize gay marriage and is targeted toward the 2-7 year old age group.” Your second key concern is that you “find it inappropriate that this type of literature is available to this age group.” You cite your discussion with your daughter, and commented, “This was not the type of conversation I thought I would be having with my seven year old in the nightly bedtime routine.”
Finally, you state your strong belief, first, “in America and the beliefs of our founding fathers,” and second, that “marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman as stated in the Webster's dictionary and also in the Bible.”
You directed me to the SarahBrannen.com site, which I also reviewed. I got a copy of Uncle Bobby's Wedding today, and read it. I even hauled out my favorite Webster's (the college edition, copyright 1960).
First, I think you're right that the purpose of the book is to show a central event, the wedding of two male characters, as no big thing. The emotional center of the story, of course, is Chloe's fear that she's losing a favorite uncle to another relationship. That fear, I think, is real enough to be an issue for a lot of young children. But yes, Sarah Brannen clearly was trying to portray gay marriage as normal, as not nearly so important as the changing relationship between a young person and her favorite uncle.
Your second issue is a little trickier. You say that the book is inappropriate, and I infer that your reason is the topic itself: gay marriage. I think a lot of adults imagine that what defines a children's book is the subject. But that's not the case. Children's books deal with anything and everything. There are children's books about death (even suicide), adult alcoholism, family violence and more. Even the most common fairy tales have their grim side: the father and stepmother of Hansel and Gretel, facing hunger and poverty, take the children into the woods, and abandon them to die! Little Red Riding Hood (in the original version, anyhow) was eaten by the wolf along with granny. There's a fascinating book about this, by the bye, called The Uses of Enchantment: the Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales, by psychologist Bruno Bettelheim. His thesis is that both the purpose and power of children's literature is to help young people begin to make sense of the world. There is a lot out there that is confusing, or faintly threatening, and even dangerous in the world. Stories help children name their fears, understand them, work out strategies for dealing with life. In Hansel and Gretel, children learn that cleverness and mutual support might help you to escape bad situations. In Little Red Riding Hood, they learn not to talk to big bad strangers. Of course, not all children's books deal with “difficult issues,” maybe not even most of them. But it's not unusual.
So what defines a children's book is the treatment, not the topic. Uncle Bobby's Wedding is 27-28 pages long (if you count the dedication page). Generally, there are about 30 words per page, and each page is illustrated. The main character, and the key perspective, is that of a young girl. The book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, “a division of Penguin Young Readers Group.” The Cataloging in Publication information (on the back side of the title page) shows that the catalogers of the Library of Congress identified it as an “E” book--easy or beginning reader. Bottom line: It's hard for me to see it as anything but a children's book.
You suggested that the book could be “placed in an area designating the subject matter,” or “labeled for parental guidance” by stating that “some material may be inappropriate for young children.” I have two responses. First, we tried the “parenting collection” approach a couple of times in my history here. And here's what we found: nobody uses them. They constitute a barrier to discovery and use. The books there--and some very fine ones--just got lost. In the second case, I believe that every book in the children's area, particularly in the area where usually the parent is reading the book aloud, involves parental guidance. The labeling issue is tricky, too: is the topic just homosexuality? Where babies come from? Authority figures that can't be trusted? Stepmothers who abandon their children to die?
Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the story. It seems to me--as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years--that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of the matter: not every parent has the same value system.
You feel that a book about gay marriage is inappropriate for young children. But another book in our collection, Daddy's Roommate, was requested by a mother whose husband left her, and their young son, for another man. She was looking for a way to begin talking about this with son. Another book, Alfie's Home, was purchased at the request of another mother looking for a way to talk about the suspected homosexuality of her young son from a Christian perspective. There are gay parents in Douglas County, right now, who also pay taxes, and also look for materials to support their views. We don't have very many books on this topic, but we do have a handful.
In short, most of the books we have are designed not to interfere with parents' notions of how to raise their children, but to support them. But not every parent is looking for the same thing.
