CCBC-Net Archives
But who was talking about 'censorship'?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Hastings, Waller <hastingw>
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:32:34 -0500
Maia wrote:
I'm sorry, but if the shoe fits -
It was not Maia who did so, but I do know that early in this discussion the suggestion was made that books like the Little House series should be put on the equivalent of "a high shelf" -- in other words, moved to where little hands cannot reach them. To put a children's book in a part of the collection where children either cannot access it or can do so with great difficulty -- so who is to be the reader of this book?
This list regularly, and properly, expresses its censure of those from certain religious or political backgrounds who would limit the use of books that we like -- such as the Harry Potter series. But efforts at
"censorship" as recorded by the annual ALA lists include limiting access to books, just as was suggested for the Little House series, and discontinuing the use of or availability of books in a classroom, as has also been suggested for Little House. And several people have suggested they will now go back into their collections and screen books through their newly enhanced awareness. But screening books as a result of public pressures and political concerns does seem to me to fall under most definitions of censorship as well - especially if that screening leads to removal of the books from the collection.
And yes, I am aware that some children may be hurt by reading these books. Funny, though, that is EXACTLY the same claim that those who seek to restrict books that we like use.
As someone commented, we should make a distinction between "good" and "bad" censorship, but please -- let's call a spade a spade. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and reads like a duck, chances are pretty good -- it's a duck. Waller Hastings Northern State University, Aberdeen, SD 57401 hastingw at nsuexchange.northern.edu http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/index.html
Received on Wed 20 Oct 1999 08:32:34 AM CDT
Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 08:32:34 -0500
Maia wrote:
I'm sorry, but if the shoe fits -
It was not Maia who did so, but I do know that early in this discussion the suggestion was made that books like the Little House series should be put on the equivalent of "a high shelf" -- in other words, moved to where little hands cannot reach them. To put a children's book in a part of the collection where children either cannot access it or can do so with great difficulty -- so who is to be the reader of this book?
This list regularly, and properly, expresses its censure of those from certain religious or political backgrounds who would limit the use of books that we like -- such as the Harry Potter series. But efforts at
"censorship" as recorded by the annual ALA lists include limiting access to books, just as was suggested for the Little House series, and discontinuing the use of or availability of books in a classroom, as has also been suggested for Little House. And several people have suggested they will now go back into their collections and screen books through their newly enhanced awareness. But screening books as a result of public pressures and political concerns does seem to me to fall under most definitions of censorship as well - especially if that screening leads to removal of the books from the collection.
And yes, I am aware that some children may be hurt by reading these books. Funny, though, that is EXACTLY the same claim that those who seek to restrict books that we like use.
As someone commented, we should make a distinction between "good" and "bad" censorship, but please -- let's call a spade a spade. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and reads like a duck, chances are pretty good -- it's a duck. Waller Hastings Northern State University, Aberdeen, SD 57401 hastingw at nsuexchange.northern.edu http://lupus.northern.edu:90/hastingw/index.html
Received on Wed 20 Oct 1999 08:32:34 AM CDT