Your third point, about the founders' vision of America, is something that has been a matter of keen interest to me most of my adult life. In fact, I even wrote a book about it, where I went back and read the founders' early writings about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. What a fascinating time to be alive! What astonishing minds! Here's what I learned: our whole system of government was based on the idea that the purpose of the state was to preserve individual liberties, not to dictate them. The founders uniformly despised many practices in England that compromised matters of individual conscience by restricting freedom of speech. Freedom of speech--the right to talk, write, publish, discuss--was so important to the founders that it was the first amendment to the Constitution--and without it, the Constitution never would have been ratified.
How then, can we claim that the founders would support the restriction of access to a book that really is just about an idea, to be accepted or rejected as you choose? What harm has this book done to anyone? Your seven year old told you, “Boys are not supposed to marry.” In other words, you have taught her your values, and those values have taken hold. That's what parents are supposed to do, and clearly, exposure to this book, or several, doesn't just overthrow that parental influence. It does, of course, provide evidence that not everybody agrees with each other; but that's true, isn't it?
The second part of your third point was your belief that marriage was between a man and a woman. My Webster's actually gives several definitions of marriage: “1. the state of being married; relation between husband and wife...; 2. the act of marrying, wedding; 3. the rite or form used in marrying; 4. any close or intimate union.” Definitions 2-4, even as far back as 1960, could be stretched to include a wedding between two men. Word definitions change; legal rights change. In some parts of America, at least today, gay marriage is legal. If it's legal, then how could writing a book about it be inappropriate?
Finally, then, I conclude that Uncle Bobby's Wedding is a children's book, appropriately categorized and shelved in our children's picture book area. I fully appreciate that you, and some of your friends, strongly disagree with its viewpoint. But if the library is doing its job, there are lots of books in our collection that people won't agree with; there are certainly many that I object to. Library collections don't imply endorsement; they imply access to the many different ideas of our culture, which is precisely our purpose in public life.
As noted in our policies, you do have the right to appeal my decision to the Board of Trustees. If you'd like to do that, let me know, and I can schedule a meeting. Meanwhile, I'm more than happy to discuss this further with you. I do appreciate many things: your obvious value of reading, your frank and loving relationship with your child, your willingness to raise issues of importance to you in the public square, and more. Thank you, very much, for taking the time to raise your concerns with me. Although I suspect you may not agree with my decision, I hope it's clear that I've given it a great deal of thought, and believe it is in accordance with both our guiding principles, and those, incidentally, of the founders of our nation.
Best wishes to you and your family,
- The blog post has some 233 comments as of August 9, 2008.
Uncle Bobby's Wedding redux
- Adapted from this August 16, 2008 post at myliblog
Our library received yet another challenge to Uncle Bobby's Wedding, apparently based on my earlier response.
First, this new patron stated her belief that the topic of a gay wedding is inappropriate because same sex marriage is illegal in 48 states, and specifically, in Colorado. Second, she claimed that she knows at least 100 people ready to fill out a petition against the book.
In response to the first point, I pointed out that we don't know where Uncle Bobby's Wedding takes place--it could be in California or Massachusetts. It could be in Canada. It could be in a wholly fictitious universe with its own laws. Nonetheless, I wrote
- This principle would seem to require librarians to be familiar with all Colorado laws, and to read each work we purchase, or consider purchasing, to determine whether any of the characters might violate those laws [no matter where or when they live]. Thousands and thousands of our books feature true or fictional tales of murder, robbery, kidnapping--all of which violate Colorado laws. Under this principle, there could be no books in the library in which characters escape from one country to enter another illegally--not even in [or from, which is what I meant] Nazi Germany--because that would violate Colorado immigration laws. The story of Robin Hood, in which a thief and robber is regarded as a hero, would also be forbidden.
I concluded that the principle, in general, would be impossible for libraries to apply.
In response to the second, I offered to meet with the group of 100 people who share her perspective. I wrote, "To your mind, I suspect, the issue is about advocacy for a perspective you oppose. To mine, it's about the role of the public library as common and neutral ground, as a steward of public funds to represent all of the public. It's a fair topic, and certainly deserving of community discussion."
Alternatively, there are two other options: appeal my decision to the Board, or fill out the petition, give me a contact person and I could respond to that person based on the arguments it presented.
I don't know yet where it goes from here. But it seems clear that this is an organized effort, and that my last response has been shared. I wanted to record the argument used, however, and my response to it.
